Solicitor declining to act for client after receiving signed instructions.

An Ri rua

Hello all,

Can a solicitor arbitrarily decline to act for a client once the client has signed instructions and submitted all required paperwork? Is there any onus on a solicitor to complete a transaction or can they just decline to act on a straightforward conveyancing transaction?

Is there a Code of Conduct that covers this shoddy unprofessional treatment of my family member?

Thank you.

Miaireland

On what basic did they refuse? Is there a possible conflict of interest that they only became aware of?

An Ri rua

No basis. Said they'd suddenly become too busy, for the foreseeable future, and she could collect her paperwork at reception.
I had queried a few issues, with her consent, as I was present at the introductory briefing meeting. It was her preference.
Having looked briefly through the relevant professional conduct guide from the Law Society (a Good Professional Guide for Solicitors), I believe that the firm owe her a duty of care as an elderly, vulnerable person and believe that I should remind them of their fiduciary duties by quoting same.
Would ye? Or what tack would you take with a solicitor who suddenly downed tools for no valid reason and caused distress to a senior citizen and widow?

Lmklad

If no money has been handed over I’d just find another solicitor.

An Ri rua

Lmklad wrote: »

If no money has been handed over I’d just find another solicitor.

Thanks, I think she will once we chase down an answer on this.
We're livid about it. She is stressed and embarrassed and has been shoddily treated. I've read that guide and, apart from my asking a series of questions in better understanding the issue and various options, all I can imagine is that she feels I may be acting nefariously?? I have to say that I am incensed and, for all the good it will do, will make a strong written case to the Law Society. I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects. Hardly a crime?
To email a 3rd party that she will no longer be acting for her is also a breach of that code of conduct. I then had to inform this pensioner. That's extremely arrogant and shoddy treatment.

nuac

Mod
Leaving open for general discussion
Personally I believe a solicitor can decline instructions in any matter.
There are well over 2000 solicitors' firms

An Ri rua

The discussion will be interesting.

According to that guide, they should not decline without defined reasons.

There may be 2000 solicitor firms but only one has been loyally used by this pensioner since 1968. And precious time wasted this summer. The code of conduct is surely there to promote a professional standard of practice. If it's not adhered to, what would the point be, exactly, of sampling the other 1999 firms?
I am sure that she, and all other family members and friends, will find an alternative to this arrogant shower; however if they have acted unprofessionally and there is a means to sanction them, it shall be done.

Homer

Just my opinion, but you say it was a simple conveyancy job and from what I’ve read of your posts, I wouldn’t want to deal with you either. You may not like or agree with my opinion but hey :cool:

An Ri rua

Homer wrote: »

Just my opinion, but you say it was a simple conveyancy job and from what I’ve read of your posts, I wouldn’t want to deal with you either. You may not like or agree with my opinion but hey :cool:

Why, what about my posts here in this thread is offputting? Querying prices??

cursai

A simple disagreement over how to proceed? Too many cooks??? Idle hands etc? Curtain twitching comes too mind also.
These aren't legal terms and should not be misconstrued as legal advice.
Don't worry. I won't charge. So you won't get offended.

An Ri rua

cursai wrote: »

A simple disagreement over how to proceed? Too many cooks??? Idle hands etc? Curtain twitching comes too mind also.
These aren't legal terms and should not be misconstrued as legal advice.
Don't worry. I won't charge. So you won't get offended.

That's a bizarre arrogant response? I am trusted by an elder relative to help them. If I didn't, they'd get fleeced by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals sometimes. Too many cooks?? So you leave a vulnerable relative to the whims of whomever or you assist when asked?
If I could get responses from decent, honest solicitors, that would be great. Not attacks on my character or on the character of my elderly relative.

I asked a valid question on this thread and should not have to put up with these snide remarks from people who arrogantly assume that they are smarter than me.
'If' you are in the position to charge anyone for ANY advice, God help them as that was pure drivel. I expect logic here.

DesperateDan

Grabbing my popcorn hang on

scuby

An Ri rua wrote:

I asked a valid question on this thread and should not have to put up with these snide remarks from people who arrogantly assume that they are smarter than me.

You're on a public forum, you will get all sort of replies ! Some you will like, others not so much.

An Ri rua

scuby wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote:

I asked a valid question on this thread and should not have to put up with these snide remarks from people who arrogantly assume that they are smarter than me.

