Breakdown or victimisation?

[heisenberg]

Dear all,

As some of you may be aware, I served a letter before action on a law firm regarding proposed contraventions of the Equality Act 2010.

They have since written to me asserting that there is now allegedly a 'complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence' and are refusing to have me as a client at any point in the future in regards to any matter.

Section 27 of the Equality Act states as follows:

27 Victimisation

(1) A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because—

(a) B does a protected act, or

(b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.

(2) Each of the following is a protected act—

(a) bringing proceedings under this Act;

(b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act;

(c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;

(d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.

(3) Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.

(4) This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual.

(5) The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule.

I appreciate that without having all the facts to hand it may be difficult to form an opinion, however, could it be reasonably argued that I have been subject to victimisation prohibited above?

Indecently, I have served a letter before action on another firm and have not had this type of response.

Many thanks.

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Surely they have a right to work for anyone same as you would have a right not to work for someone unless they stated a reason that it was because of say you had a disability your colour or religion

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Surely they have a right to work for anyone same as you would have a right not to work for someone unless they stated a reason that it was because of say you had a disability your colour or religion

It is unlawful to subject a person to a detriment for exercising his/her rights (rightly or wrongly) under the Equality Act 2010.

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

My opinion, based purely on emotion and not fact
1) Without the facts it is almost impossible to advise
2) As you were asking them to work for you but served a LBA it would be reasonable for them to say they do not wish to have you as a client UNLESS you can show the reason is because of a protected characteristic.
3) As you issued a LBA I would assume there is still an ongoing dispute with them in which case you need to follow that through , also that would then be a conflict of interest for them so they couldn't both represent you and defend against a claim.
4) Was the LBA a true attempt to resolve a real problem or a sledgehammer to crack a nut with no prospect of a claim happening. If so that to me would be an abuse of process


sorry to sound so negative and unhelpful but without details it is difficult to form an opinion.

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Imho, I think you may be on a sticky wicket with this.

If I read this right, you are saying that you have a protected characteristic, you have made a complaint re the way you were treated, & because of that complaint, they have withdrawn their services; you see that as victimisation under the Equality Act.

But if someone who did not have a protected characteristic had cause for complaint, they might well do the same & withdraw services, citing irrevocable breakdown in trust,etc.

In which case you would not be victimised; they would apply the same treatment to everybody, protected characteristic or not.

& echoing Noah's comment above, it would seem to be a 'conflict of interest' scenario; to continue representing you could well make them fall foul of SRA Code of Conduct.

[mariefab]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

could it be reasonably argued that I have been subject to victimisation

No.
It's reasonable and sensible for solicitors to state that they will not represent someone who accuses them of discrimination and announces an intention to sue them unless they provide the specified remedy.
There is no detriment.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

No.
It's reasonable and sensible for solicitors to state that they will not represent someone who accuses them of discrimination and announces an intention to sue them unless they provide the specified remedy.
There is no detriment.

Is it correct that what you are suggesting is that solicitors are exempt from the provisions of section 27 whereas any other service provider is not? If that is the case, I respectfully disagree.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

My opinion, based purely on emotion and not fact
1) Without the facts it is almost impossible to advise
2) As you were asking them to work for you but served a LBA it would be reasonable for them to say they do not wish to have you as a client UNLESS you can show the reason is because of a protected characteristic.
3) As you issued a LBA I would assume there is still an ongoing dispute with them in which case you need to follow that through , also that would then be a conflict of interest for them so they couldn't both represent you and defend against a claim.
4) Was the LBA a true attempt to resolve a real problem or a sledgehammer to crack a nut with no prospect of a claim happening. If so that to me would be an abuse of process

sorry to sound so negative and unhelpful but without details it is difficult to form an opinion.

I believe whether or not the potential claim had merit is a moot point. The point is I sent them a letter before action which, in this case, is a protected act.

They have not explicitly stated that there is a conflict of interest. In any event, should I be advised not to bring proceedings then any conflict of interest disappears. It appears, on the face of it, that they will still argue that there is allegedly still a 'complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence'.

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

As I already said without the details it is hard but as charity said, would they have done the same with anyone else.

