Solicitor fees

Cass

Bit of a story. I'm going to keep it to bulletin point for ease of reading and still get the points across:

• 5 years ago diagnosed with an illness and forced out of work
• PPI was enacted, but refused to pay after 2 years
• Ombudsman involved and cases awaiting response form them
• Bank seeking repossession of goods and not willing to wait on Ombudsman verdict.
• Represented myself in court appearances.
• Was told i needed a Commissioner of Oaths to "sign off" on documents
• No experience so looked up the nearest one to me online.
• I called ahead, went down, documents in hand, and asked if i could get it signed.
• Solicitor said it's not that easy and appointed himself my solicitor
• I refused as i could not afford a brief, but was told he would "treat em right"
• I again told him i cannot afford him and could he just sign the documents.
• He told me to leave them with him.
• Week later he says he cannot sign them and would represent me.
• I asked for costs or at least a quote. He refused and said he would represent me and would "treat me right" with the fees.
• 3 weeks later "My" solicitor stood up, announced he was there to represent me, and asked for a moratorium on any repossession. Basically what i had asked for and gotten myself a month earlier.
• Later that week the solicitor asked me for any paperwork i had relating to my condition, correspondence, etc. I already had this together so went down with it. Left it with him.
• I asked for the cost of his services again was told again "i won't get into you on it". So no idea what this is costing me.
• During the months of December to the end of January i was working in the back ground myself.
• No contact in this time with my brief.
• I made a deal with the bank myself during this time
• I asked them if i had to involve or run this by my solicitor. They said they had no solicitor on record for me. "My" brief had not made contact with the bank in all this time.
• I rang him and asked him to make contact and gave him the name, number and specifics on the deal and the person i was dealing with.
• A week alter i rang him as i had heard no word and asked how it was going. He said he forgot to ring them, but would in the next couple of weeks.
• I finalised the details of the deal and rang my solicitor back and told him that i had rang and handled it myself. He said "sorry".
• Informed him i was not impressed with his lack of action, even a call to the other solicitors and no longer needed his "representation. He apologised again and we parted ways.
• Over the next couple of weeks i sorted out the deal with the bank and they got paid. I used the balance to buy a more affordable car. This all ended in the first week of February 2014.
• On July 8th. A letter arrives saying i owe €1,100 to "my" solicitor for costs and fees for court appearances (plural) and all the work he done.

So here is the question(s):

• Is this right?
• Can a solicitor just "appoint" himself as my solicitor?
• Can he use my lack of knowledge to make is seem i had to use him?
• Can he refuse to give me a quote of costs and then hit me with a bill 5 months after last contact?

I don't want to seem like i'm trying to avoid paying a bill. If i owed it i would pay it. I mean i had it after the sale, but as he done nothing and i, in essence, fired him does he have a "case" to ask/bill for costs?

Personally i think it's both cheeky and a bloody laugh that he would think that one appearance constitutes representing me, especially after he admits to forgetting to make calls, forgetting to contact the bank's solicitors, not filing paperwork, etc, etc.


Sorry for the long story, but that really is as short as it can be made.

Grolschevik

Some of that could be put down to miscommunication and crossed wires, but a solicitor must issue you with a letter of engagement as early as they can and set out how fees will be calculated.

Not issuing you with what's called a Section 68 letter is a disciplinary matter that would get him in trouble with the Law Society and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Cass

I can see how it might seem like a miscommunication. It possibly was on some points.

As said in my post above i originally sought him out for one purpose, but he "took it upon himself" to make it more. In all honesty i would not have minded some professional representation, and as said above would have paid for any services received. However i never received:

• The section 68 letter you mention
• A quote on costs even when i asked numerous times

The thing that annoys me more than the bill is his complete lack of action. He never made contact with the Solicitors representing the banks, ever, in over 3 months. This is a big point apparently as they informed me that if they had a solicitor on record (for me) they would have to deal with him, and not me, but as they did not have one they could deal with me. So if the bill arrived late i would pay if he had provided a service, however as he done quite literally nothing, i feel the bill is an insult when i think about how he handled the entire situation. As said above he even admitted to "forgetting" to make contact on two occasions.


Thanks for your imput.

