Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

Whilst i agree that a solicitor does not have to pass a complaint onto the LA or SRA, you have again failed to give reason why his company did not follow the procedures that would need to be followed before they could get involved ???

 

Which procedures that they should have followed haven't they followed?.

 

You complain to the solicitors.

They decline your complaint.

They then don't have to do anything else.

 

You can take it to the LO (& still not the SRA .... Since you've ignored that relevant point).

 

A solicitor COULD refer themselves to the SRA, but you can't refer them to the SRA. If you try, they'll signpost you to the LO.

 

However, you shouldn't take it that the fact a solicitor COULD refer themselves to the SRA means that this solicitor SHOULD have done so.

They have no obligation to do so (or to forward a complaint to the LO) as a result of a complaint : that is for you to do, not them.

[callum1999]

I am sure the Legal Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint, if the complaint is in litigation GM.

 

There was no internal complaints procedure, i complained, it was referee onto the person who would deal with any complaints within the solicitors company, and that was it, nothing.

 

I am currently giving all the information to an MP, as i am still of the opinion that the solicitor has defrauded the public out of funding, in claiming legal costs.

 

The Council solicitor has also gone v quiet.

[BazzaS]

So a litigation would not prevent a complaint be considered ?? as you are suggesting.

 

You cannot do both and the same time.

 

Legal Aid are aware of my complaint.

 

Back on the 4th April when I mentioned the LO, you hadn't commenced proceedings. You posted on 4th April :

 

I am currently considering issuing against my former solicitor on the grounds of professional negligence, i have followed the pre-action protocol under CPR and the solicitors insurance company are denying liability.

 

I accept that the LO is now likely to await the result of any court case now that you have issued proceedings, but that is a function of you choosing to start proceedings instead of going to the LO first......

[callum1999]

Which procedures that they should have followed haven't they followed?.

 

You complain to the solicitors.

They decline your complaint.

They then don't have to do anything else.

 

You can take it to the LO (& still not the SRA .... Since you've ignored that relevant point).

 

A solicitor COULD refer themselves to the SRA, but you can't refer them to the SRA. If you try, they'll signpost you to the LO.

 

However, you shouldn't take it that the fact a solicitor COULD refer themselves to the SRA means that this solicitor SHOULD have done so.

They have no obligation to do so (or to forward a complaint to the LO) as a result of a complaint : that is for you to do, not them.

 

They have not declined my complaint, to be in a position to decline they would have to show that they have dealt with it, in the first place, which as i understand is an obligation under the SRA, one letter acknowledging a clients complaint would not satisfy that criteria.

[BazzaS]

They have not declined my complaint, to be in a position to decline they would have to show that they have dealt with it, in the first place, which as i understand is an obligation under the SRA, one letter acknowledging a clients complaint would not satisfy that criteria.

 

If they haven't declined your complaint, what have they done?.

If instead they have "failed to respond to a complaint" : your path should have been the same : the LO.

 

Good for you that you are now involving your MP, too.

Don't forget to mention that you have issued proceedings, so they too can say "I'll await the court's decision".

The more, the merrier : you may as well exhaust the list of people you take it to in a blunderbus fashion now, rather than waiting any longer .....

 

The Council solicitor has also gone v quiet.

 

Not a surprise. They are probably thanking the heavens their dealings with you were concluded when you signed the compromise agreement!

[Ganymede]

I am sure the Legal Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint, if the complaint is in litigation GM.

 

There was no internal complaints procedure, i complained, it was referee onto the person who would deal with any complaints within the solicitors company, and that was it, nothing.

 

I am currently giving all the information to an MP, as i am still of the opinion that the solicitor has defrauded the public out of funding, in claiming legal costs.

 

The Council solicitor has also gone v quiet.

 

What you describe is the internal complaints procedure.

[callum1999]

Back on the 4th April when I mentioned the LO, you hadn't commenced proceedings.

 

 

 

I accept that the LO is now likely to await the result of any court case now that you have issued proceedings, but that is a function of you choosing to start proceedings instead of going to the LO first......

 

That was the choice that i made at that time, and after the solicitor, his firm, their insures and solicitors decided to dig in.

 

The solicitor who had been acting on my behalf had indicated to the solicitor that court proceedings, as opposed to to LO was in my interest, but made the point of reserving any rights that i had after any litigation to go down that route which would have been the correct way in logic, rather than the other way round.