You're on a public forum, you will get all sort of replies ! Some you will like, others not so much.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I welcome robust debate, provided that those replies are pertinent to the opening post and the question posited. Not like one of two of the posts here. Unhelpful, thuggish and partisan.

An Ri rua

nuac wrote: »

Mod
Leaving open for general discussion
Personally I believe a solicitor can decline instructions in any matter.
There are well over 2000 solicitors' firms

Please Mod, leave this open for now. I want valid answers to this consumer issue.
Thank you

gctest50

An Ri rua wrote: »

Thanks, I think she will once we chase down an answer on this.
We're livid about it. She is stressed and embarrassed and has been shoddily treated. I've read that guide and, apart from my asking a series of questions in better understanding the issue and various options, all I can imagine is that she feels I may be acting nefariously?? I have to say that I am incensed and, for all the good it will do, will make a strong written case to the Law Society. I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects. Hardly a crime?
To email a 3rd party that she will no longer be acting for her is also a breach of that code of conduct. I then had to inform this pensioner. That's extremely arrogant and shoddy treatment.

An Ri rua wrote: »

To email a 3rd party ....

Who is this 3rd party ?

hullaballoo

A solicitor who has not yet acted in a matter can decline so to do without breaching any duty, never mind a fiduciary one. A fiduciary relationship is one that is very narrowly construed and does not apply in every case where a solicitor acts, or as in this case, refuses to act within their rights.

Raising queries on fees etc at the very outset in a straightforward looking case, the likelihood is it set off alarm bells for the solicitor who has experienced, as any professional practitioner has, the client who doesn't want to pay for any level of professional service. These are also the clients who create the most amount of work. Then they query why there were so many hours done on their straightforward case and refuse to pay, usually accompanied with threats to complain the professional to the relevant professional regulator.

If your relative had a good relationship over the course of 50 years with the solicitor and the solicitor has only changed their mind about your relative, after 50 years, once you got involved, maybe that's where you need to look rather than trying to formulate an unstateable complaint to the Law Society?

An Ri rua

gctest50 wrote:

Who is this 3rd party ?

Anyone who isn't the person who signed the solicitor instruction. Who do you think it might pertain to?

An Ri rua

hullaballoo wrote:

If your relative had a good relationship over the course of 50 years with the solicitor and the solicitor has only changed their mind about your relative, after 50 years, once you got involved, maybe that's where you need to look rather than trying to formulate an unstateable complaint to the Law Society?

They have a long loyal relationship. Like many of the last generation, they were often dictated to rather than advised and on a number of occasions were unhappy with the service supplied.
I appreciate your reply, I understand your concerns re nonpayment but when details are skimmed over, clients get nervous too. My relative is the client and always pays her bills. I have been involved before. So that's a non-issue. But I respect the levelheaded nature of your comprehensive reply.
Thank you.

gctest50

An Ri rua wrote: »

Anyone who isn't the person who signed the solicitor instruction. Who do you think it might pertain to?

An Ri rua wrote: »

Who do you think it might pertain to?

I don't know, that's why i'm asking :


Who received the email ? You ?

Sleeper12

An Ri rua wrote:

Thanks, I think she will once we chase down an answer on this. We're livid about it. She is stressed and embarrassed and has been shoddily treated. I've read that guide and, apart from my asking a series of questions in better understanding the issue and various options, all I can imagine is that she feels I may be acting nefariously?? I have to say that I am incensed and, for all the good it will do, will make a strong written case to the Law Society. I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects. Hardly a crime? To email a 3rd party that she will no longer be acting for her is also a breach of that code of conduct. I then had to inform this pensioner. That's extremely arrogant and shoddy treatment.

I'm not in the legal profession but in my own business there are times when someone asks questions in such a way that I forsee (in my mind anyway) that they might be difficult to work with. I've turned down clients that I believe will be too much trouble or cause me too much stress in dealing with them.

I'm not saying that this is the case for you but I do love my right to refuse. I can't imagine why a solicitor can't refuse too

An Ri rua

Sleeper12 wrote:

I'm not saying that this is the case for you but I do love my right to refuse. I can't imagine why a solicitor can't refuse too

Agreed. We all can understand that.
The paperwork sent out had some serious errors. Which I queried. Like my name on the invoice? Come on people, that's far from right. Its sloppy.
But it comes back to my query re a signed instruction under that code of conduct.

glic71rods46t0

gctest50 wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote: »

Anyone who isn't the person who signed the solicitor instruction. Who do you think it might pertain to?

