Solicitor/negligence claim:

[steampowered]

The solicitors has also said in the defence, that he did not go for a court injunction because Legal aid would not fund this, however the emails in regards of legal aid, show a different account why further legal aid was not granted, and it had nothing to do with court injunctions, it was because of the offer being made for disrepair.

I don't see why the two statements that 'legal aid would not fund an injunction' and 'legal aid would not be granted following an offer being made for disrepair' are mutually exclusive? Both statements could in theory be true.

[callum1999]

I don't see why the two statements that 'legal aid would not fund an injunction' and 'legal aid would not be granted following an offer being made for disrepair' are mutually exclusive? Both statements could in theory be true.

 

But legal aid have confirmed that no application for injunction under his retainer was applied for by solicitor?, maybe the solicitor is alleging this because he knows an injunction was the way forward, at that time, and pleading this in defence, as a means or excuse for not doing the obvious, removing the risk by applying for an injunction.

 

The defence is in all honesty, filled with fabrication, which a solicitor would have got away with years ago.

 

Problem with this now is that unlike say for instance in the 80's to prove fabrication was difficult, however with email and what is contained in an email, can be documented and used thereafter.

 

Strongly considering an application for contempt under CPR 32.14, the defence is a pack of lies, which evidently includes using a public authority ( legal aid ) to part establish the lies, contained in the signed statement ( defence )

[Ganymede]

Is it long? Can you type it out?

[callum1999]

The Defendants are claiming that i have not served a correctly pleaded particulars of claim, which i personally feel has detailed the aspects of my claim.

 

I would be obliged if someone could identify any inconsistencies and any thoughts on the particulars that i will now set out below.

 

Brief detail of claim

 

The Defendants failed in their professional obligation to act, recover or otherwise legally represent the Claimant on the advice giving by the Housing Charity Shelter, and instructions giving by the Claimant in regards to his disrepair case against the Council...

 

VALUE

 

More Than £25,00 (unspecified)

 

Particulars of cLAIM

 

The Defendants were initially contacted by Shelter who were concerned and had established through their legal department that the Claimants landlords ( city council) were breaching housing laws that had previously caused injuries and were continuing to put the Claimant and his family and any visitors at risk to health and safety, as a result of the disrepair to the lean-to which evidently was in dire disrepair.

As the area was left exposed to the elements and in particular, rain water which made the flooring hazardous and posed a serious risk to an electrical fire, as the electric points and goods had to be stored in the lean-to would become wet after any period of rain.

 

The Claimant suffered an injury as a result of trying to remove a tumble drryer, previously slipping on the wet floor,which resulted in 4 cracked ribs tissue and leg ligament damage, because of the Defendants proffesional negligence any legal claim to recover damages from the Council has now been lost, because clear instructions by the Claimant to the Defendant to reserve that right to claim was ignored by the Defendant.

 

The Claimants accident happened in May 2010 and came after the Council were made aware of the disrepair.

Not only was the Claimant and his family being subject to health and safety issues, such was the condition of the lean-to, and the rotten wood and doors, this allowed rats to be able to gain entry into the property via the lean-to and nest within the property predominately in the kitchen, behind units

 

The Defendants are claiming that i have not served a correctly pleaded particulars of claim, which i personally feel has detailed the aspects of my claim.

 

I would be obliged if someone could identify any inconsistencies and any thoughts on the particulars that i will now set out below.

 

Brief detail of claim

 

The Defendants failed in their professional obligation to act, recover or otherwise legally represent the Claimant on the advice giving by the Housing Charity Shelter, and instructions giving by the Claimant in regards to his disrepair case against the Council...

 

VALUE

 

More Than £25,00 (unspecified)

 

Particulars of cLAIM

 

The Defendants were initially contacted by Shelter who were concerned and had established through their legal department that the Claimants landlords ( city council) were breaching housing laws that had previously caused injuries and were continuing to put the Claimant and his family and any visitors at risk to health and safety, as a result of the disrepair to the lean-to which evidently was in dire disrepair.

As the area was left exposed to the elements and in particular, rain water which made the flooring hazardous and posed a serious risk to an electrical fire, as the electric points and goods had to be stored in the lean-to would become wet after any period of rain.

 

The Claimant suffered an injury as a result of trying to remove a tumble drryer, previously slipping on the wet floor,which resulted in 4 cracked ribs tissue and leg ligament damage, because of the Defendants proffesional negligence any legal claim to recover damages from the Council has now been lost, because clear instructions by the Claimant to the Defendant to reserve that right to claim was ignored by the Defendant.

 

The Claimants accident happened in May 2010 and came after the Council were made aware of the disrepair.

