Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

Compo82

I think what Pat is trying to say is that lawyers are for people like him they're involved in an intellectual dispute and not people injured through no fault of their own.

Victor

The only objection I have to the solicitors letters is they come across as poorly written. One would expect something a bit more polished.

godtabh wrote: »

My wife has one from an accident last year. Not sure how they got her address.

Likely from the other party (given by your wife) or from the Gardad.

The DayDream

I worked there once. I hope they lose every single case.

Calahonda52

The DayDream wrote: »

I worked there once. I hope they lose every single case.

And?

Compo82

In fairness I don't think this is a set against Pat. All claim letters are genric. The big issue for Pat with this is that's it's a business cost he has no control over. I'd say Pat has also left himself open for another cause of action by releasing this, so the solicitors will be delighted. For a man who had his workers minimum wage or just above and makes employees pay for their uniforms, he can hardly be holding the moral ground here.

listermint

Compo82 wrote: »

I think what Pat is trying to say is that lawyers are for people like him they're involved in an intellectual dispute and not people injured through no fault of their own.

The irony of your username is not lost on me

Odelay

listermint wrote: »

The irony of your username is not lost on me

And look who thanked your post..... they’re all in here getting ideas..

coylemj

You can say what you like about Pat and low wages, unhealthy food etc. But he has enough CCTV clips to show that false and exaggerated claims represent a major headache for someone in his line of business.

And the point of that letter is that ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers churn out those letters like they were printing money.

Dempo1

Is this same Mc Donagh who refused access to CCTV in a recent case? The same chancer who if he could would have his own CCTV channel.

Whilst therrs no doubting some dodgy claims, even he knows its not up to him where a claim is lodged and writing an open letter to a solicitor is just childish.

Personally I can't abide the man, by all accounts he'd have the national minimum wage at €3.50 p/h, he's also by all accounts less than pleasant to work for and whilst I'm at it, Supermacs is utter S*****

Ash.J.Williams

Effects wrote: »

What's wrong with him having your home address?

He’s a nasty piece of Work is why , you don’t him at your door, however he’s completely right in these cases

partyguinness

...because Letter before Action and indeed the Particulars of Claim tend to be 99% pro forma.

Robbo

Dempo1 wrote: »

Is this same Mc Donagh who refused access to CCTV in a recent case? The same chancer who if he could would have his own CCTV channel.

Fought voluntary discovery and an order of a County Registrar all the way to the High Court....to stop a plaintiff getting CCTV which she was absolutely entitled to under the GDPR.

It's not the first time Supermacs haven't been keen on CCTV that wasn't entirely flattering. In this case discovery was fought because it quite clearly showed what the bouncer got up to.

partyguinness wrote: »

...because Letter before Action and indeed the Particulars of Claim tend to be 99% pro forma.

I'd imagine that this is the first time McDonagh has been sued such is the tone of perfomative naivety in his open letter.

The DayDream

boardise wrote: »

Delighted Pat McD is exposing these solicitors for the extortionate bullies that they are.

Whereas I'm delighted to see the extortionate bully Pat McD, a fast food fat cat who begrudges his workers even the national min wage get stung for a few bob.

Dempo1

Robbo wrote: »

Fought voluntary discovery and an order of a County Registrar all the way to the High Court....to stop a plaintiff getting CCTV which she was absolutely entitled to under the GDPR.

It's not the first time Supermacs haven't been keen on CCTV that wasn't entirely flattering. In this case discovery was fought because it quite clearly showed what the bouncer got up to.

I'd imagine that this is the first time McDonagh has been sued such is the tone of perfomative naivety in his open letter.

Yes, that's the one, Mr Mc Donagh needs to understand what's good for the goose, not always good for the gander.

He seems to have an obsession with solicitors rightly presenting cases on behalf of clients, I can just imagine this odious buffoon sitting at home with a wall of monitors, watching everything. Quite sad really

Dempo1

mikemac2 wrote: »

Having read the three pages, why so nasty?