An Ri rua wrote: »

Who do you think it might pertain to?

I don't know, that's why i'm asking :


Who received the email ?   You ?

OP received email. Solicitor presumably had OP's email address as OP sent queries to solicitor on behalf of, and with the consent of the relative. OP wishes to now regard himself as a 3rd party (rather than the relatives representative) and claims that the solicitor breached a code of conduct - rather disingenuous when you add it all up.

the_syco

An Ri rua wrote: »

They have a long loyal relationship. Like many of the last generation, they were often dictated to rather than advised and on a number of occasions were unhappy with the service supplied.

So after many years, you decided to buck the their professional relationship and you are now trying to save face with your relative by having the solicitor take the case?

Sometimes when you're in a hole, you shouldn't keep digging.

An Ri rua

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote:

Who received the email ? You ?

OP received email. Solicitor presumably had OP's email address as OP sent queries to solicitor on behalf of, and with the consent of the relative. OP wishes to now regard himself as a 3rd party (rather than the relatives representative) and claims that the solicitor breached a code of conduct - rather disingenuous when you add it all up.[/quote]


Half right. I'm not the relative's representative in any legal manner. She is compos mentis thanks. And was representing herself only last week. When she delivered her signed instruction. I followed up by email with information and was clear that she needed to confirm details by phone or in person with the client. Very much a third party.
So being accurate is not disingenuous. Its being clear and accurate.

gctest50

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

OP received email. Solicitor presumably had OP's email address as OP sent queries to solicitor on behalf of, and with the consent of the relative. OP wishes to now regard himself as a 3rd party (rather than the relatives representative) and claims that the solicitor breached a code of conduct - rather disingenuous when you add it all up.

It's all seems a bit odd - one minute it's all we this and that and then it's the old " i'm just a third party"

An Ri rua wrote: »

We're livid about it .........

I queried her fee structure and one of two other aspects...........

An Ri rua wrote: »

.........

I am trusted by an elder relative to help them.

An Ri rua wrote: »

I had queried a few issues, with her consent, as I was present at the introductory briefing meeting. It was her preference.

gctest50

An Ri rua wrote: »

Half right. I'm not the relative's representative in any legal manner. She is compos mentis thanks.

........

but yet you say :

An Ri rua wrote: »

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

I am trusted by an elder relative to help them. If I didn't, they'd get fleeced by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals sometimes.

An Ri rua wrote: »

And was representing herself only last week. When she delivered her signed instruction.

So ....... that one time, she delivered her signed instruction on her own


but she needs help at all other times so as not to be fleeced " by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals "

An Ri rua wrote: »

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

I am trusted by an elder relative to help them. If I didn't, they'd get fleeced by all sorts of providers and that includes professionals sometimes.

I would have genuine concerns about all this


.

An Ri rua

the_syco wrote:

So after many years, you decided to buck the their professional relationship and you are now trying to save face with your relative by having the solicitor take the case?

the_syco wrote:

Sometimes when you're in a hole, you shouldn't keep digging.

I don't need to save face. The relative was very clear on what was sent and is appalled by the arrogant way the firm has dealt with her valid questions. She doesn't use email. Is that so difficult to fathom?
Some of you are a rancid, cold bunch indeed. Some of you are polite and even minded.





Mod: An Rí nua - Your language is offensive. No more of that pls

glic71rods46t0

It's becoming very clear why the solicitor decided not this on. Thankfully a booming economy means you don't have to take on work for "difficult" people

An Ri rua

An Ri rua wrote: »

the_syco wrote:

So after many years, you decided to buck the their professional relationship and you are now trying to save face with your relative by having the solicitor take the case?

the_syco wrote:

Sometimes when you're in a hole, you shouldn't keep digging.

I don't need to save face. The relative was very clear on what was sent and is appalled by the arrogant way the firm has dealt with her valid questions. She doesn't use email. Is that so difficult to fathom?
Some of you are a rancid, cold bunch indeed. Some of you are polite and even minded.


Mod: Your language is offensive. No more of that pls

I apologise Mod but that post was a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote. There are a number of posters here who seem more intent on sideshows than answering the original question asked. I don't understand that at all. Fuzzy thinking at best or disingenuous at worst.
I would have thought that the question asked was fair game for a robust consumwe v solicitor discussion as both sides have valuable input. But, instead, there's a lot of lowbrow, illogical sideshow arguments being created and aspersions cast at my character.
It appears that this thread has outlived its usefulness as the Boards armchair warriors are living the closet intellectual dream once more.

