Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

ohnonotgmail · 19-04-2021 7:31pm

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 · 19-04-2021 7:52pm

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 · 20-04-2021 8:19am

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 · 20-04-2021 10:57am

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

20-04-2021 11:02am

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 · 20-04-2021 11:03am

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 · 20-04-2021 11:10am

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 · 20-04-2021 11:24am

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 · 20-04-2021 11:27am

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 · 20-04-2021 11:36am

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

The DayDream · 20-04-2021 12:25pm

Imagine thinking Pat McDonagh built Supermac's so that he could achieve his dreams of creating jobs and enriching the Revenue Dept.

Anyway the one I worked in not a single manager and probably only 25% of the staff in total were Irish.

lawrencesummers · 20-04-2021 12:30pm

Tis easy spot the solicitors in this thread.

Grolschevik · 20-04-2021 12:31pm

Calahonda52 wrote: »

all of you KBW/ACE's

???

Ash.J.Williams · 20-04-2021 12:35pm

It’s hard to side with people who send objection letters from dead people, but I’ll side with him on compo culture

ohnonotgmail · 20-04-2021 12:42pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Tis easy spot the solicitors in this thread.

I bet you couldn't.

20-04-2021 10:14pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Tis easy spot the solicitors in this thread.

Because they know the subject and don't talk ****e ?

lawrencesummers · 21-04-2021 4:13pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Because they know the subject and don't talk ****e ?

Because they know the system and don’t want to change it.

21-04-2021 6:49pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Because they know the system and don’t want to change it.

They still know the law and the system though.

lawrencesummers · 22-04-2021 7:15am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They still know the law and the system though.

That’s what I said.

They know it. It’s the gravy train that keeps on giving.

There is no interest in changing it because that would have financial implications for all the snouts feasting at the trough.

Peregrinus · 22-04-2021 8:15am

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s what I said.

They know it. It’s the gravy train that keeps on giving.

There is no interest in changing it because that would have financial implications for all the snouts feasting at the trough.

Not at all. Legal change is generally good for lawyers; it makes more work.

In this case, McDonagh is complaining about the standard "letter before proceedings" that he gets from solicitors when a claim is initiated, which basically says "our client is going to bring a claim against you. Better call in your insurers". He complains that the letters are identical; that the don't set out details of what happened, of what injuries were suffered, of what negligence or other wrong is alleged, or of what evidence is going to be produced. He complains that solicitors won't really engage with issues like this until he, too has enaged a solicitor (or his insurers want).

What he wants, obviously, is for solicitors to have to write a much fuller opening letter, setting out a great deal more information, and the for them toe enage directly with him rather than with his lawyers. But this would obviously put costs up; there'd be much mor work involved in writing the initial letter, and much much more work involved in dealilng directly with lay defendants who are not supported by legal advisers. Ad of course, the more work they do, the more solicitors charge. So, if the change McDonagh called for were made, there would be more work for lawyers and they would earn more money.

Remember, McDonagh's object here is not to reduce lawyers' work or lawyer's earnings. It's to reduce the amount he pays out in damages, or in insurance for damages.

whippet · 22-04-2021 8:19am

Peregrinus wrote: »

What he wants, obviously, is for solicitors to have to write a much fuller opening letter, setting out a great deal more information, and the for them toe enage directly with him rather than with his lawyers. But this would obviously put costs up; there'd be much mor work involved in writing the initial letter, and much much more work involved in dealilng directly with lay defendants who are not supported by legal advisers. Ad of course, the more work they do, the more solicitors charge. So, if the change McDonagh called for were made, there would be more work for lawyers and they would earn more money.

but that would be costs on the applicants side - and if it is a valid successful claim this will be borne out with the requisite compensation.

Why should the recipient have to bear unnecessary legal costs up front for a claim that might not go anywhere?

Why the need to bring in legal teams on all sides without even knowing the context of the matter at hand?

Peregrinus · 22-04-2021 8:27am

whippet wrote: »

but that would be costs on the applicants side - and if it is a valid successful claim this will be borne out with the requisite compensation.

Why should the recipient have to bear unnecessary legal costs up front for a claim that might not go anywhere?

Why the need to bring in legal teams on all sides without even knowing the context of the matter at hand?

But equally, why should the complainant have to bear unnecessary legal costs up front for a matter that might settle as soon as a lawyer or an insurer looks at it?