It is all too easy for people covered by the equality act to start to behave like a victim and believe everything is down to the protected characteristic.
Does a woman complain when they don't get their own way that it is discrimination?

By the way I am not discriminating just paraphrasing what was read in a book.
It came from a book by Landau on The Holocaust and referred to the negativity in the fact most academics who wrote on the subject were members of ,the victim group,

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I believe whether or not the potential claim had merit is a moot point. The point is I sent them a letter before action which, in this case, is a protected act.

They have not explicitly stated that there is a conflict of interest. In any event, should I be advised not to bring proceedings then any conflict of interest disappears. It appears, on the face of it, that they will still argue that there is allegedly still a 'complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence'.

Imho

Protected characteristic notwithstanding.

If I were contemplating suing a doctor for what I considered to be bad advice (to the point of issuing an LBA), would I continue to consult him/her?

Also, would the doctor feel comfortable seeing me?

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Opinion so far does agree that it probably is not discrimination having read your other threads I wonder if you are trying just to get a pay out with these claims that you are not sure you have a case for.
If you were not exempt from court fees would you be taking action,sorry if this is not what you want to read but in my view your trying for something out of nothing.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Opinion so far does agree that it probably is not discrimination having read your other threads I wonder if you are trying just to get a pay out with these claims that you are not sure you have a case for.
If you were not exempt from court fees would you be taking action,sorry if this is not what you want to read but in my view your trying for something out of nothing.

Jeez thanks. Is that your legal opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

As I already said without the details it is hard but as charity said, would they have done the same with anyone else.

It is all too easy for people covered by the equality act to start to behave like a victim and believe everything is down to the protected characteristic.
Does a woman complain when they don't get their own way that it is discrimination?

By the way I am not discriminating just paraphrasing what was read in a book.
It came from a book by Landau on The Holocaust and referred to the negativity in the fact most academics who wrote on the subject were members of ,the victim group,

With all due respect, I do not think you are comparing apples with apples here.

- - - Updated - - -

Imho

Protected characteristic notwithstanding.

If I were contemplating suing a doctor for what I considered to be bad advice (to the point of issuing an LBA), would I continue to consult him/her?

Also, would the doctor feel comfortable seeing me?

This is a good point. Presumably it can be compared with raising a complaint against a GP. GMC guidance makes it clear that a GP should not end the relationship if a patient raises a complaint. Why should solicitors be any different?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Dear all,

As some of you may be aware, I served a letter before action on a law firm regarding proposed contraventions of the Equality Act 2010.

They have since written to me asserting that there is now allegedly a 'complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence' and are refusing to have me as a client at any point in the future in regards to any matter.

Section 27 of the Equality Act states as follows:

27 Victimisation

(1) A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because—

(a) B does a protected act, or

(b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.

(2) Each of the following is a protected act—

(a) bringing proceedings under this Act;

(b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act;

(c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;

(d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.

(3) Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.

(4) This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual.

(5) The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule.

I appreciate that without having all the facts to hand it may be difficult to form an opinion, however, could it be reasonably argued that I have been subject to victimisation prohibited above?

Indecently, I have served a letter before action on another firm and have not had this type of response.

Many thanks.

Have you accused your own lawyers of discrimination against you? 'Complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence.' Has there been?

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Not my legal opinion its just how I read this Heisenberg you seem to be making a lot of claims without getting proper legal opinion

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Have you accused your own lawyers of discrimination against you? 'Complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence.' Has there been?

This case has been assigned to another legal aid firm. So, yes, they were my solicitors at some point.

I am not sure there has been' a 'complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence.' I sent them a letter before action, they responded in part then there was a substantial change in the circumstances in respect to the matter I sought advice on. I was then put through to this firm by Civil Legal Advice then the firm asserted there had allegedly been 'complete breakdown in mutual trust and confidence'. Of course if this was the case I would not have sought advice from them and am minded to think that such a 'breakdown' would be most convenient for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Not my legal opinion its just how I read this Heisenberg you seem to be making a lot of claims without getting proper legal opinion

That is not strictly correct.