Surely there is a plain speaking way to write a letter asking for a reply without the threats

Maybe I'm a sensitive soul The letter is pure intimidation

I guess the primary issue is he shouldn't be writing to anyone, particularly if proceedings or notice of same has commenced, unless of course he foolishly intends defending claims in court himself which is highly unlikely.

He just comes across as a petulant bully, bored, obsessed and delusional.

Worth pointing out from an earlier issue I raised, Mc Donagh was very fond of releasing cctv footage to local and national media, indeed I'm surprised he hasn't his own YouTube channel and yet he throws GDPR obligations at defendants seeking access to CCTV

I'm not disputing there's dodgy claims, every business has them, this buffoon would have us believe every customer of supermacs is at it.

Eggs For Dinner

I believe Pat McDonagh has a high voluntary excess on his liability policy, which means he is free to spend his own money defending claims if he feels they are bogus or exaggerated. He benefits from a win and carries the can for a loss. He maintains it is cost effective.We're in this mess because Sean Quinn used to buckle and throw money at the 1st sight of these letters. It's something Liberty have carried on. That fed the beast and we're only now trying to reverse the damage.

He's right not to release the CCTV to the claimant until he has to. It's a regular occurrence for a solicitor to amend their details of claim to suit what they see on the video rather than press on with the version of events their client has given them. Insurers love holding on to CCTV as long as they can where a scam is obvious as it racks up legal fees the claimant can't recover when a claim is thrown out.

ohnonotgmail

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I believe Pat McDonagh has a high voluntary excess on his liability policy, which means he is free to spend his own money defending claims if he feels they are bogus or exaggerated. He benefits from a win and carries the can for a loss. He maintains it is cost effective.We're in this mess because Sean Quinn used to buckle and throw money at the 1st sight of these letters. It's something Liberty have carried on. That fed the beast and we're only now trying to reverse the damage.

He's right not to release the CCTV to the claimant until he has to. It's a regular occurrence for a solicitor to amend their details of claim to suit what they see on the video rather than press on with the version of events their client has given them. Insurers love holding on to CCTV as long as they can where a scam is obvious as it racks up legal fees the claimant can't recover when a claim is thrown out.

you mean a solicitor will amend a claim to reflect what actually happened? the unconscionable swines.

Eggs For Dinner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean a solicitor will amend a claim to reflect what actually happened? the unconscionable swines.

In effect, they will see a flaw in what their client will have told them happened if it's a scam and try and scramble some sort of result from the ashes. Better to let them dig a big hole for themselves. If events are straight forward, the CCTV will be shared at discovery anyway.

coylemj

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean a solicitor will amend a claim to reflect what actually happened? the unconscionable swines.

I can well undersand why solicitors are anxious to see the CCTV. Otherwise, they have to rely on exaggerated and (often) concocted stories provided by their indigent clients. Who have nothing to lose so they dress up the story as far as they can. Then it's the solicitor who takes the hit on the legal costs when his client is exposed as a liar and the case is thrown out.

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

We're in this mess because Sean Quinn used to buckle and throw money at the 1st sight of these letters. It's something Liberty have carried on. That fed the beast and we're only now trying to reverse the damage.

We're in a similar mess in relation to motor insurance and soft tissue (aka whiplash) injuries. Except you can't blame Quinn and Liberty alone for that situation - all of the insurers have 'fed the beast'.

ohnonotgmail

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

In effect, they will see a flaw in what their client will have told them happened if it's a scam and try and scramble some sort of result from the ashes. Better to let them dig a big hole for themselves. If events are straight forward, the CCTV will be shared at discovery anyway.

people have a right to see the cctv footage. defendants dont get to decide to hold on to it as a strategy.

Eggs For Dinner

coylemj wrote: »

We're in a similar mess in relation to motor insurance and soft tissue (aka whiplash) injuries. Except you can't blame Quinn and Liberty alone for that situation - all of the insurers have 'fed the beast'.

You can lay the problem with motor and liability insurance squarely at Sen Quinn's door for the reasons I outlined. Other insurers followed the model and became part of the problem because they were able to subsidise losses with investment income, which is no longer there

Dempo1

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Very interesting article in the Irish Times regarding Planning objections for a fast food outlet near Suprrmacs Eyre Square.