Not only was the Claimant and his family being subject to health and safety issues, such was the condition of the lean-to, and the rotten wood and doors, this allowed rats to be able to gain entry into the property via the lean-to and nest within the property predominately in the kitchen, behind units

 

CONTINUATION OF POC

 

The Claimant has a heart condition and suffers from PTSD which in no way has been helped by the action of the Defendants, who failed whilst representing the Claimant to initiate court proceedings for an injunction for the Council to remove the risk, as Shelter were minded to acheive, as it was clear that Housing laws were being breached, and this would include criminal acts being continually breached whilst the Defendant legally represented the Claimant.

 

The Defendant failed to take heed from the Claimant who instructed Court proceedings as to remove a serious risk, failed to seek further advice from a barrister or expert which was documented as being the course and failed in any event to reserve the Claimants right as instructed to pursue a PI claim pursuant to any compromise agreement that had since been established, not fully explained which again would demonstrate the Defendant the Defendant at all material times, whilst representing the Claimant was negligent.

 

 

The High Court have issued the claim and a judge has been assigned, so i am to assume that on reading the particulars they are satisfied tha the particulars hve been detailed correctly.

The solicitor acting for the Defendant is alleging the particulars have not been giving?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[steampowered]

Hello

 

To me, your particulars aren't great but they are clear enough. What are the defendants actually asking you/the court to do? Have they made an application asking for your particulars to be struck out?

 

I just want to make sure you understand that, if you lose this case, you will be ordered to pay the defendant's legal costs (either from another law firm or at their standard rates) which could easily be thousands of pounds. This is not a small claim and accordingly the rule is that the winner pays the loser's legal costs. You need to make sure you understand the risk you are taking here - and should ask a solicitor who practises in professional negligence claims to run the case.

[callum1999]

Hello

 

To me, your particulars aren't great but they are clear enough. What are the defendants actually asking you/the court to do? Have they made an application asking for your particulars to be struck out?

 

I just want to make sure you understand that, if you lose this case, you will be ordered to pay the defendant's legal costs (either from another law firm or at their standard rates) which could easily be thousands of pounds. This is not a small claim and accordingly the rule is that the winner pays the loser's legal costs. You need to make sure you understand the risk you are taking here - and should ask a solicitor who practises in professional negligence claims to run the case.

 

Hello Steampowered,

 

The defence, and in particular under the heading Allegations state It appears that the primary allegations the Claimant is making against the Defendant are that the Defendant- (a) ignored the Claimants instruction to reserve his right to plead a claim against the Council (first allegation (b) failed to initiate Court proceedings against Council for an injunction to remove the risk posed to the Claimant and his family by the lean to ( second allegation ) © failed to seek further advice from a barrister or expert ( third allegation )

 

The Defendants and their solicitors know what the particulars of claim are about imo, add in to that my previous legal advisor also highlighted those facts, it would appear that the Defendants are merely acting in ignorance knowing no defence can be guaranteed to win the case.

 

The Defendants are alleging that the Claimant has failed to adequately particularise his claim and has provided the Defendant with insufficient facts to understand the claim that is being pursued, which i believe is total tosh and a means of avoiding giving a proper defence to the claim.

 

So to counteract this, i have now issued a "Notice to Admit Facts" giving the Defendant 34 reasons to either admit or deny a fact that will further show how week the defence really is, and it will as i assume further back up the particular of claim which the Defendants do not seem to understand, which is denied.

 

The Defendants feel that the Claimants claim, in its current form , is ( in their opinion) is liable to be struck out. and that they are in a strong position based on as they put it deficiencies[/i, which as far as i am concerned in a feeble excuse because they have no defence.

 

As for costs, you cannot get blood out of a stone, i have nothing now, and would have nothing in the unlikely event that the Defendants win this case, which evidently at this point, looks highly unlikely.

[steampowered]

As for costs, you cannot get blood out of a stone, i have nothing now, and would have nothing in the unlikely event that the Defendants win this case, which evidently at this point, looks highly unlikely.

Do you own a property?

[Ganymede]

The Defendants are alleging that the Claimant has failed to adequately particularise his claim and has provided the Defendant with insufficient facts to understand the claim that is being pursued, which i believe is total tosh and a means of avoiding giving a proper defence to the claim.

 

So to counteract this, i have now issued a "Notice to Admit Facts" giving the Defendant 34 reasons to either admit or deny a fact that will further show how week the defence really is, and it will as i assume further back up the particular of claim which the Defendants do not seem to understand, which is denied.

 

The Defendants feel that the Claimants claim, in its current form , is ( in their opinion) is liable to be struck out. and that they are in a strong position based on as they put it deficiencies[/i, which as far as i am concerned in a feeble excuse because they have no defence.

 

As for costs, you cannot get blood out of a stone, i have nothing now, and would have nothing in the unlikely event that the Defendants win this case, which evidently at this point, looks highly unlikely.

 

I think you're going to have to show us your PoC in full and their Defence in full before anyone can help you.

[callum1999]

Do you own a property?