Pat Mustard

This is not what the OP asked but I'm going to say it anyway.

Certain insurance companies have a practice of not paying out. I'm not going to mention them here.

They attempt to tie things up in knots by requesting GP's reports, then consultant's reports. They claim that certain questions were not answered, even though they may have been dealt with in previous reports. Then they ask for updated reports. All of these reports come at a significant cost. Then they might attempt to pass details to some other company, to deal with all of the queries all over again. They attempt browbeat the policyholder and to create an impenetrable wall of red tape and queries upon queries.

This is not an attempt to investigate a claim, it's refusal to pay.

The bankers are no angels either. They knew about these practices, but they still sold policies to their customers from these companies. Then they had the brass neck to pressure people into repaying the loans which were supposed to have been covered by insurance policies that they sold, in the first place.

Are the banks entitled to have their loans repaid? Sure; but were they negligent in selling policies from companies which refuse to pay? That depends, but put them in a courtroom with the insurance guys and let them play Russian Roulette with each other.

There is one way of making these people pay: drag them in front of the Financial Services Ombudsman or into court, and force them. Force is the only language that these people can understand.

Insurance policies are founded on contract. The normal period for a breach of contract case is six years. The Financial Ombudsman also has a six-year rule, afaik. There may be a limited window of time to pursue these people.

Also see here.

Grolschevik

Think you got the wrong thread, Mustard?

Edit: Oh, maybe not...

Cass

At the risk of derailing my own thread the PPI is a joke, and in some respects the Ombudsman is a toothless Tiger. They would only take one of my cases, and that did not go as i planned.

I paid PPI on all my loans. I'm 37 and have done since my first loan at 17. Foolish, perhaps, but it gave a sense of comfort knowing i'm covered (or so i thought). Without giving anyone Arthritis from the crying on yer shoulders i was diagnosed with a Tumor on my leg. I've had a few surgeries and will eventually need the knee replaced. I struggle to walk, stand, and drive, and running, outdoor pursuits, hurling, etc are all a thing of the past.

I enacted my PPI in 2009. for nearly 2 years there were no problems. I filled in the monthly reports, attached letters from the GP/Consultant and sent them back. Then, as you rightly said The Mustard, they demanded more and more. They cancelled the policy on me three times and three times they enacted it again after i provided them with proof and documentation. I even voluntarily submitted to an independent medical examine by their Doctor, but they cancelled that after receiving my records. The last "scab" they found to pick was my consultant visits. They claim i was not under constant medical care as i only seen him every few months. They ignored my GP visits (weekly), and stopped the policy for the last time. I took a case with the Ombudsman and they upheld the insurances company's claims that i was not under medical care.

Without boring you with spcifics, here are details on three other:

1. Mr. Cass, you have no policy with us (insurance provider. Yes i do here is the policy number. No response from them in 4 years of trying to make contact
2. Mr. Cass, you have no policy with us (insurance provider. Yes i do, here is the policy number, and you've been paying it for over a year. They ceased all communications, and have not responded to my letters/e-mails/calls.
3. Mr. Cass we are cancelling your policy because you are not sick. Yes i am, here are my medical reports. Cue the cessation of all communications.

It's heartbreaking and soul sapping to have to deal with the red tape, and all the crap that comes your way when you think you've taken the best steps to safeguard yourself. Never again.

Pat Mustard

Cass wrote: »

It's heartbreaking and soul sapping to have to deal with the red tape, and all the crap that comes your way when you think you've taken the best steps to safeguard yourself. Never again.

I'm sorry to hear that. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the circumstances seem so familiar.

I can't give legal advice due to forum charter, but I can point out certain issues.

The first thing is that if you are going to look into to getting this sorted out at this stage, you need to keep an eye on the time limits set out in the Statute of Limitations, as above. I can't stress the importance of this too much.

These people are all too aware of it.

Secondly, you would need a solicitor to deal with it. I would say that you need somebody who is proactive; somebody other than the man that said that he would act for you previously.

Regarding solicitors' fees, you could ask about the likelihood of success, the likelihood of recovering costs in that instance, and if those costs should be sufficient to discharge the solicitors' fees. In other words, you can ask if this is going to cost you anything. It could be that there may be costs of medical reports, I don't know.