I personally would never enter a Supermacs or other take away again..and I don't eat expensive fast food as it contributes to Heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases. I much prefer home made food.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-who-objected-to-rival-fast-food-outlet-works-for-supermac-s-1.3611771

I also really objected to the way Mc Donagh referred to relatively low -paid employees on Covid 19 payments as: " like winning the Lotto". When he himself is a multi-millionaire.

Well put!

lawrencesummers

Dempo1 wrote: »

Is this same Mc Donagh who refused access to CCTV in a recent case? The same chancer who if he could would have his own CCTV channel.

Whilst therrs no doubting some dodgy claims, even he knows its not up to him where a claim is lodged and writing an open letter to a solicitor is just childish.

Personally I can't abide the man, by all accounts he'd have the national minimum wage at €3.50 p/h, he's also by all accounts less than pleasant to work for and whilst I'm at it, Supermacs is utter S*****

I’m no fan of his food.

But he is a sole voice advocating a much needed change to the system of compo

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m no fan of his food.

But he is a sole voice advocating a much needed change to the system of compo

Indeed but this letter didnt aid his cause. A large portion of it was pure rubbish.

Im sure Supermacs absolutely never use templates for each letter they send :rolleyes:

Mimon

Agree with him on this but what is he doing about all his rubbish strewn along the roads near me since his new place opened? Tax on takeaways ringfenced for rubbish cleanup needs to come in.

Dempo1

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m no fan of his food.

But he is a sole voice advocating a much needed change to the system of compo

I agree that he's certainly vocal about compo culture but his obsessive crusade is beginning to sound like the boy that cried wolf and has become tiresome. There's not a business in the country that deals with the general public that doesn't have claims, the difference is they follow proper and appropriate procedures. Mc Donagh on the other hand goes on various media outlets spouting utter nonsense almost giving an impression all his customers are putting in dodgy claims, he further uses same outlets releasing (when it's suits) CCTV footage, amusing yes, but hardly a true reflection of the over all claims culture.

His occasional extraordinary statements will hardly endear him to the majority, especially all those "lucky PUP recepients who he believes won the lottery", an odious buffoon. Maybe when his hotel's reopen, he might have less time to be sitting at home writing stupid letters to Solicitors and hopefully stop with his childish nonsense.

Calahonda52

Dempo1 wrote: »

I agree that he's certainly vocal about compo culture but his obsessive crusade is beginning to sound like the boy that cried wolf and has become tiresome. There's not a business in the country that deals with the general public that doesn't have claims, the difference is they follow proper and appropriate procedures. Mc Donagh on the other hand goes on various media outlets spouting utter nonsense almost giving an impression all his customers are putting in dodgy claims, he further uses same outlets releasing (when it's suits) CCTV footage, amusing yes, but hardly a true reflection of the over all claims culture.

His occasional extraordinary statements will hardly endear him to the majority, especially all those "lucky PUP recepients who he believes won the lottery", an odious buffoon. Maybe when his hotel's reopen, he might have less time to be sitting at home writing stupid letters to Solicitors and hopefully stop with his childish nonsense.

Come back when all of you KBW/ACE's have achieved just half of what he has achieved in terms of tax paid, jobs created and trademark battles won
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/supermac-s-wins-trademark-battle-with-mcdonald-s-1.3758704
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551

ohnonotgmail

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Come back when all of you KBW/ACE's have achieved just half of what he has achieved in terms of tax paid, jobs created and trademark battles won
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/supermac-s-wins-trademark-battle-with-mcdonald-s-1.3758704
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551

nothing he has done makes him immune from criticism.

Dempo1

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Come back when all of you KBW/ACE's have achieved just half of what he has achieved in terms of tax paid, jobs created and trademark battles won
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/supermac-s-wins-trademark-battle-with-mcdonald-s-1.3758704
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551

O Dear God, you are aware 90% of his employees are either on zero hour contracts and or minimum wage, I'm really so grateful as I'm sure his employees are.

As for the Trade Mark nonsense, who actually cares, a vanity project, can we expect to see a chain of awful Supermacs around Europe? I think not, he'd really learn something about competition then and perhaps Standards