 

Hi Steampowered,

 

No i do not own my own property, i am a council tenant, i have no capital, other than welfare benefits which would include an amount for DLA.

 

The Defendants what me to provide a reply-to their defence, is there a cpr for this request and how is it set out.

[Ganymede]

The Defendants what me to provide a reply-to their defence, is there a cpr for this request and how is it set out.

 

See CPR 15.8 and any associated Practice Direction.

[callum1999]

See CPR 15.8 and any associated Practice Direction.

 

Court have stated case listed for multi-track, so a defence must be sent with subsequent Directions questionnaire?

[steampowered]

Why is the Defendant asking you to serve a reply? That is a slightly strange request for a Defendant to make. Service of a reply would normally be something the Claimant wants to do, not something requested by the Defendant.

 

In most cases a Reply is not necessary, as the nature of your case should be clear from the Particulars of Claim. However if there are additional matters raised in the Defence which were not addressed in the POC, you can deal with that in a Reply.

[Ganymede]

Court have stated case listed for multi-track, so a defence must be sent with subsequent Directions questionnaire?

 

That's correct.

 

Once the Defendant submits their Defence the Court will send out Directions Questionnaires to both Parties to complete and return.

 

You'll likely get a Case Management Hearing listed after that.

[callum1999]

Why is the Defendant asking you to serve a reply? That is a slightly strange request for a Defendant to make. Service of a reply would normally be something the Claimant wants to do, not something requested by the Defendant.

 

In most cases a Reply is not necessary, as the nature of your case should be clear from the Particulars of Claim. However if there are additional matters raised in the Defence which were not addressed in the POC, you can deal with that in a Reply.

 

Since the Particular of Claim has been issued, i have identified other factors that could be relevant to the claim, if the Particulars in the interim, have been identified, surely during proceedings if a party wants to add to the Particulars they are obliged to do this? What the Defendants legal representatives are saying, is that i need to identify everything, and everything should have been contained within the Particulars?

[BazzaS]

Since the Particular of Claim has been issued, i have identified other factors that could be relevant to the claim, if the Particulars in the interim, have been identified, surely during proceedings if a party wants to add to the Particulars they are obliged to do this? What the Defendants legal representatives are saying, is that i need to identify everything, and everything should have been contained within the Particulars?

 

You are supposed (where possible) to identify such particulars before issuing the claim.

 

You can amend a PofC without permission of the court if it hasn't yet been served.

 

Once served it can be amended:

a) if all parties agree, or if they don't agree

b) with permission of the court.

 

This early in the case it is likely the court would grant permission if the other side didn't agree, but might not agree if you kept wanting to amend.

 

So, get all the information you need and then amend your PofC.

Further (and later!) amendments are still possible but the more you amend (and the closer to trial), the less likely it is that amendments will

be in keeping with the overiding objective of fairness to both parties.

 

So, for example, permission to amend close to trial is only likely if the evidence that you wish to rely on really is new : that is it wasn't available before from "reasonable diligence".

 

Each application to amend will require payment of an application fee.

 

Moving to "why have the other side asked for a Reply?" : it is always hard to work out exactly what the other side is thinking, but might they be looking towards an application for summary judgement?

 

If you reply and they (with the reply still) feel that your case has no real prospect of success they might make such an application.

If you don't reply, and they apply for summary judgement and then don't receive it because of information provided at the hearing (that they didn't receive in a Reply!) - they might use this as a reason for you to be liable for the costs of the summary judgement application (even though it didn't succeed!)

[steampowered]

Since the Particular of Claim has been issued, i have identified other factors that could be relevant to the claim, if the Particulars in the interim, have been identified, surely during proceedings if a party wants to add to the Particulars they are obliged to do this? What the Defendants legal representatives are saying, is that i need to identify everything, and everything should have been contained within the Particulars?

What are the new matters you have identified?

 

A POC is intended to be a concise statement of the facts you are relying on and what you are claiming, it isn't necessary to go into great detail.

 

The defendant would need to consent or you'd need to get permission to amend your POC now that it has been served.

 

It would be worth going to get some professional legal advice given that you are in the multi track.

[Ganymede]

I think you're going to have to show us your PoC in full and their Defence in full before anyone can help you.

Can you do this please?

[callum1999]

The DEFENCE Ganymede reads:

 

1. The background to the claim is that the Claimant was involved in a dispute with the Council in relation to the Property, The Prpoerty is owned by the Council and the Claimant is a tenant in the property.

2. The dispute between the Claimant and Council related to the "lean to" in the property which had been constructed by a previous tenant ( not correct ),. The lean to was alleged by the Claimant to be in a poor state of repair and allegedly posed a risk to the Claimant and others in occupation of the property.