 

What you describe is the internal complaints procedure.

 

It is not what i would describe.

 

It is how the SRA would describe, as they have set the criteria that needs to be adopted when a client makes a complaint about the conduct of a solicitor.

[Ganymede]

Reserving your right how?

 

Bear in mind that normally you need to complain to the Legal Ombudsman within 6 years from the date of the relevant act or omission or within 3 years from the date that you had sufficient knowledge to bring a complaint.

 

Also, complaints will not be accepted by the Legal Ombudsman if the date of the act or omission or the date of knowledge was prior to 6th October 2010.

 

It is not what i would describe.

 

It is how the SRA would describe, as they have set the criteria that needs to be adopted when a client makes a complaint about the conduct of a solicitor.

 

It may not fit with your definition but it is what it is.

 

If you weren't happy then the next step was the Legal Ombudsman.

[callum1999]

Not a surprise. They are probably thanking the heavens their dealings with you were concluded when you signed the compromise agreement!

 

No maybe they are thinking, oh look someone who has a conflict of interest in our Organisation has filed a dodgy legal bill that we have scrupulously paid without checking the validity or if that bill is payable, now there a thought.

 

This surely never goes on.

 

Lets hope they keep thanking heaven.

 

It may not fit with your definition but it is what it is.

 

If you weren't happy then the next step was the Legal Ombudsman.

 

And where does it state the next step, set in stone was the LO, as opposed to civil action??

 

A client is not bound by the rules of a governing body of a solicitor.

 

Reserving your right how?

 

Bear in mind that normally you need to complain to the Legal Ombudsman within 6 years from the date of the relevant act or omission or within 3 years from the date that you had sufficient knowledge to bring a complaint.

 

Also, complaints will not be accepted by the Legal Ombudsman if the date of the act or omission or the date of knowledge was prior to 6th October 2010.

 

My previous solicitor reserved my right, is she wrong as well?

[BazzaS]

And where does it state the next step, set in stone was the LO, as opposed to civil action??

 

A client is not bound by the rules of a governing body of a solicitor.

 

I agree you aren't bound by the SRA's rules, and can go to court rather than complain to the LO.

 

However, if you wanted the solicitor reported to the SRA, the LO would have been the right way to go about it.

 

You can't take it to the SRA. If you have gone to court instead of the LO, it would be possible for the judge to make a report, but the behaviour would have to have been pretty extreme for that to be likely.

 

(Yes, I accept that you feel there has been all sorts of fraud, negligence and general skullduggery, but that doesn't mean a judge will agree to the degree that they feel minded to report the behaviour.)

 

My previous solicitor reserved my right, is she wrong as well?

 

Which previous solicitor? Which right?.

 

It is hard to comment when your posts are so vague.

[Ganymede]

My previous solicitor reserved my right, is she wrong as well?

 

Saying "I reserve my right to do XYZ" doesn't mean you can disregard timescales for making a complaint or limitation periods for issuing claims.

 

Which previous solicitor? Which right?.

 

It is hard to comment when your posts are so vague.

 

I assume he means the solicitor he instructed to pursue a professional negligence claim against his original solicitor and the right he refers to is the right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman after his Court proceedings are over if they don't go his way.

[BazzaS]

I assume he means the solicitor he instructed to pursue a professional negligence claim against his original solicitor and the right he refers to is the right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman after his Court proceedings are over if they don't go his way.

 

Probably, though with this OP it is hard to tell for sure.

 

I still find it telling (especially given the OP's protestations of "the stress" and their health issues) that the OP is acting as a LiP : why not this solicitor who feels they have such a strong case and is reserving all these rights ........

[Ganymede]

Probably, though with this OP it is hard to tell for sure.

 

I still find it telling (especially given the OP's protestations of "the stress" and their health issues) that the OP is acting as a LiP : why not this solicitor who feels they have such a strong case and is reserving all these rights ........

 

If I recall correctly (which I may not be doing) I think the professional negligence solicitors wouldn't take the claim on after looking further into it.

[BazzaS]

If I recall correctly (which I may not be doing) I think the professional negligence solicitors wouldn't take the claim on after looking further into it.

 

I must have missed that .... I recall seeing the OP say how their solicitor felt they had a strong case, backed by counsel's opinion.

If that then changed : one can only wonder what nugget of new info came to light!.

[callum1999]

So there we have it.

 

We have a solicitor who has admitted that he could not offer private work under such agreements like for example CFA.