An Ri rua

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

It's becoming very clear why the solicitor decided not this on. Thankfully a booming economy means you don't have to take on work for "difficult" people

And in the downturn, people choose solicitors who are consumer friendly and answer basic questions asked of them and don't just roll over or genuflect in front of them as your tone implies.
Quality solicitors, and all quality suppliers, lose business to cowboys during booms. The business cycle will teach you decency.

JustLen

The solicitor doesn't feel it is worth the money to listen to you obviously.

If you bring a car to a garage for a quote. Then start banging on about simple it is to change a clutch and how expensive their charges are - he will tell you he is too busy and direct you elsewhere.

Move on and save everyone the hassle.

An Ri rua

JustLen wrote: »

The solicitor doesn't feel it is worth the money to listen to you obviously.

If you bring a car to a garage for a quote. Then start banging on about simple it is to change a clutch and how expensive their charges are - he will tell you he is too busy and direct you elsewhere.

Move on and save everyone the hassle.

I agree completely. That's human. Except it was more like sorry you're invoicing me for a steering wheel, not a clutch and the person who owns and drives the car wants to know what's the labour in the clutch. Not entertaining questions is a sign of arrogance. The boom is well back.

glic71rods46t0

An Ri rua wrote: »

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

It's becoming very clear why the solicitor decided not this on. Thankfully a booming economy means you don't have to take on work for "difficult" people

And in the downturn, people choose solicitors who are consumer friendly and answer basic questions asked of them and don't just roll over or genuflect in front of them as your tone implies.
Quality solicitors, and all quality suppliers, lose business to cowboys during booms. The business cycle will teach you decency.

The solicitor firm is around for at least 50 years according to your earlier posts and would have gone through many business cycles. They chose not to deal with you (not your relative). You need to learn some self awareness.

An Ri rua

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote: »

w28apzcb3veoyh wrote: »

It's becoming very clear why the solicitor decided not this on. Thankfully a booming economy means you don't have to take on work for "difficult" people

And in the downturn, people choose solicitors who are consumer friendly and answer basic questions asked of them and don't just roll over or genuflect in front of them as your tone implies.
Quality solicitors, and all quality suppliers, lose business to cowboys during booms. The business cycle will teach you decency.

The solicitor firm is around for at least 50 years according to your earlier posts and would have gone through many business cycles. They chose not to deal with you (not your relative). You need to learn some self awareness.

That's incorrect, they bought over another practice, and filled with assumptions. But thanks Buddha. Work on yourself.

screamer

I know we had a similar issue when buying a property.... Not going into too much detail but it transpired the solicitor we had engaged was an old friend of the vendors and they tried some pretty unsavoury things on us...when we found out the link we understood and immediately wrote to them outlining the conflict of interest and breaking our agreement with them. We collected our file within 10 days and moved solicitor. If you don't feel your solicitor is acting in your best interests cut your losses and find one who will.

JustLen

My mate needed new brakes on his car few weeks back. Everytime he came to a stop there was an awful screeching sound.

Went into the mechanic who quoted him 60 for materials and 60 for labour.

My mate being a tight git decided to go on ebay and pick up new rear brake pads on ebay for 21.99. Cheeky mechanic charging almost treble for the parts!!

Arrives in to the garage on the monday with the pads and says "here spanner monkey, fit these pads i got and i'll pay the labour"

Mechanic laughs and says "sorry bud your car doesnt use rear pads it has drums"

Turns out he doesnt know his arse from his elbow when it comes to cars.

Now he has to use a different mechanic in future because he made a bellend of himself.

An Ri rua

That's great news @JustLen. Great story for your grandkids. You told it so well. But completely off topic here.

gctest50

An Ri rua wrote: »

That's incorrect, they bought over another practice, and filled with assumptions. But thanks Buddha. Work on yourself.

An Ri rua wrote: »

......

they bought over another practice......

