An "interesting" day at court this week

An "interesting" day at court this week

Author
Discussion

s55shh

499 posts

211 months

Monday 18th April 2016
quotequote all
Civil Law in this country can be seriously painful even for the innocent party.

My ex-GF alleged 50% ownership of my house under the Trust of Lane and Appointment of Trustees Act. She got Legal Aid based on a lie that she had contributed £2000 for a kitchen which she later remembered was for the purchase of a car. Legal Aid continued the state backed blackmail based on her understanding that she owned half. They even confirmed that, "There is nothing in writing to support this assertion. Indeed it was never directly discussed."

It cost me £29800 in legal fees to beat it. Bitter, me, oh yes.....

Reg Local

Original Poster:

2,676 posts

207 months

Monday 18th April 2016
quotequote all
g3org3y said:
False claims/blatant lies must be punished otherwise it opens the door for any old chancer. furious
I suspect that door has been wide open for a number of years now. In fact, I think it was removed from its hinges many years ago, leaving a wide open chasm for anyone to wander through...

Don

28,377 posts

283 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
s55shh said:
It cost me £29800 in legal fees to beat it. Bitter, me, oh yes.....
fk me. And there's no chance that you could sue her for the costs? How come she got Legal Aid and you weren't entitled to some to defend yourself? That's fked up. Seriously fked up.

Type R Tom

3,859 posts

148 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
I may be wrong but I was under the impression this type of “ambulance chasing” comes from the US? If so, what happens over there if people lie etc? Does their version of the CPS go after people?

V8RX7

26,762 posts

262 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
Perhaps if the law was changed so the ambulance chasers had to pay costs if their claim was judged to be without merit, we'd see a lot less of these.

Of course this would mean solicitors would also get less work so it'll never happen.

Audidodat

182 posts

98 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
One man's version of events is another man's lie. Many criminal and civil cases hinge on whose version of events the court believes.

It doesn't automatically follow that if your version is not the one chosen by the court, you have been flirting with PCoJ.

If people feel strongly aggreived and can evidence where their opponent has lied specifically to hoodwink the court, you're free to run a private prosecution (which the CPS may take over and run with, or drop, depending on the circumstances).

When it comes to litigation, chances are many people take their own polarised view as the only possible explanation and think of anything contrary to that version as a pack of lies. There are usually two sides to every story.

Audidodat

182 posts

98 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
Perhaps if the law was changed so the ambulance chasers had to pay costs if their claim was judged to be without merit, we'd see a lot less of these.

Of course this would mean solicitors would also get less work so it'll never happen.
Costs can be awarded against unreasonable other sides on the fast track. However, taking your solution where that is opened up, we would be back to huge costs on both sides, leaving the consumer to pick up the bill for increased insurance premiums as the costs outweigh the damages. We're trying to move away from disproportionate litigation rather than towards it.

Sheepshanks

32,522 posts

118 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all

Reg Local said:
And I find it even more unbelievable that there is no recourse for costs against the solicitors representing such a spurious and false claim.
I’d never thought about this before with no-win no-fee cases – it must be common to lose these and the person suing will often be the sort of person who has nothing to lose. It seems incredible that that solicitors etc who are prepared to take on these cases don’t have to pay both sides costs in the event they lose.

V8RX7

26,762 posts

262 months

Tuesday 19th April 2016
quotequote all
Audidodat said:
V8RX7 said:
Perhaps if the law was changed so the ambulance chasers had to pay costs if their claim was judged to be without merit, we'd see a lot less of these.

Of course this would mean solicitors would also get less work so it'll never happen.
Costs can be awarded against unreasonable other sides on the fast track.

However, taking your solution where that is opened up, we would be back to huge costs on both sides, leaving the consumer to pick up the bill for increased insurance premiums as the costs outweigh the damages. We're trying to move away from disproportionate litigation rather than towards it.
Yes but if the person has no assets it's pointless.

Why would costs increase - the costs are what they are, we are merely ensuring that in the case of spurious claims either the claimant or their solicitor pays up, rather than the defendant.


GadgeS3C

4,516 posts

163 months

Thursday 20th April 2017
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
Nothing surprises me any more, some years ago I was threatened with court action by the Council for £0.00

I called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.

In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
Has a similar situation with a broad band provider. Had a selection of bills ranging from £100 (ish) to £0.00.

Told them I'd look forward to explaining in court I owed them £0.00 and that's why we were here.

Response was the bill "might be" £100ish - so they'd pursue.

They didn't smile

mcg_

1,445 posts

91 months

Friday 21st April 2017
quotequote all
Interesting read. What a waste of time and money. Some people really are scum.

Nickyboy

6,700 posts

233 months

Saturday 22nd April 2017
quotequote all
TonyTony said:
How do these cases even get to court, usually the person is an oxygen thief bottom feeder, if a 'Normal' member of the public tried it on they would probably be prosecuted for fraud. mad
Because the pond life no win no fee companies insist it goes to court by telling the claimant they will get thousands etc etc. A law should be brought in to ban these companies, this is the reason our insurance is so high, if people had to pay some costs upfront claims like this would go away. If it was a genuine claim then paying out up front wouldn't seem such a bad thing

corozin

2,680 posts

270 months

Saturday 22nd April 2017
quotequote all
Frankly I am surprised that both the claimant and her solicitor were not arrested at the Court. Perjuring yourself is normally regarded as a very serious offence by the Courts, as is insurance fraud.