We have a solicitor who had no public funding

And we have a solicitor who in correspondence and part way through misrepresenting a client cannot do any further work until public funding is in place, but never was, only very limited.

And we have a solicitor who like magic, and without the magic to do this, cheats the public purse out of thousands for work that he could not possible have incurred.

 

Chas and Dave will be on here and still giving no firm answers as to how a solicitor can made a tidy profit, but evidently, not having the tools there in the first place, as to make profit.:sad:

 

If I recall correctly (which I may not be doing) I think the professional negligence solicitors wouldn't take the claim on after looking further into it.

 

Incorrect assumption, i'm affraid.

[BazzaS]

So there we have it.

 

We have a solicitor who has admitted that he could not offer private work under such agreements like for example CFA.

We have a solicitor who had no public funding

And we have a solicitor who in correspondence and part way through misrepresenting a client cannot do any further work until public funding is in place, but never was, only very limited.

And we have a solicitor who like magic, and without the magic to do this, cheats the public purse out of thousands for work that he could not possible have incurred.

 

Chas and Dave will be on here and still giving no firm answers as to how a solicitor can made a tidy profit, but evidently, not having the tools there in the first place, as to make profit.:sad:

 

If I'm supposed to be part of "Chas and Dave", I can't give you the answers you are looking for, as you can't ask your questions clearly enough, can't seem to reply to clearly phrased questions (like which court this is actually allocated to, and why you aren't pursuing it under a CFA....), and can't accept that you seem confused.........

 

8th May, post 14:

As mentioned in your previous thread, this does not sound like a strong claim to me. I think there is a high probability that your claim will fail

.....

 

I know it is not what you want to hear, but I'd be doing you a disservice if I didn't point this out.

 

17th May, post 29:

That's daft.

 

Just get the CFA signed and let the solicitors do all the hard work.

 

11th July, post 48:

I'm struggling to see the fraud angle.

 

I really think you need legal advice as you don't seem to know what your claim is.

 

11th July, post 49

 

 

If you want to start throwing accusations, you need to be properly following them through - setting out clearly what the solicitor was supposed to do, how they failed to do it, and what loss you suffered as a result of that failure. In very simple terms, you need to be able to articulate this for each claim you want to make

........

 

I am struggling to understand what you are trying to claim for.

..........

 

If you don't have any other demonstrable financial loss you are claiming for, I'm afraid this claim is starting to sound pretty hopeless in legal terms.

 

Posts 69-76, where you show no understanding of the law on, and effects of, limitation .......

 

Posts 97-119 where you misunderstand the pathways to making an effective complaint / the role of the LO and SRA .......

 

Now, in your other thread .......

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462017-Solicitor-negligence-claim/page6

 

You got up to para. 14 of the defence on an earlier page of that thread, but we never got to see para's 15 and above dealing with the 2nd and 3rd allegation .......

 

post 104

Hello - I think what this comes down to is that there are serious weaknesses in your case. It could be that you have an arguable negligence case, but to work out what that case is a bit of digging is regarded to work out what claims are worth proceeding with and what claims should be disregarded as having no chance of success, so that you know how to present your case (for example claiming that the limitation period has been extended because the council has denied liability is I'm afraid doomed to fail).

 

Posts 119-121 of that thread where your misunderstanding of the role of Notice to Admit facts was highlighted, and the correct role explained.

 

So, in summary:

Who, other than you, feels you have a strong case?.

 

a) It doesn't appear any recent poster to either thread believes so,

b) Shelter won't be being involved with a negligence claim (so stating they felt you had a good case against the council is irrelevant),

c) the council will be glad to be shot of your claim, and

d) the solicitors who you have stated told you you have a strong case aren't taking it under a CFA for you........ remind us (since I've asked a few times.....) : why is that, then?.

[callum1999]

Just out of interest, what makes you feel that the solicitor/barrister that said i had a strong claim, did not offer a CFA, which i declined?

 

I am currently being refused sight of the legal-aid applications or funding arrangements that i would assume would have to be stored for a number of years.

 

All i am asking is to witness the originals and pay for copies if need be.

[BazzaS]

Just out of interest, what makes you feel that the solicitor/barrister that said i had a strong claim, did not offer a CFA, which i declined?

 

Nothing. Except that to have declined the CFA highlights your foolishness.