That's probably your answer to why they got cold feet suddenly - someone at the practice they bought over did a bit of research


Admitting to giving false evidence to the guards and then committing pre-meditated assault probably isn't the smartest thing........https://bit.ly/2C2wCFC

https://bit.ly/2C37M8t

Originally Posted by An Ri rua

I am OT so I will end by saying I have had numerous fights (3 in particular) where I have won by very unconventional means. I called the cops, described a guy hitting someone meeting my description, then proceeded to confront and floor the guy who was intimidating others (I only strike the neck, I rarely use fists), then ran to the Gardaí as they arrived on scene and played victim. The assailant invariably gets up and gives **** to cops, and gets taken away.

Originally Posted by An Ri rua

Being a vigilante, I don't wait for people to attack me before I act


You think MMA will save you in a street fight? Not against an armed vigilante mind.

An Ri rua

I have on numerous occasions forewarned someone who I believe can take me in a fight that the consequences of doing so will mean that unless they kill me, I will return and punish them in ways not printable here


To issue it to a superior or someone who has a stake in society and a LOT to lose, like an officer, its a WALK IN THE PARK. If you genuinely intend serious harm to the person

November Golf

Op.

In my opinion.

There is a big difference between a solicitor A.) Refusing to act on a clients instructions & B.) Refusing to take a case.

Although you may disagree, its sounds as those the solicitor has refused to take the case and there is no logical or legal reason why they can not refuse.

While you may be correct that the solicitor was unprofessional in her manner. That does not mean they were inethical (which is where professional standards tend to focus on). If the solicitor charged the client a fee to do the work and then refused to take the case that would be whole different issue.

On the matter of refusing to act on a clients instructions. Ordinarily a solicitor shouldn't refuse to act on a clients instructions unless those instructions were unlawful, unethical or they have a genuine believe that the client is misleading them about relevant facts. All of which the solicitor would be perfectly within their rights to withdraw their services.

Best advice. Write it off as a bad experience and advise your relative to get a different solicitor.

JustLen

Its not great news. I dont have grandkids. And I didn't tell it that well to be fair.

What do you hope to gain? Apart from causing extra stress for your relative?

An Ri rua

Thanks @Mike Foxtrot. Very good post. Appreciated.

Received signed instruction, requested it only a week ago in fact and, after I followed up with agreed information, pulled the plug. My relative has read all of the correspondence and is very dismayed with their actions and will be leaving them.

JustLen

This is like the time you wanted to force a solicitor to act unlawfuly despite being advised previously.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057900238/1/#post107753678

An Ri rua

gctest50 wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote: »

That's incorrect, they bought over another practice, and filled with assumptions. But thanks Buddha. Work on yourself.

An Ri rua wrote: »

......

they bought over another practice......

That's probably your answer to why they got cold feet suddenly - someone at the practice they bought over did a bit of research


Admitting to giving false evidence to the guards and then committing pre-meditated assault probably isn't the smartest thing........https://bit.ly/2C2wCFC

https://bit.ly/2C37M8t

Originally Posted by An Ri rua

I am OT so I will end by saying I have had numerous fights (3 in particular) where I have won by very unconventional means. I called the cops, described a guy hitting someone meeting my description, then proceeded to confront and floor the guy who was intimidating others (I only strike the neck, I rarely use fists), then ran to the Gardaí as they arrived on scene and played victim. The assailant invariably gets up and gives **** to cops, and gets taken away.

Originally Posted by An Ri rua

Being a vigilante, I don't wait for people to attack me before I act


You think MMA will save you in a street fight? Not against an armed vigilante mind.

An Ri rua

I have on numerous occasions forewarned someone who I believe can take me in a fight that the consequences of doing so will mean that unless they kill me, I will return and punish them in ways not printable here


To issue it to a superior or someone who has a stake in society and a LOT to lose, like an officer, its a WALK IN THE PARK. If you genuinely intend serious harm to the person

You are genuinely intent on discrediting me. The practice was taken over 30 years ago, Sherlock. Long before the internet in Ireland. Your contributions are off topic and pathetic.
People say all sorts of crazy things when they get into arguments/pissing matches, particularly in a self-defence forum. I am not proud of saying such crazily aggressive things but that discussion has no bearing here.
You are some sort of vigilante Mod, it seems.

An Ri rua

JustLen wrote: »

This is like the time you wanted to force a solicitor to act unlawfuly despite being advised previously.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057900238/1/#post107753678

It would seem that you cannot read. Apparently it was perfectly doable until 2014ish when things changed. The SAME firm did it for the previous generation in my family. With one fee. So how was I forcing a solicitor to act illegally?? By asking if something is doable and then double checking that online? You have some neck to make such claims. So now if you try to get some value out of 3-4 transactions with the same solicitor, you're 'forcing them to act unlawfully' ?? Get a life.

gctest50

An Ri rua wrote: »

The practice was taken over 30 years ago, Sherlock......

