I've been threatened with legal action for a non-disclosed penalty payment!

[R0b]

I will have a look later and provide feedback. I think it's worth asking questions of Fresh Law and their status as a law firm or otherwise as what they may be doing might be considered a reserved legal activity for solicitors or other recognised qualified lawyers.

Are you able to share the last version of the letter from Fresh Law and redact personal info?

[JamesT]

I will have a look later and provide feedback. I think it's worth asking questions of Fresh Law and their status as a law firm or otherwise as what they may be doing might be considered a reserved legal activity for solicitors or other recognised qualified lawyers.

Are you able to share the last version of the letter from Fresh Law and redact personal info?

Thank you. I've attached the letter- you may notice some spelling mistakes and bad grammar which I noticed alongside the errors in the amounts paid and owed! I'm not sure how a "law firm" can make such basic mistakes but there we go.

[islandgirl]

The signature is enough for me! Seems very odd.

[efpom]

This may be in play- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/.../contents/made

[PallasAthena]

Freshlaw aren't solicitors and don't claim to be. According to their website "We, Fresh Law Ltd, are a firm of paralegals trading under the name Fresh Law" About Fresh Law Its staff all work from home. It mentions its ICO registration but no other registration or statutory regulation.

They mostly focus on non-contentious work so it would be interesting to see what they would do if it actually went court. Presumably ( rob ? ) paralegals don't rights to represent clients in court?

[atticus]

The signature is enough for me! Seems very odd.

The manner of signing in the name of the organisation is very common.

[islandgirl]

I have never had a letter from a solicitor signed that way but bow to your superior knowledge Atticus!

[R0b]

Freshlaw aren't solicitors and don't claim to be. According to their website "We, Fresh Law Ltd, are a firm of paralegals trading under the name Fresh Law" About Fresh Law Its staff all work from home. It mentions its ICO registration but no other registration or statutory regulation.

They mostly focus on non-contentious work so it would be interesting to see what they would do if it actually went court. Presumably ( rob ? ) paralegals don't rights to represent clients in court?

Probably an uncontested area. They could try to act for their client as a lay representative but the legislation intended lay representatives as being those who are not qualified or have any legal training, although granted the wording of the legislation says that any person may exercise a right of audience upon satisfying the relevant conditions.

JamesT I took a look at your response and it seemed a little all over the place. For ease, I uploaded a rough and ready version using what you have drafted and adding some commentary for you to consider. There is some confusion because you refer to a retreat and then what appears to be another service and then you also notify the claimant that you are withdrawing from the services but it's not clear how the two are connected services or if they are independent of each other. If the claimant said you could attend the part of the retreat or services and without having to complete the whole if you gave notice of not continuing then you need to clearly explain that.

Feel free to use whatever parts of tyhe letter and upload for further feedback if necessary.

[JamesT]

Probably an uncontested area. They could try to act for their client as a lay representative but the legislation intended lay representatives as being those who are not qualified or have any legal training, although granted the wording of the legislation says that any person may exercise a right of audience upon satisfying the relevant conditions.

JamesT I took a look at your response and it seemed a little all over the place. For ease, I uploaded a rough and ready version using what you have drafted and adding some commentary for you to consider. There is some confusion because you refer to a retreat and then what appears to be another service and then you also notify the claimant that you are withdrawing from the services but it's not clear how the two are connected services or if they are independent of each other. If the claimant said you could attend the part of the retreat or services and without having to complete the whole if you gave notice of not continuing then you need to clearly explain that.

Feel free to use whatever parts of tyhe letter and upload for further feedback if necessary.

Thank you R0b, I really appreciate you taking the time to look at this for me.

To clarify the dates - everything was paid up in June and prior to the retreat, I must have made a typo with the dates.

The two parts to this are the coaching service (mastermind coaching) and the retreat (excursion), both are done by the same person.

I originally paid a non-refundable deposit to reserve a place on the coaching service starting in September/October on Invoice 1. Following this, I enquired about a place on the retreat which I had seen advertised but the advert had since been removed. I was told they could get me a place on the retreat and the price was agreed and paid on Invoice 2. There was no mention that the coaching service and the retreat were actually linked (there were people on the retreat that weren't on the coaching service). The coaching contract (which was sent the night before the retreat, and weeks after the coaching deposit and retreat were paid for) states that I had paid a discounted rate for the retreat subject to my proceeding of the contract, and should I not proceed with the coaching service I would owe the full balance of the retreat. This clause is also what was written into the (amended) Invoice 2 after I had confirmed I was not proceeding with the coaching service.

In summary:

• There was no mention that the coaching or the retreat were linked at any point
• There was no disclosure of the terms and conditions prior to or at point of payment
• The contract that confirmed the link between them and the T's & C's was sent at the last possible moment (12 hours prior to flying)
• Invoice 2 was amended to include the T's & C's after the retreat had concluded and after I had confirmed I wasn't proceeding with the coaching

I hope this clears things up a little!

[JamesT]

Probably an uncontested area. They could try to act for their client as a lay representative but the legislation intended lay representatives as being those who are not qualified or have any legal training, although granted the wording of the legislation says that any person may exercise a right of audience upon satisfying the relevant conditions.

JamesT I took a look at your response and it seemed a little all over the place. For ease, I uploaded a rough and ready version using what you have drafted and adding some commentary for you to consider. There is some confusion because you refer to a retreat and then what appears to be another service and then you also notify the claimant that you are withdrawing from the services but it's not clear how the two are connected services or if they are independent of each other. If the claimant said you could attend the part of the retreat or services and without having to complete the whole if you gave notice of not continuing then you need to clearly explain that.