3. On or around September 2013 having sought assistance from Shelter instructed the Defendand

 

4. The Claimants claim is embarrassing for its want particularity.

 

5. The Defence is served without prejudice to the Defendants primary contention that this claim stands no realistic prospect of success, can serve no worthwhile or proportionate purpose and consitutes an abuse of the courst process.

 

6. The Claimant has not served any POC. The brief details of claim contained in the Claimants claim contained in the Claimants claim form are somewhat vague and make it difficult to identify the basis of the claimants cause of action against the Defendant.

 

7. This defence is therefore pleaded on the basis of the information in the claimants claim form and the Defendants own knowledge of the Claimants dispute with the Council which it considers to be relevant to the claim.

 

8. The Defendants reserves the right to lead further in the event that better and further particulars are provided by the Claimant.

 

ALLEGATIONS

 

9. It appears that the primary allegations the Claimant is making against the Defendant are that the Defeendant:

 

9.1 Ignored the Claimants instructions to reserve his right to plead a claim in personal injury against the Council ( the first allegation )

 

9.2 Failed to intiate Court proceedings against the Council for an injunction to remove the risk posed to the Claimant by the lean too ( the second allegation ) and

 

9.3 Failed to seek further advice from a barrister or expert ( the third allegation )

 

THE FIRST ALLEGATION

 

10. In the claim form, the Claimant makes reference to an incident in which he slipped on a wet floor whilst attempting to remove a tumble dryer from the lean to, the result of which was that he suffered injuries. The Claimant wished to pursue to a personal injury claim against the Council in respect of these injuries ( the PI Claim.)

 

11. The Defendant further understands that the Claimant previously made a claim against the Council in respect of injuries that he sustained in this incident, but the Claimants claim was struck out for failure to comply with the Courts directions.

 

12. The Claimant first attended the Defendants offices on 24 September 2013 By this stage, the PI claim in respect of the incident on 29 May 2010 was time barred. The Claimant was advised of this in a letter dated 18 June 2014 which stated:

 

there is difficulty so far as any claim you want to pursue so far as personal injury is concerned in that by the time you came to see us the three year year limitation on such claim had expired so the amount of damages you recover from that must be taking out of the equation.

 

13. T he Defendants retainer with the Claimant was limited to representing the Claimant in respect of the disrepair to the property and seeking the repair of the same.

 

14. Between 29 July 2014 and 31 January 2015, the Defendants engaged in negotiations with the Council on the Claimants behalf.

 

15.

 

Can you do this please?

 

Ganymede, I am trying to submit the whole defence which is very lengthy I have posted part of the defence when my PC crashed, will submit the remainder as soon as I can.

[Ganymede]

Is paragraph 11 true?

[callum1999]

Is paragraph 11 true?

 

An Allocation questionnaire was sent by the Court, i did not receive it.

 

What the defence fails to mention, is that i wrote and notified the Court and was fully entitled to appeal the decision.

 

In other-words not only did the solicitor fail to reserve any rights i had to claim against the Council, after instructions to do that, he was fully aware that an appeal and within the limitation period and based on an admittance of liability was also an option that he ignored, which would dismiss his claim and defence on the limitation period.

[Ganymede]

An Allocation questionnaire was sent by the Court, i did not receive it.

 

What the defence fails to mention, is that i wrote and notified the Court and was fully entitled to appeal the decision.

 

In other-words not only did the solicitor fail to reserve any rights i had to claim against the Council, after instructions to do that, he was fully aware that an appeal and within the limitation period and based on an admittance of liability was also an option that he ignored, which would dismiss his claim and defence on the limitation period.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

It would help if you could please give us a time line of events such as:

 

Date of accident

Date you issued your personal injury claim

Date your PI claim was struck out

Date you instructed these solicitors

 

Thanks

[callum1999]

The Defendants have refused to respond to my request under CPR To Admit Facts, which if admitted on some but not necessarily all would completely undermined the Defendants case but also strengthen my claim as any admittance to the facts set out proves what I am alleging.

[Ganymede]

The Defendants have refused to respond to my request under CPR To Admit Facts, which if admitted on some but not necessarily all would completely undermined the Defendants case but also strengthen my claim as any admittance to the facts set out proves what I am alleging.

 

I wouldn't be wasting your time and energy on that at this stage.

 

We still need to see your full PoC and time line for your previous PI claim.

[callum1999]

Hi Ganymede and thanks for your reply

 

I have already detailed and shown POC earlier in thread and it appears from other contributors, although not perfect, enougth to be deemed a pleaded POC

 

Problem is defence are stating they need me to answer to defence which will and could only be done with the Notice to Admit facts.

 

That notice to admit facts completely blows the defence out of the water as they would have to admit to facts that severely weakens their already weak defence.

[Ganymede]

If you want to reply to the Defence then there is a formal Reply to Defence you can file.

 

As for your PoC, I think I've seen paraphrased ones and not a verbatim copy and paste of the PoC...