I'm not telepathic now am i ?

Maybe they just got new summer employee that went looking

Whatever, something happened, soon as you got involved, the office got cold feet

An Ri rua wrote: »

There may be 2000 solicitor firms but only one has been loyally used by this pensioner since 1968 .....

An office employee may have found you didn't pay your debt :

An Ri rua wrote: »

I used to collect debts; as an account manager. Some of them were dead, some just aging. Never didn't get paid. Business debts by cowboys trading away. never domestic customers. I wouldn't chase them. Seems I may have stepped over the line on a number of occasions, based on what's been posted above. Thank God that era of my career is a decade over... Debt is a shared problem. As much the problem of the company who supplies it and poor management controls. Shame on the greedy as much as the stupid.

I only ever welched on one debt in my life and it still causes me to blush with shame when I think of it. It was for a small start-up limited company of mine and the creditor was initially a telecoms company.


What I did was inform the 3rd party, who were aggressively and repeatedly calling me, by email that I acknowledged the general debt and wanted to know the exact details of the amount now owed and all related details. They unfortunately didn't answer that direct request within the legally prescribed limit (they kept leaving voicemails but never addressed this direct query) and when the time limit expired, I emailed them again and informed them that legally the debt had now expired (I had been released from it). I cannot recollect the exact law that covered this but I did send the code to them when I explained that their 'quest' was now over. I then took their call. They went crazy! But that was their LAST call....

Perhaps some of you legal eagles will know the piece of law I used to release myself from this debt. I should add again that I was / am very embarrassed by this action as I believe that non-payment of debts is a low activity. But I was INCENSED by the aggressive actions of this 3rd party and, seeing as they now owned the debt, I justified my actions to myself. Not my proudest moment. But it was legally valid.

glic71rods46t0

An Ri rua wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote: »

That's incorrect, they bought over another practice, and filled with assumptions. But thanks Buddha. Work on yourself.

An Ri rua wrote: »

......

they bought over another practice......

That's probably your answer to why they got cold feet suddenly - someone at the practice they bought over did a bit of research


Admitting to giving false evidence to the guards and then committing pre-meditated assault probably isn't the smartest thing........https://bit.ly/2C2wCFC

https://bit.ly/2C37M8t

Originally Posted by An Ri rua

I am OT so I will end by saying I have had numerous fights (3 in particular) where I have won by very unconventional means. I called the cops, described a guy hitting someone meeting my description, then proceeded to confront and floor the guy who was intimidating others (I only strike the neck, I rarely use fists), then ran to the Gardaí as they arrived on scene and played victim. The assailant invariably gets up and gives **** to cops, and gets taken away.

Originally Posted by An Ri rua

Being a vigilante, I don't wait for people to attack me before I act


You think MMA will save you in a street fight? Not against an armed vigilante mind.

An Ri rua

I have on numerous occasions forewarned someone who I believe can take me in a fight that the consequences of doing so will mean that unless they kill me, I will return and punish them in ways not printable here


To issue it to a superior or someone who has a stake in society and a LOT to lose, like an officer, its a WALK IN THE PARK. If you genuinely intend serious harm to the person

You are genuinely intent on discrediting me. The practice was taken over 30 years ago, Sherlock. Long before the internet in Ireland. Your contributions are off topic and pathetic.
People say all sorts of crazy things when they get into arguments/pissing matches, particularly in a self-defence forum. I am not proud of saying such crazily aggressive things but that discussion has no bearing here.
You are some sort of vigilante Mod, it seems.

Your posts from other threads are relevant. It says a lot about you and your apparent inability to abide by the norms of civilised society. It appears that the solicitor had a lucky escape

An Ri rua

gctest50 wrote: »

An Ri rua wrote: »

The practice was taken over 30 years ago, Sherlock......

I'm not telepathic now am i ?

Maybe they just got new summer employee that went looking

Whatever, something happened, soon as you got involved, the office got cold feet

An Ri rua wrote: »

There may be 2000 solicitor firms but only one has been loyally used by this pensioner since 1968 .....