Feel free to use whatever parts of tyhe letter and upload for further feedback if necessary.

Thank you again R0b , I have attached my response which I hope will be enough to put this to rest. I feel it contains the relevant information and is entirely factual. On my previous posts I have amended dates and costings on the off chance that there might be prying eyes on here, but none of the facts of the matter have been changed, and the letter in full (minus addresses and names) is attached.

[JamesT]

UPDATE:

Today we have received an email containing the following paragraphs:

You have failed to communicate with us or our solicitors during the designated time period as defined by your rights under UK law.

Therefore we are writing to inform you of prosecution to be filed against you to reclaim fees and illegally mitigating the contractual terms, with malicious intent to benefit from a bonus as part of a paid programs of which the full contract has been defaulted.

You will shortly be served papers and a county court judgement hearing letter.

As you may already be aware a CCJ will be held on your criminal record and will bare effect for any future services perosnal or professional you need to undertake.

The letter they sent is dated 07/09/2023 stating we have 30 days. This person and their "legal team" are really struggling with the basics here!

Also, the company "Fresh Law" is a paralegal company, yet the claimant is continually describing them as solicitors. Should this be included in my letter of response? I'm hoping to get this letter sent off tomorrow at the latest.

Thanks

[R0b]

Sorry, I missed your last post, I will aim to have a look at it later today.

It is pretty worrying that the contents of that email is littered with errors. I would be inclined to respond back to the email with something along the lines of the below.

Dear Sir or Madam (or use their name if you have it on the email),

I am writing in response to your email of today with regard to the aforementioned dispute. Your email suggests that I have failed to communicate with you or your solicitors during the designated time period under UK law (note there is no such thing as UK law and it does not exist). I would point out that your acting legal representatives issued a letter before action dated 7 September 2023 and required a response within 30 days of the date of that letter, so the relevant date to respond to the allegations would be 7 October 2023. Accordingly, the relevant period has not yet expired, contrary to what you said in your email. I am putting you on notice that, should you initiate legal proceedings before the relevant period for responding has expired, I will consider issuing an application to stay proceedings whilst you and your legal representatives comply with the pre-action protocols and seek my costs of the application of £275 plus incidental costs related to the application at a rate of £19 per hour. Should my application succeed, you will be required to pay a further cost of £275 (at your expense)in the event you wish to lift the stay of proceedings.

Furthermore, I would add that your legal representatives are not solicitors but are in fact a company run by unqualified lawyers otherwise known as paralegals. It is a criminal offence for someone to hold themselves out to be a solicitor when they are not and I would suggest you confer with your legal representatives to confirm their status before making such a statement.

Finally, as you are legally represented, all communications should be through your legal representative. I will therefore not respond to any future communications that are sent by you, unless and until you confirm that you are no longer legally represented. Otherwise, I intend to communicate with your legal representatives and my response to your allegations will be sent in due course and in any event, before the deadline of 7 October 2023.

[PallasAthena]

JamesT

Just a comment, but is the person who emailed you (Post #26) outside the UK? It reads to me like it is written by someone whose first language is not English.

[MIKE770]

Many who's English is trash Inuk office's

[JamesT]

Sorry, I missed your last post, I will aim to have a look at it later today.

It is pretty worrying that the contents of that email is littered with errors. I would be inclined to respond back to the email with something along the lines of the below.

Dear Sir or Madam (or use their name if you have it on the email),

I am writing in response to your email of today with regard to the aforementioned dispute. Your email suggests that I have failed to communicate with you or your solicitors during the designated time period under UK law (note there is no such thing as UK law and it does not exist). I would point out that your acting legal representatives issued a letter before action dated 7 September 2023 and required a response within 30 days of the date of that letter, so the relevant date to respond to the allegations would be 7 October 2023. Accordingly, the relevant period has not yet expired, contrary to what you said in your email. I am putting you on notice that, should you initiate legal proceedings before the relevant period for responding has expired, I will consider issuing an application to stay proceedings whilst you and your legal representatives comply with the pre-action protocols and seek my costs of the application of £275 plus incidental costs related to the application at a rate of £19 per hour. Should my application succeed, you will be required to pay a further cost of £275 (at your expense)in the event you wish to lift the stay of proceedings.

Furthermore, I would add that your legal representatives are not solicitors but are in fact a company run by unqualified lawyers otherwise known as paralegals. It is a criminal offence for someone to hold themselves out to be a solicitor when they are not and I would suggest you confer with your legal representatives to confirm their status before making such a statement.

Finally, as you are legally represented, all communications should be through your legal representative. I will therefore not respond to any future communications that are sent by you, unless and until you confirm that you are no longer legally represented. Otherwise, I intend to communicate with your legal representatives and my response to your allegations will be sent in due course and in any event, before the deadline of 7 October 2023.

It's a similar situation to what is already in the letter - they have retroactively amended the terms to benefit themselves by essentially bringing the dates forward! It's such a strange situation and I completely regret ever getting involved here.

I sent an email to Fresh Law basically saying that I've been emailed directly by the client and that they should notify them that they are in fact incorrect and I still have until the 7th. I wish I had sent your response but I thought it would be good to reply as soon as possible and hadn't checked back here in time.

Once again I do appreciate your help and would love to send some drink tokens once this is all over!