Regardless of whether each claim is successful or unsuccessful, if your objective is reducing legal costs then front-loading all the legal work is pretty much the opposite of the strategy you should be pursuing. McDonagh wants all the evidence laid out; that normally doesn't happen until the trial, and its avoided entirely in the large majority of cases, because they settle or are withdrawn before trial.

The lawyers will be quids in on this scheme. Which, of course, may deliver other benefits that McDonagh values, or might be desirable for other reasons. I'm just pointing out that lawrencesummer's view that "lawyers will always oppose change" out of self-interest is misconceived since change is, generally, more good for lawyers than bad. And this change in particular would be.

lawrencesummers · 22-04-2021 8:34am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all. Legal change is generally good for lawyers; it makes more work.

In this case, McDonagh is complaining about the standard "letter before proceedings" that he gets from solicitors when a claim is initiated, which basically says "our client is going to bring a claim against you. Better call in your insurers". He complains that the letters are identical; that the don't set out details of what happened, of what injuries were suffered, of what negligence or other wrong is alleged, or of what evidence is going to be produced. He complains that solicitors won't really engage with issues like this until he, too has enaged a solicitor (or his insurers want).

What he wants, obviously, is for solicitors to have to write a much fuller opening letter, setting out a great deal more information, and the for them toe enage directly with him rather than with his lawyers. But this would obviously put costs up; there'd be much mor work involved in writing the initial letter, and much much more work involved in dealilng directly with lay defendants who are not supported by legal advisers. Ad of course, the more work they do, the more solicitors charge. So, if the change McDonagh called for were made, there would be more work for lawyers and they would earn more money.

Remember, McDonagh's object here is not to reduce lawyers' work or lawyer's earnings. It's to reduce the amount he pays out in damages, or in insurance for damages.

Don’t mind your nonsense. We all know most of these claims are bollocyaks and the solicitors who do them work on a no win no fee basis.

If it creates more work for the solicitors in the instance of them offering a no win no fee service then they have to absorb those costs themselves in the unlikely event that a claim be unsuccessful

If solicitors get caught a few times for this work and no win then they will think twice about taking on **** cases, but as it stands any Joe soap can make a claim and any solicitor will send off their standard letter to start the claim in the hope that it enters into a quick insurance settlement.

arccosh · 22-04-2021 8:39am

Effects wrote: »

Or maybe he just wants to offer you a direct settlement, and avoid scummy solicitors making money out of both him and you?

Is that possible?

Worked in retail for over 6 years....

This is how my management always dealt with claims...

-X happens
-Manager gets complaint and takes details
-Gives them a call later in the day to see things are ok
-Makes enquiries with staff and looks at cctv
-if there is even a semblance of an issue, offer them X (X is dependant on the severity)
-They accept and sign something basically saying they won't sue, has been with and without solicitors present, it was up to the claimee
-everyone is happy

If it was something that happened week s before, and the first management heard about it was via solicitors mail, they went in guns blazing

one of our regular customers got a weekend golf trip for slipping on some spilled goods.... he wasn't hurt or anything, and actually didn't really make a complaint, just said he slipped and someone should clean it up, when we looked at it on CCTV, it looked like an awful fall ... I don't think he signed anything either, it was almost quid pro quo, but that's what happens when you engage with regular customers

lawrencesummers · 22-04-2021 8:41am

arccosh wrote: »

Worked in retail for over 6 years....

This is how my management always dealt with claims...

-X happens
-Manager gets complaint and takes details
-Gives them a call later in the day to see things are ok
-Makes enquiries with staff and looks at cctv
-if there is even a semblance of an issue, offer them X (X is dependant on the severity)
-They accept and sign something basically saying they won't sue, has been with and without solicitors present, it was up to the claimee
-everyone is happy

If it was something that happened week s before, and the first management heard about it was via solicitors mail, they went in guns blazing

one of our regular customers got a weekend golf trip for slipping on some spilled goods.... he wasn't hurt or anything, and actually didn't really make a complaint, just said he slipped and someone should clean it up, when we looked at it on CCTV, it looked like an awful fall ... I don't think he signed anything either, it was almost quid pro quo, but that's what happens when you engage with regular customers

That kind of thing doesn’t really help any of the legal profession get paid.

arccosh · 22-04-2021 8:43am

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That kind of thing doesn’t really help any of the legal profession get paid.

we used to wipe away our tears of sadness with the money we saved

whippet · 22-04-2021 11:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Regardless of whether each claim is successful or unsuccessful, if your objective is reducing legal costs then front-loading all the legal work is pretty much the opposite of the strategy you should be pursuing. McDonagh wants all the evidence laid out; that normally doesn't happen until the trial, and its avoided entirely in the large majority of cases, because they settle or are withdrawn before trial.
.

this is the bit that has stuck out to me as a non-legal person.