An Ri rua wrote: »

I used to collect debts; as an account manager. Some of them were dead, some just aging. Never didn't get paid. Business debts by cowboys trading away. never domestic customers. I wouldn't chase them. Seems I may have stepped over the line on a number of occasions, based on what's been posted above. Thank God that era of my career is a decade over... Debt is a shared problem. As much the problem of the company who supplies it and poor management controls. Shame on the greedy as much as the stupid.

I only ever welched on one debt in my life and it still causes me to blush with shame when I think of it. It was for a small start-up limited company of mine and the creditor was initially a telecoms company. What I did was inform the 3rd party, who were aggressively and repeatedly calling me, by email that I acknowledged the general debt and wanted to know the exact details of the amount now owed and all related details. They unfortunately didn't answer that direct request within the legally prescribed limit (they kept leaving voicemails but never addressed this direct query) and when the time limit expired, I emailed them again and informed them that legally the debt had now expired (I had been released from it). I cannot recollect the exact law that covered this but I did send the code to them when I explained that their 'quest' was now over. I then took their call. They went crazy! But that was their LAST call....

Perhaps some of you legal eagles will know the piece of law I used to release myself from this debt. I should add again that I was / am very embarrassed by this action as I believe that non-payment of debts is a low activity. But I was INCENSED by the aggressive actions of this 3rd party and, seeing as they now owned the debt, I justified my actions to myself. Not my proudest moment. But it was legally valid.

What's your point with these off topic dredged up posts? I don't believe you have once attempted to answer my opening post. Mods will decide who is using Boards correctly here. I received warnings for those loopy posts in 2012. What do you want? A Medal for being able to search Boards?

I do believe you are supposed to stay in topic. Time will tell.

gctest50

An Ri rua wrote: »

What's your point with these off topic dredged up posts? I don't believe you have once attempted to answer my opening post. Mods will decide who is using Boards correctly here. I received warnings for those loopy posts in 2012. What do you want? A Medal for being able to search Boards?

I do believe you are supposed to stay in topic. Time will tell.

It's on topic :

Everything ok for 50 years,

An Ri rua wrote: »

There may be 2000 solicitor firms but only one has been loyally used by this pensioner since 1968 .....

you came along and ...........

An Ri rua wrote: »

Said they'd suddenly become too busy, for the foreseeable future, and she could collect her paperwork at reception.
I had queried a few issues,

Unpaid debts can become known sometimes

An Ri rua wrote: »

I used to collect debts; as an account manager. Some of them were dead, some just aging. Never didn't get paid. Business debts by cowboys trading away. never domestic customers. I wouldn't chase them. Seems I may have stepped over the line on a number of occasions, based on what's been posted above. Thank God that era of my career is a decade over... Debt is a shared problem. As much the problem of the company who supplies it and poor management controls. Shame on the greedy as much as the stupid.

I only ever welched on one debt in my life and it still causes me to blush with shame when I think of it. It was for a small start-up limited company of mine and the creditor was initially a telecoms company.


What I did was inform the 3rd party, who were aggressively and repeatedly calling me, by email that I acknowledged the general debt and wanted to know the exact details of the amount now owed and all related details. They unfortunately didn't answer that direct request within the legally prescribed limit (they kept leaving voicemails but never addressed this direct query) and when the time limit expired, I emailed them again and informed them that legally the debt had now expired (I had been released from it). I cannot recollect the exact law that covered this but I did send the code to them when I explained that their 'quest' was now over. I then took their call. They went crazy! But that was their LAST call....

Perhaps some of you legal eagles will know the piece of law I used to release myself from this debt. I should add again that I was / am very embarrassed by this action as I believe that non-payment of debts is a low activity. But I was INCENSED by the aggressive actions of this 3rd party and, seeing as they now owned the debt, I justified my actions to myself. Not my proudest moment. But it was legally valid.

and no-one likes to be the second one caught out

An Ri rua

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057083888

Post 12
Please be civil
There is an expectation that every member endeavours to treat others cordially on this site. This forum is no exception.

Certainly, arguments can become heated and there is a temptation to post a vitriolic reply but it is not necessary nor welcome.

Arguments ought to be based on reason, logic and the law.

beauf

Its never a good sign if you query someone on something, (we have to assume there's nothing more to it than that) and they immediately roll the shutters and close ranks.

On the flip side, I don't think any further action will bring you any results. I think it will just cause more distress to you and yours. I think taking your business elsewhere says all you need to say.