Cass

The Mustard wrote: »

I can't give legal advice due to forum charter, but I can point out certain issues.

Appreciate that, and i wouldn't ask for any.

The first thing is that if you are going to look into to getting this sorted out at this stage, you need to keep an eye on the time limits set out in the Statute of Limitations, as above. I can't stress the importance of this too much.

These people are all too aware of it.

I've approached the FSO about all these cases and in some because of the lack of response they can do nothing, and in others the same insurance provider covers more than one loan so i was told it's one company, one case.

In the case of the above issue when i lost my case to the FSO i asked how i appeal it as the new information proves my case. I was told the only way to appeal an FSO decision is the High Court. Which is just super if i've a hundred grand burning a hole in my pocket, but pointless as i'd use the money to pay of the loans.

It also goes against the FSO rules on appealing a decision which states i must:

• Provide the information within 30 days of the decision
• Must provide new information that will directly affect the decision (IOW not the same info regurgitated)
• Apply to the FSO appeals office..

I done this and the lady that made the initial decision was the one to reply, which i think is wrong (policing their own decision and all that), and she told me to take a high court case to pursue it further.

After i have used the FSO no other company or institution would touch it.


In relation to the OP thanks for information people, and i'll see where it progresses form here.


Thanks.

Pat Mustard

If there is anything which has not been dealt with by the Financial Services Ombudsman, you could still take legal advice on possible court action against the relevant parties, in relation to those matters.

Cass

Bit of an update and also another question or two.

I received a letter/summons from the solicitor in question in March (of this year). He was taking me to court to recover his fees even though i sent a letter of response to him outlining why i believed why his fees were "out of order" and excessive. I went to the court house, filed a notice of appearance and according to the guidelines i issued a full letter to the solicitor (as he is representing himself) outlining my reasons for refuting the costs he is seeking. All within a week of receiving his letter/summons even though i had 30 days to do so.

I listed the section 68 matter, his "forced" representation, his lack of action, included correspondence from the banks that confirmed they had no solicitor on record for me, etc, etc. IOW all the reasons above and more.

That was some 3 months ago and i've heard nothing since. So to my questions:

1. Does he have to respond regardless of whether he is taking the matter further or not?
2. How long must i sit with this hanging over my head?

I also sent a copy, along with a complaint form, to the Law Society. They were quick to respond saying that due to the current situation whereby the solicitor is pursuing court action that they cannot interfere, but when the matter is resolved i can contact them again, and as they are keeping the complaint on file they will investigate then.

Thanks.

hullaballoo

Are you representing yourself on this?

Cass

So far, yes. For anything in the future, unfortunately, yes too.

I simply cannot afford any sort of legal representation. I was considering legal aid, but there is a four month (minimum wait) and it does not (afaik) apply to civil issues. Please correct me on that if i'm wrong.

I'm on invalidity so i have a fixed amount each week which leaves me well in the red before the start of each week. So any sort of legal representation is out the window.

Pat Mustard

In general terms, the matters that are not allowed for civil legal aid are set out in s.28(9) of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995. There are other criteria but these are the main non-financial exclusions.

I don't see why the scenario outlined by you would not be covered by civil legal aid. I think that you should print out section 28 and produce it if somebody in the Legal Aid Board tells you that you are not entitled to legal aid. It is possible that I could be wrong on this but if so, I don't see how, at the moment.

I see what you are saying about the four-month waiting list. However, I really think that you need a solicitor to represent you. If you have a court appearance in the meantime and if you explain explain that you are on a waiting list for legal aid, it may be possible that a sympathetic judge might agree to put the matter back until such time as you have representation.

The_Minister

Civil legal aid has been devestated by repeated budget cuts in recent years, but it sounds (based on what you've said) that there is a genuine dispute in this matter - it's certainly worth a punt, and no harm in applying, but I'd get it in quickly.

Also, District court fees aren't actually that high compared to other courts - it might be worth nosing around and seeing if a solicitor firm might take on the matter on a 'no foal-no fee' basis, or at least one with a clear understanding on costs.

EDIT: FLAC might be of use as well? Though this might be a little more complicated than they are used to.

2nd EDIT: Keep in mind that there is a contribution payable for legal aid.