So just because something is 'normally' done this way means that change is a bad thing. Why is a defendant wrong in wanting to know what he is being accused of unless he engages a legal professional / insurance company.

Surely it's not unreasonable for someone to tell someone what they are accusing them of - without the assumption of having to involve insurance / legal teams.

It's clear that McDonagh wants to fight a lot of these claims and that is his right - hence his 'self-insure' policy (I'm assuming this is just a large excess rather than real self insurance) ... so isn't it reasonable for him to be given the full details when requested?

arccosh · 22-04-2021 11:32am

you're also given evidence before the trial.... how else do you think anyone has a chance to defend themselves

ohnonotgmail · 22-04-2021 11:45am

whippet wrote: »

this is the bit that has stuck out to me as a non-legal person.

So just because something is 'normally' done this way means that change is a bad thing. Why is a defendant wrong in wanting to know what he is being accused of unless he engages a legal professional / insurance company.

Surely it's not unreasonable for someone to tell someone what they are accusing them of - without the assumption of having to involve insurance / legal teams.

It's clear that McDonagh wants to fight a lot of these claims and that is his right - hence his 'self-insure' policy (I'm assuming this is just a large excess rather than real self insurance) ... so isn't it reasonable for him to be given the full details when requested?

who has suggested that he wouldn't be given full details when requested? the letter he published is only the initial letter.

whippet · 22-04-2021 1:00pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who has suggested that he wouldn't be given full details when requested? the letter he published is only the initial letter.

that is what I read in to this comment from Peregrinus

McDonagh wants all the evidence laid out; that normally doesn't happen until the trial, and its avoided entirely in the large majority of cases, because they settle or are withdrawn before trial.

In essence - I took that to mean that 'normally' the defendant has not got the right to expect to get the applicants evidence before legal teams are engaged.

In otherwords - we don't want to talk to you - just your legal team. While this might be rooted in a frustration of dealing with non-legal speaking lay people. It does not lend to the opportunity to a defendant making their own judgement call as to if it needs legal support from their side.

McDonagh (rightly or wrongly) has been very outspoken about what he sees as bogus claims. He wants to know what the actual cause of action is before deciding if he needs to engage expensive legal representation - as regardless of the outcome of the case he will not be reimbursed for his legal costs as we all know too well

22-04-2021 8:32pm

arccosh wrote: »

you're also given evidence before the trial.... how else do you think anyone has a chance to defend themselves

You're given the facts of the claim very early on but not necessary the evidence. Both sides go through the evidence gathering stage by hiring doctors/engineers etc and seeking copies of CCTV and medical records, if necessary.

Each side only exchange their evidence quite late in the day. There was a move towards Court appointed experts recently enough to save on the duplication costs, no idea where it's currently at.

As an aside, I have to say I'm impressed that so many people have bought up fully the spiel put forward by Insurance companies in the last decade, that a huge % of claims are dodgy, almost to a point where taking a case is the "wrong" thing to do. I guess if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be so prevalent...

whippet · 22-04-2021 10:30pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As an aside, I have to say I'm impressed that so many people have bought up fully the spiel put forward by Insurance companies in the last decade, that a huge % of claims are dodgy, almost to a point where taking a case is the "wrong" thing to do. I guess if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be so prevalent...

Actually .... what ‘people’ are concerned with and are invested in is the fact that the costs of insurance in Ireland is massively expensive and is a massive burden on most businesses ... to the extent that some have to close and it is the consumer who ends up picking up the tab for the costs.

We all can read court reports of massive claims for what appear to be minor injuries or cases where it’s hard to believe that the business had any or very little fault in the case.

So .. yes it is acceptable that as stakeholders in society and the economy that we can question the ‘normal’ practices of how these cases are initiated, pursued and dealt with. And it’s not acceptable for anyone in the legal profession to dismiss valid questions with a condescending tone as we are not part of the profession who deal with these cases.

