Breakdown or victimisation?

[mariefab]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I agree with you to an extent. It still appears you are arguing that victimisation does not apply to solicitors though? So, to that end, solicitors are able to victimise their clients with complete impunity.

I'm not implying anything of the kind. There is simply no victimisation here.
A protected act alone is not enough, you can't find victimisation without a detriment.

You contend that the detriment is

Being denied a service now and in the foreseeable future.

How can it be to your detriment that your alleged discriminators to refuse to represent you? Given what you've accused them of, what reason could you possibly have for wanting them to do so?
There are other solicitors available, and you seem to have found them, so the only legal services you've been denied are those of the particular firm that, given your belief, should be at the very top of your avoid list.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I'm not implying anything of the kind. There is simply no victimisation here.
A protected act alone is not enough, you can't find victimisation without a detriment.

You contend that the detriment is


How can it be to your detriment that your alleged discriminators to refuse to represent you? Given what you've accused them of, what reason could you possibly have for wanting them to do so?

There are other solicitors available, and you seem to have found them, so the only legal services you've been denied are those of the particular firm that, given your belief, should be at the very top of your avoid list.

I am still left a little confused mariefab. If you send any service provider a letter before action for an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments does that automatically mean that you should chose not to access those services in the future?

If I send Tesco a letter before action for failing to make reasonable adjustments does that mean I should no longer shop at Tesco?

Any service provider could no doubt argue that 'he has suffered no detriment as it is best we go our separate ways'.

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Please forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to have experience of the complaints code and procedures including enough to form an opinion of the legal ombudsman.
To an outsider with no knowledge of the details it would be possible to come to the conclusion that you have sent multiple LBAs and possibly multiple court claims. If this is the case it would not be an unreasonable assumption to think of you as being a vexatious litigant. I am sure you see yourself as fighting for your legal rights against the bullies or whomever. It appears that you are so convinced of your rights you refuse to accept there may be other opinions.

Just an observation.

I have been been there myself and ultimately lost after wasting a lot of money.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Please forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to have experience of the complaints code and procedures including enough to form an opinion of the legal ombudsman.
To an outsider with no knowledge of the details it would be possible to come to the conclusion that you have sent multiple LBAs and possibly multiple court claims. If this is the case it would not be an unreasonable assumption to think of you as being a vexatious litigant. I am sure you see yourself as fighting for your legal rights against the bullies or whomever. It appears that you are so convinced of your rights you refuse to accept there may be other opinions.

Just an observation.

I have been been there myself and ultimately lost after wasting a lot of money.

Bit harsh old chap.

There is not much to learn about 'complaints code and procedures'. Any organisation should have a complaints procedure. LeO allegedly deals with 'poor service' and every firm has an obligation to refer you to LeO when you raise a complaint.

I am not sure if you read my other thread but even the court service has fallen foul of equality law. So, to that end, it would be naive to think that discrimination only happens in the rarest of instances and circumstances.

I have not explicitly stated that I disregard the opinions of others. I believe this is a contentious point hence the reason I started the thread.

I have only issued one county court claim and, as it stands, I have won that case. Incidentally, the same firm that was adamant I would lose that claim is now the subject of this thread. Call me 'vexatious' for allegedly not accepting the opinion of others if you like - everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[wales01man]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

We all await the conclusion of the claim you have won and the set aside attempt maybe this may the end of your fight or a new beginning .

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Heisenberg
I know it sounded harsh but it was intended to be

My point was that perhaps you are losing support because you of how others perceive your replies , not that the meanings of your replies was actually that.

I can see how galling it must be to have thought you won for a set aside application to be made however as that right is given to all us poor debtors who get CCJs without being told ( or so we say) shouldn't it also be given to the people we take action against.

Obviously , in my world, my decision would be final and there would be no right of appeal or right to set aside because I would be a benevolent dictator who was always right :taunt:

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Heisenberg
I know it sounded harsh but it was intended to be

My point was that perhaps you are losing support because you of how others perceive your replies , not that the meanings of your replies was actually that.

I can see how galling it must be to have thought you won for a set aside application to be made however as that right is given to all us poor debtors who get CCJs without being told ( or so we say) shouldn't it also be given to the people we take action against.

Obviously , in my world, my decision would be final and there would be no right of appeal or right to set aside because I would be a benevolent dictator who was always right :taunt:

Thanks Noah - duly noted.

For the sake of clarity, I respect everyone's opinion though there is no harm in offering a different perspective.

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I am still left a little confused mariefab. If you send any service provider a letter before action for an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments does that automatically mean that you should chose not to access those services in the future?

If I send Tesco a letter before action for failing to make reasonable adjustments does that mean I should no longer shop at Tesco?

Any service provider could no doubt argue that 'he has suffered no detriment as it is best we go our separate ways'.

You don't have a 'special' relationship (ie confidentiality) with Tesco, do you?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

You don't have a 'special' relationship (ie confidentiality) with Tesco, do you?

True. Is that the only issue here though? They allege there was a breakdown of trust and confidence (i.e. no conflict of interest). If they alleged a conflict of interest I would have perhaps been more understanding. Make sense?

Unfortunately there is not much that is straightforward in life.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I do remember suggesting that it seems they were not acting in my best interests in a without prejudice e-mail after they ended the retainer so that may be where the 'trust and confidence' defence stems from. Still, they ended the retainer well before I sent that e-mail.

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

True. Is that the only issue here though? They allege there was a breakdown of trust and confidence (i.e. no conflict of interest). If they alleged a conflict of interest I would have perhaps been more understanding. Make sense?

Unfortunately there is not much that is straightforward in life.

The two are interconnected.

The SRA Code of Conduct expressly forbid acting for, or to continue acting for, a client when these issues are identified.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ha...e/content.page

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

The two are interconnected.

The SRA Code of Conduct expressly forbid acting for, or to continue acting for, a client when these issues are identified.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ha...e/content.page

Thanks. Which section are you referring to?

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Thanks. Which section are you referring to?

Chapters 3 & 4 (esp outcomes & IBs)

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Chapters 3 & 4 (esp outcomes & IBs)

That seems to deal with conflicts of interest. What are you suggesting is the conflict of interest here?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

You will also note the following paragraph:

O(2.1) you do not discriminate unlawfully, or victimise or harass anyone, in the course of your professional dealings;