On 31 October 2017 at 00:15, Paul Talbot-Jenkins wrote:
“Regarding the Law Society, a solicitor I engaged over a fire damages claim got legal aid to finance our case. After 7 years of interlocutories he allowed the case to be struck out for “inordinate and inexcusable delay“, those were the words on the judge’s decision. My complaint to the law society was met with the usual b…s… that I had to prove negligence and to do that I would have go to court to get a judgment. To assist me they sent me details of a “negligence panel solicitor” who first of all said we had a good case, none week later he rescinded his statement. The LS categorically claimed that they did not handle claims of negligence, to which I replied, why have a negligence panel?
I found a solicitor independently of the LS who was shocked at our case’s delay, he issued a writ immediately and got legal aid. The negligent solicitor was defended by a firm of solicitors paid for by the LS. It seemed not to matter this was a conflict of interest. It did not matter to the LS that a court had already ruled that the solicitor had been negligent in allowing the case to run out of time, I still had to get a court to make a ruling, this seemed ridiculous to me. No barrister locally would advise on the matter. We found a London barrister who gave a positive advice for the continuance of legal aid, he later rescinded his advice on the grounds that my second solicitor had issued the writ out of time, this advice rested on a single point of negligence by the first solicitor that happened more than 6 years before the writ was issued. The LS withdrew legal aid irrespective of the fact that section 14a of the limitation act gave 12 years, the barrister did not know of the 1986 amendment to the Limitation Act to bring in the Latent Damages Act. This was a complete red herring to silence my point of negligence ruled on by a court. I continued the action as a litigant in person until I was stopped by being made bankrupt for no debt. The law is being abused by the profession,
In 1984 after I discovered NatWest stealing money from my accounts, I closed my accounts leaving an overdraft of £36,000 unpaid. They then tried to frighten me with the threat of grabbing our property on the pretext of a second charge taken out by our solicitor, a charge that we had no idea had been registered with Land Registry. We took out a mortgage to pay off NatWest loan and the solicitor billed us for arranging the mortgage and removing the charge, later we were to discover that the solicitor had not removed the charge. In 2014, NatWest capitulated, had the charge removed and eventually returned the deeds to our property. So now I am preparing to sue NatWest and others for 30 years of harassment, it just depends whether to go for summary judgment or default judgment. They have not responded to my last affidavit pointing out their perjury, fraud and contempt of court, nor have they set aside my statutory demand, and they have not answered my invitation to settle my claim. My letter has now been modified to a pre-action protocol letter.
With best wishes
Reproduced with permission.
Know of anything similar to this chicanery by those who are supposed to be trustworthy but obviously aren’t? Drop me a line !!
FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
NB: DISCLAIMER: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.