As you are aware the same people questioning the legal profession are also questioning the insurance companies.

23-04-2021 10:11am

whippet wrote: »

Actually .... what ‘people’ are concerned with and are invested in is the fact that the costs of insurance in Ireland is massively expensive and is a massive burden on most businesses ... to the extent that some have to close and it is the consumer who ends up picking up the tab for the costs.

We all can read court reports of massive claims for what appear to be minor injuries or cases where it’s hard to believe that the business had any or very little fault in the case.

So .. yes it is acceptable that as stakeholders in society and the economy that we can question the ‘normal’ practices of how these cases are initiated, pursued and dealt with. And it’s not acceptable for anyone in the legal profession to dismiss valid questions with a condescending tone as we are not part of the profession who deal with these cases.

As you are aware the same people questioning the legal profession are also questioning the insurance companies.

And are the Insurance companies answering? Certainly didn't mean to be condescending, it's just I find it interesting that people will take the views of a multi-millionaire restauranteur and a massively profitable insurance industry as gospel, tbh, but then again, both have run high profile media campaigns about how it's the mean little guys taking claims against them that has them broke etc.

whippet · 23-04-2021 11:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

And are the Insurance companies answering? Certainly didn't mean to be condescending, it's just I find it interesting that people will take the views of a multi-millionaire restauranteur and a massively profitable insurance industry as gospel, tbh, but then again, both have run high profile media campaigns about how it's the mean little guys taking claims against them that has them broke etc.

this thread is about the interactions of the legal profession - it's whataboutary to ask here what the insurance industry's role is.

I'm not taking anyone's word as gospel - I am simply asking if it is necessary for legal teams to be engaged from the outset - and so far the best answer I've gotten is that it is 'normal' for this to happen.

BattleCorp · 23-04-2021 1:41pm

whippet wrote: »

I'm not taking anyone's word as gospel - I am simply asking if it is necessary for legal teams to be engaged from the outset - and so far the best answer I've gotten is that it is 'normal' for this to happen.

It's not necessary for the legal teams to be engaged from the outset. The plaintiff doesn't need a legal team to go to PIAB. It's perfectly acceptable for an injured party not to consult a solicitor and to fill in the PIAB application form themselves.

If it's a minor injury or if liability is not in question, the claims adjustor for the insurance company (or the self-insured party) can make a call as to whether or not to involve their legal team. They can decide to let PIAB assess the claim and they can then decide to accept whatever PIAB award for the injury. So, in some cases, there's no need for a legal team to be involved on the defence side. There is very much an need for them in others.

My view is (and I help defend personal injury claims for my employer) is that if someone is injured, they'd be foolish not to engage a solicitor from the outset.

So, to answer your question, it's not necessary to involve legal teams in every single claim but it does normally benefit the injured party.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-04-2021 5:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

As an aside, I have to say I'm impressed that so many people have bought up fully the spiel put forward by Insurance companies in the last decade, that a huge % of claims are dodgy, almost to a point where taking a case is the "wrong" thing to do. I guess if advertising didn't work it wouldn't be so prevalent...

Ah come on, there can only be one explanation why my car insurance is three times the cost of my motorbike insurance. You can only carry one passenger on a motorbike, and you'd have to be pretty mad to stage a motorbike accident. But there is easy money to be made from staging car accidents and it carries very little legal risk.

Hotblack Desiato · 23-04-2021 5:07pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm sure it is. It is also possible that he might intimidate you into accepting a lowball offer. why take the risk?

So what? You can (and probably should) always send any such correspondence to your solicitor and/or insurer.

Jeez people are making it sound like he's turning up on people's doorsteps with a bunch of heavies, or something.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

private motorists would never get such a letter. their insurance company would get any letters regarding claims directly.

Only time I ever had to make a PI claim was for a motor accident 100% the fault of the other party. At the start of the process my solicitor instructed me to write a personal letter to the other driver putting her on notice that I would be claiming. I presume she forwarded this to her insurer. They made me a settlement offer which I accepted.

Victor · 25-04-2021 4:49pm

Just for clarity, will this solicitors letter be the first that a defendant hears of the matter? Surely there should be a 'my client informs me he injured himself when he fell down the wobbly stairs in your building on 1 April 2021 at noon' letter first?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah come on, there can only be one explanation why my car insurance is three times the cost of my motorbike insurance. You can only carry one passenger on a motorbike, and you'd have to be pretty mad to stage a motorbike accident. But there is easy money to be made from staging car accidents and it carries very little legal risk.