 

I've previously addressed this, as your "reasoning" just doesn't ring true unless you are being daft: and here is why:

 

 

 

.......you can't ask your questions clearly enough, can't seem to reply to clearly phrased questions (like which court this is actually allocated to, and why you aren't pursuing it under a CFA.)

 

..............

d) the solicitors who you have stated told you you have a strong case aren't taking it under a CFA for you........ remind us (since I've asked a few times.....) : why is that, then?.

 

 

As for "I have a very strong case, a solicitor has said so, but I haven't let them take it on for me under a CFA as I prefer to take on the case myself, as a LiP, in the High Court, to keep costs down" ; yeah, right.

This, from the same person who said they weren't bothered about costs, as they had no assets that could be claimed against if they lost.

 

Is the current claim in the High Court, or multi-track of the County Court?. The OP has stated both .....

 

Was the OP's original PI claim struck out for failure to comply with directions?.

Would having failed to comply with directions once not be a good reason to let a solicitor deal with the claim under a CFA (that and the reduced stress from not being a LiP, given the OP's medical conditions ........).

That is, of course, if the OP's case is as strong as they claim their new solicitor has told them ...... if so, they'd be gagging to take on the case under a CFA!

 

So: your "I want to keep costs down" is contradicted by your statement of not being bothered about the costs.

You had lots of reasons to use a CFA and haven't given a valid reason not to, despite being asked why a number of times.

So, either you aren't giving us the whole story (not for the first time) or are foolish : perhaps both.

 

GM noted (on 17th May, post 29: )

"Originally Posted by Ganymede:

That's daft.

 

Just get the CFA signed and let the solicitors do all the hard work."

 

I'm not convinced you have a claim, but for sake of discussion let's assume you do : why ruin it by being an LiP who can't articulate their case clearly?

BTW : what happened about you wanting to amend your PofC?

[callum1999]

Nothing. Except that to have declined the CFA highlights your foolishness.

 

I've previously addressed this, as your "reasoning" just doesn't ring true unless you are being daft: and here is why:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So: your "I want to keep costs down" is contradicted by your statement of not being bothered about the costs.

You had lots of reasons to use a CFA and haven't given a valid reason not to, despite being asked why a number of times.

So, either you aren't giving us the whole story (not for the first time) or are foolish : perhaps both.

 

GM noted (on 17th May, post 29: )

"Originally Posted by Ganymede:

That's daft.

 

Just get the CFA signed and let the solicitors do all the hard work."

 

I'm not convinced you have a claim, but for sake of discussion let's assume you do : why ruin it by being an LiP who can't articulate their case clearly?

BTW : what happened about you wanting to amend your PofC?

 

Just maybe, i do not trust another person to run my case (solicitor) giving that one has already led me down the garden path, i am more than happy to do it myself.

 

Its not rocket science, the solicitor has pretended to represent me, and been paid handsomely to pretend that he represented me, this after being negligent whilst pretending to represent me., when infact it was impossible for him to represent me>

 

Seems odd that now i have questioned the legal costs, the solicitor and his solicitor do not want to proof what could be proofed in a minute.

 

Whilst i am not suggesting that they are hiding anything?, if i had nothing to hide i would allow this simple process to take place.

 

They may well be able to conceal evidence from little old me, but others may not accept the concealing of evidence as being objectionable.

[BazzaS]

Just maybe, i do not trust another person to run my case (solicitor) giving that one has already led me down the garden path, i am more than happy to do it myself.

 

Its not rocket science

 

It may not be rocket science but you seem out of your depth.

 

Such as : needing to amend your PofC - how is that going?. Has the court given permission?

 

The defence ..... You haven't posted up para's 15+ dealing with the 2nd and 3rd allegations.....

 

If you want the court to consider the "fraud" : have you made that clear in your PofC?

 

How goes allocation / directions / disclosure??

 

I am currently being refused sight of the legal-aid applications or funding arrangements that i would assume would have to be stored for a number of years.

 

All i am asking is to witness the originals and pay for copies if need be.

 

Disclosure.

[Ganymede]

Just maybe, i do not trust another person to run my case (solicitor) giving that one has already led me down the garden path, i am more than happy to do it myself.

 

Its not rocket science, the solicitor has pretended to represent me, and been paid handsomely to pretend that he represented me, this after being negligent whilst pretending to represent me., when infact it was impossible for him to represent me>

 

"Pretending"?