DocJock

8,341 posts

239 months

Saturday 22nd April 2017
quotequote all
Cases like this are an unintended consequence of the introduction of the ridiculous, 'no win, no fee' system.

rallycross

12,744 posts

236 months

Saturday 22nd April 2017
quotequote all
There should be something like if you are proven to make a fraudulent car accident claim then you lose your licence for 5 yrs and get a £5,000 fine that would deter a lot of people.

ZOLLAR

19,908 posts

172 months

Saturday 22nd April 2017
quotequote all
Originalposter said:
Then came the most annoying part of proceedings - costs. Our side argued that this had been a completely dishonest and fraudulent claim and that all costs should be awarded against the claimant (a no-brainer in my view). The claimant's solicitor argued that it was not fraudulent - she had just made a mistake and that each side should therefore cover their own costs. Unbelievably, the Judge accepted this argument and although she made an order of costs against the claimant, she also agreed that this order would not be enforced, so, in effect, each side has had to cover their own costs. I discussed this with our barrister afterwards and she stated that it was because the claimant was on benefits and that there was no likelihood of ever getting any costs out of her, they effectively called it "quits" at the end of the hearing. There is a legal term for the Judge's order, but it's slipped my mind.
The area of insurance fraud I deal with isn't related to third party accidents, bogus whiplash etc but I work very closely with colleagues that do.
This happens often.

Hopefully you can see why insurers quite regularly will pay on certain claims where the policyholder thinks they shouldn't, the subsequent costs and hassle can far exceed a quick and early settlement.
However, that's not to say prudent investigation shouldn't take place first and each case is considered on its own merit rather than a blanket rule of settlement.

Glad it worked out for your stepson OP, it can be a very stressful and time consuming event.

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Saturday 22nd April 2017
quotequote all
DocJock said:
Cases like this are an unintended consequence of the introduction of the ridiculous, 'no win, no fee' system.
I thought it not quite so clear cut. Don't the no win no fee lawyers sell you a policy to cover any potential costs?

jdw100

4,067 posts

163 months

Sunday 23rd April 2017
quotequote all
Type R Tom said:
I may be wrong but I was under the impression this type of “ambulance chasing” comes from the US? If so, what happens over there if people lie etc? Does their version of the CPS go after people?
It does and I know who to blame here.

Years ago I was at some Conservative business forum dinner type thing at the House of Commons. John Major was in attendance and someone had asked a question re how legislation was changing in the UK to allow this sort of ambulance chasing/ compensation culture to develop.

The question was taken by the MP for Huntingdon - Jonathan Djanogly (sp?) - who being a lawyer was practically rubbing his hands together with glee - the oily self serving .

He had many reasons as to why the whole thing was a jolly good wheeze...as in good for him and his colleagues but of course not so good for his constituents or people of the country.

I also remember this meeting for the anti-European sentiment. This raised many eyebrows with clients I had taken to the meeting - all of whom worked for businesses that operated across the EU.

These meetings where I actually got to really hear what the Tories actually thought (they were amongst friends so let their guard down) put me off voting for them for life.

Having heard the chap in charge of pensions (short guy with a sort of mullet) tell me he really didn't care about what the 'masses' recieved was the final straw.


Mojooo

12,668 posts

179 months

Sunday 23rd April 2017
quotequote all
DocJock said:
Cases like this are an unintended consequence of the introduction of the ridiculous, 'no win, no fee' system.
Looking at it from another perspective, I am currently going through a civil court process as a defendant and cannot afford to pay for legal fees all the way through. I feel it is unjust that I am being sued unjustly (obviously IMO) and either cannot afford to defend myself or will have to borrow money to do so.

The NWNF people may get good outcomes for people who would no way able to be afford it themselves. But I do agree there needs to be balance and controls

The main point the OP raised was that a criminal case (probably) won;t get that far as there are certain tests the prosecution have to go through in order to proceed and many cases are binned because of this. Perhaps there should be similar tests for civil cases but presumably it would have to be done by someone within the court system. I also understand you can make applications in the civil court to have cases thrown out but that is once things have already started rolling.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Sunday 23rd April 2017
quotequote all
jdw100 said:
It does and I know who to blame here.

Years ago I was at some Conservative business forum dinner type thing at the House of Commons. John Major was in attendance and someone had asked a question re how legislation was changing in the UK to allow this sort of ambulance chasing/ compensation culture to develop.

The question was taken by the MP for Huntingdon - Jonathan Djanogly (sp?) - who being a lawyer was practically rubbing his hands together with glee - the oily self serving .

He had many reasons as to why the whole thing was a jolly good wheeze...as in good for him and his colleagues but of course not so good for his constituents or people of the country.

I also remember this meeting for the anti-European sentiment. This raised many eyebrows with clients I had taken to the meeting - all of whom worked for businesses that operated across the EU.

These meetings where I actually got to really hear what the Tories actually thought (they were amongst friends so let their guard down) put me off voting for them for life.

Having heard the chap in charge of pensions (short guy with a sort of mullet) tell me he really didn't care about what the 'masses' recieved was the final straw.
thanks for confirming what many of us think about politicians ,particularly tories ,though i think most are of the same ilk. would love to be present to hear something like that to then see the smarmy faced streak of over privileged piss wet themselves when i got a hold of their throat,utter, utter s.