In fairness, it is relatively rare for anyone to be seriously injured or killed in a collision involving a motorcycle, other than motorcyclists.

0lddog · 25-04-2021 6:36pm

Victor wrote: »

...In fairness, it is relatively rare for anyone to be seriously injured or killed in a collision involving a motorcycle, other than motorcyclists.

... terrible record attached to pillion riders

( have to admit I cant see what this has to do with the thread topic )

ratracer · 27-04-2021 2:03pm

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-240000-claim-of-fourwho-went-to-solicitor-before-their-doctors-40359446.html

Reading this bullsh1t claim in the paper reminded me of this thread, and why Pat McDonagh is 100% correct in challenging ambulance chasing solicitors! I'm surprised, but glad to see, that judges are finally seeing sense and facts in these type of case.

Would this solicitor be held to account to the bar or anyone else for deliberately trying to mislead the case, or the doctor, who had previously worked for the firm?

BattleCorp · 27-04-2021 2:19pm

ratracer wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-240000-claim-of-fourwho-went-to-solicitor-before-their-doctors-40359446.html

Reading this bullsh1t claim in the paper reminded me of this thread, and why Pat McDonagh is 100% correct in challenging ambulance chasing solicitors! I'm surprised, but glad to see, that judges are finally seeing sense and facts in these type of case.

Would this solicitor be held to account to the bar or anyone else for deliberately trying to mislead the case, or the doctor, who had previously worked for the firm?

I don't see what the solicitor did wrong there to be honest. It's not uncommon for a solicitor to make arrangements for their client to see a medical specialist.

It looks like the four plaintiffs were trying to cover up the fact that they had previous injuries but if they didn't tell their solicitor about them, then how was the solicitor to know?

If you are p1ssed off at the doctor or solicitor, you can take solace at the fact that neither of them are probably going to get paid a penny for their work on this case.

PatrickSmithUS · 27-04-2021 3:42pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't see what the solicitor did wrong there to be honest. It's not uncommon for a solicitor to make arrangements for their client to see a medical specialist.

100% agree. It happens all the time.

whippet · 27-04-2021 7:02pm

In a case like that which was such a flagrant case of fraud … the solicitor representing them in my opinion was either incompetent or complicit … either way it’s understandable for someone like McDonagh to be suspicious of multiple claims coming in from a single legal firm

Eggs For Dinner · 27-04-2021 8:24pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't see what the solicitor did wrong there to be honest. It's not uncommon for a solicitor to make arrangements for their client to see a medical specialist.
e.

It's not unusual for certain solicitors to use the same medical people for the majority of their cases. Read in to that what you will

GerardKeating · 01-05-2021 3:27pm

They in trouble with DPC over CCTV maybe.

01-05-2021 3:39pm

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

It's not unusual for certain solicitors to use the same medical people for the majority of their cases. Read in to that what you will

You find it strange that a company uses another company on an ongoing basis?

Pretty standard on pretty much every business in the world

angel eyes 2012 · 01-05-2021 3:40pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

They in trouble with DPC over CCTV maybe.

The High Court decided that seeking access of the cctv footage, was inappropriate in the circumstances. It is not explicitly stated, but I am assuming the footage contained personal data, and therefore would be subject to an access request under the GDPR.

In effect the DPC's guidance conflicting with the judgment of the High Court. Not very reassuring to data controllers processing cctv images.

Eggs For Dinner · 01-05-2021 7:14pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You find it strange that a company uses another company on an ongoing basis?

Pretty standard on pretty much every business in the world

Especially if they keep delivering the exact service you require.

01-05-2021 7:18pm

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Especially if they keep delivering the exact service you require.

Yes, a medical report. Why on earth would a solicitor bounce around doctors? Makes no sense.

01-05-2021 7:19pm

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

The High Court decided that seeking access of the cctv footage, was inappropriate in the circumstances. It is not explicitly stated, but I am assuming the footage contained personal data, and therefore would be subject to an access request under the GDPR.

In effect the DPC's guidance conflicting with the judgment of the High Court. Not very reassuring to data controllers processing cctv images.

It was only a once off and I assume based on the fact that a case had already started.

Nothing stopping you making the request before lodging your claim.

Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

Comments