 

You instructed them and I assume that you also signed some kind of retainer/agreement to allow them to represent you.

[BazzaS]

"Pretending"?

 

You instructed them and I assume that you also signed some kind of retainer/agreement to allow them to represent you.

 

Hi, the solicitor was aware of the PI claim, and instructions to recover PI were made during representation, i had to compromise the Disrepair claim because that was the condition set by the Council to remove the risk and replace the out-house with a new one.

 

Part of me agreeing to the compromise was that i reserved the right to pursue a PI, and those instructions were giving to the solicitor who has in letters and emails confirmed that he was instructed to reserve that right.

 

The OP certainly instructed them : evidenced in replies by letter & emails, apparently.

The OP is being coy about the details of the retainer.

 

No matter, as "it isn't rocket science", apparently.

 

The OP is being coy about plenty : even to the extent of leaving it unclear which court is hearing the case ....

 

Meanwhile ; the OP is asking how to get hold of documents that

a) should be in the file held by the original solicitor, and

b) should be covered by standard disclosure IF they support their case : (which will depend on if the funding was an issue overtly stated in the PofC - one wonders if the court will consider them covered by standard disclosure) : the OP was asking about specific directions but made no mention of requesting specific disclosure....

[callum1999]

"Pretending"?

 

You instructed them and I assume that you also signed some kind of retainer/agreement to allow them to represent you.

 

I instructed them, but again, that irrelevant.

 

(a) the solicitor would need funding to be in a position in any event as to take instruction, there was no funding (b) the solicitor had a professional obligation to inform me, the client, when the funding in order for him to be able to represent a client, had been exhausted.

 

A solicitor cannot legally represent a client unless there is funding in place, in order for that to be possible, if someone feels that this is not the case, please tell.

 

Again its not rocket science, why would any professional have the motivation or the desire to have the clients own interest at heart if he or she is not being paid at that time as to represent.

 

It is a very serious criminal offence under Section 2 The Fraud Act 2006, FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION, surely a solicitor not having the needed funds at all material times during legally representing a client, would fit straight into that category, and giving the solicitor has profited from this breach, i would have assumed the solicitor is on very thin ice!!!

[BazzaS]

 

It is a very serious criminal offence under Section 2 The Fraud Act 2006, FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION

 

Go on then, lay out

i) the actus reus and

ii) the mens rea requirements for a prosecution for fraud by false representation,

 

Then set out how you think the CPS would show these had been met, to give a "realistic prospect of a successful prosecution".

 

I don't think laying out the actus and mens are 'rocket science' (An LlB or GDL student should be able to do so, although it remains to be seen if this simple task is beyond you completing it correctly), but I do think showing there could be a successful prosecution will be beyond you : Ghosh may well be a formidable challenge, as well as "what exactly was the false representation?" and "who was that exact false representation made to?" while still showing that the offence is made out.

 

You keep crying "fraud" : time to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

 

(b) the solicitor had a professional obligation to inform me, the client, when the funding in order for him to be able to represent a client, had been exhausted.

 

 

So, are you saying the solicitor told you the funding had been exhausted or not?

If they did, why are you saying they had a professional obligation to inform you?

If they didn't, how do you know the funding was exhausted at the point they contacted the council??

 

surely a solicitor not having the needed funds at all material times during legally representing a client, would fit straight into that category

 

Solicitors act for clients while they client owes them for work done, all the time.

 

Otherwise, they wouldn't issue any invoices for monies owed, only ever statements of account showing the balance the client was in credit......

[Ganymede]

I instructed them, but again, that irrelevant.

 

(a) the solicitor would need funding to be in a position in any event as to take instruction, there was no funding (b) the solicitor had a professional obligation to inform me, the client, when the funding in order for him to be able to represent a client, had been exhausted.

 

A solicitor cannot legally represent a client unless there is funding in place, in order for that to be possible, if someone feels that this is not the case, please tell.

 

Again its not rocket science, why would any professional have the motivation or the desire to have the clients own interest at heart if he or she is not being paid at that time as to represent.

 

It is a very serious criminal offence under Section 2 The Fraud Act 2006, FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION, surely a solicitor not having the needed funds at all material times during legally representing a client, would fit straight into that category, and giving the solicitor has profited from this breach, i would have assumed the solicitor is on very thin ice!!!

 

 

You're wrong I'm afraid and totally misunderstanding the Fraud Act and the solicitor/client relationship.