The law is an ass

[podgydad]

7 years ago my Mum's boyfriend moved in to her house. They had decided to live together and had both put their properties on the market with a view to buying somewhere new together. As things turned out my Mum wasn't so sure and so they decided to stay in my Mum's property. He then proceeded to improve the property, new windows (despite my Mum telling him she didn't want them) Some modernisation to the bathroom and some other bits and pieces. The relationship began to deteriorate ending in a violent assault, my Mum kicked him out but didn't press charges although the Police did come and see her. All in all he had lived there for about 18 months. In 2001 my Mum started to receive solicitors letters claiming that he wanted the money back that he had invested in the property. My Mum received legal aid to fight this, however he dropped the case but in the eye's of the law my Mum had won and ended up with a charge on the property. 18 months later she began receiving more solicitors letters, this time it ended up in court and was thrown out as the claim was 'an embarrassment to the legal profession'. In 2005 the solicitors letters began again and again ended up in court were it was stayed as it transpired he hadn't paid the costs from the previous action (why hadn't my Mums solicitors sorted this?). Anyway he paid the costs and we were back in court in January for a directions hearing. A barristers opinion was not sort until less than 3 weeks before trial at which point he suggested my Mum settled for 10% of the value of the house. However the offer could not be submitted to the court as it was less than 3 weeks away, more costs on both sides. Anyway we were in court yesterday and they wanted 15% and sale within 2 years, got them down to 10% and six months. Our barrister said that we had a good case but that my Mum would probably not come across as well as him in the court room, his advice was that if we could afford to lose and possibly end up with a 15-20% award then to go ahead otherwise settle for 10%. Reluctantly we accepted the offer.

 

My Mum lived with a guy for 18 months who has now walked away with £17k and my mum is left with a legal bill of £10k. Solicitors are useless, in future I am going straight to a barrister for advice, it would have saved my Mum a fortune.

 

My faith in solicitors and the legal profession is at an all time low.

[Ecossewarrior]

I dont know how the guy had the face to attempt to recover that money. It was her property so if he improved it then it is his damn fault. I totally agree that the law is an ass and a joke!

[Champnos]

If he improved the propertly then he has added value to the property and has a right to that. Unfortunately thats the law and seems fair.

 

The change in the laws recently have helped. If you lived with someone for a year in the past whether they improved the house or not they would be entitled to something even if you were not married, this is now not the case.

 

Added - This is in no way accepting his violent behaviour and he should be taken to court for that as a different case

[Aequitas]

It is tempting to say the law is an ass when it does not find in your favour.

 

As to the competence of the lawyers involved, the late Lord Hailsham said that when people win in court they attribute it to the justice of their cause and when they lose they blame their lawyers.

[podgydad]

It is tempting to say the law is an ass when it does not find in your favour.

 

As to the competence of the lawyers involved, the late Lord Hailsham said that when people win in court they attribute it to the justice of their cause and when they lose they blame their lawyers.

 

Whether we won or not is irrelevant, our solicitor was still incompetent. Obtaining a barristers opinion 3 weeks before trial when you've had 6 months to prepare is incompetent. As a result it was too late to make a part 36 offer meaning further costs were incurred. This is one of many mistakes that were made.

 

We will be making a complaint to the LSC

[Guest weegirl]

Don't want to sound rude, but don't be holding your breath for a good result. I had problems with a crap solicitor who did absolutely no work and handed me an inflated bill when I dared leave her services for someone that actually knew what they were doing. I complained to the law society about this, thinking I had good stead as I had given her prior written instructions that I did not want the bill to exceed my deposit, and that I was to be notified when this was used as I did not want to run up a bill that I couldn't afford.

 

She acknowledged that she received this instruction, but it got 'lost'. Not my problem, I thought - wrong. The LS completely ignored this, said that I 'should have been aware of the charges incurred' - even though I had no experience of solicitors prior to my case and did not receive any notification of her rates. They also ignored the admission that the firm 'was not in the habit of furnishing copies of letters written or received' - therefore meaning that I did not receive an update on my case, and did not know what work was done (how I should have been aware of the incurred charges under these circumstances is beyond me). After much wrangling, they did halve the bill, but that was it, she got off scott free.

 

The LS panel that reviews complaints are usually made up of solicitors, seemed to me anyway that they were looking after their own.

 

As a stated in a previous post, there have been solicitors jailed and are still allowed to practice under restricted licence. This is a joke as all they have to do is set up practice with a partner, and the fully licenced one signs everything off. It makes me angry as if someone complained about me (tax advisor), I could be reported to my regulatory body and I would be hauled in front of a panel to explain myself fully. If I had been half as neglectful as this solicitor I would have been booted out long ago.

[Guest ArthurP]

It is tempting to say the law is an ass when it does not find in your favour.

 

As to the competence of the lawyers involved, the late Lord Hailsham said that when people win in court they attribute it to the justice of their cause and when they lose they blame their lawyers.

 

 

I think the term 'the law is an ass' can also be looked at from a different angle too.

 

Should a publican be charged with selling alcohol, at 11pm, to an underaged patron aged 17 years and 364 days old?

 

The law, as written, says yes but common sense says no.

 

This is when the law is an ass.

[patdavies]

I think the term 'the law is an ass' can also be looked at from a different angle too.

 

Should a publican be charged with selling alcohol, at 11pm, to an underaged patron aged 17 years and 364 days old?

 

The law, as written, says yes but common sense says no.

 

This is when the law is an ass.

 

I disagree. Whilst it is possible to argue that an arbitrary age of 18 is wrong, the law creates an absolute offence.

 

How much leeway would you allow in the 18 years-old rule. Your example is 1 hour; why not a day; why not a couple of days; a week; or a month?

[Guest ArthurP]

I disagree. Whilst it is possible to argue that an arbitrary age of 18 is wrong, the law creates an absolute offence.

 

How much leeway would you allow in the 18 years-old rule. Your example is 1 hour; why not a day; why not a couple of days; a week; or a month?

 

 

Why not one minute?

 

The law would still say it is illegal yet you can guarantee if a charge was brought then this would be in the papers the next day to highlight how ridiculous the law can appear to be in practice.

 

I doubt whether any policeman called to the pub would act on it anyway which shows how absurd a situation like this can be within the perimeters of law.

 

My point is an extreme one but it shows how the law is stated but the reality would be very different.

[pyrrhos]

Weegirl is right! I am dealing with 2 solicitors that seem unaccountable for ther incompetance

[podgydad]

I'm not holding out much hope either, however I think its the proper thing to go through the proceedure as they have to foot the bill for the investigation and at the very least it will cause them some expense and inconvenience.

 

Its a little bit like complaining about the government when you didn't vote.

[blacksheep1979]

you could try get the guy marked down as a vexatious litigant as he has been going for the same action repeatedly and seemingly just to cause trouble.

[podgydad]

you could try get the guy marked down as a vexatious litigant as he has been going for the same action repeatedly and seemingly just to cause trouble.

 

It was mentioned several times but nothing became of it.