Bogus Solicitor

Think Judge Judy could settle this one pretty quick Kildrought.

Thank you Csirl. Very worthwhile advice. Much appreciated. Moby.
 


Oooh, you're awful but I like you.

Maybe an O'Byrne letter first though?
 
See Section 2 of DOg COntrol Act 1986 - dog deemed to be householders. This definition is limited to a licensing prosecution, but will be persuasive for most District Judges.

If Council wont disclose whether dog licensed, try a Freedom of Information request.
 
Nuac, thanks a million. That sounds great, will check into that. Moby.

Vanilla, what is an O'Byrne letter? Moby.
 

Nuac, can you clarify when you say "householder, do you mean the tenant or the owner?

Thanks
 
Mobydick said:
Nuac, thanks a million. That sounds great, will check into that. Moby.

Vanilla, what is an O'Byrne letter? Moby.
Click to expand...

An O'Byrne letter is used where you have more than one potential defendant to the action and you cannot know which one is the liable party. If you simply join all parties to your action and subsequently only one is liable, the one who is not liable could look for their costs to be awarded against you. The O'Byrne letter basically is sent to ALL parties and it says to them- one of you is liable and I can't figure out which one so which ever one it is had better own up now cause if I have to sue all of you I'm going to look for all the costs to be awarded against the guilty party. So you're then not held liable for the costs of the innocent party, a neat trick.
 
Thanks Vanilla. Comprendo. Moby.

Btw I still can't believe none of you are mentioning the fact that her boyfriend was pretending to act as her solicitor, using a different address (as if he had nothing to do with her otherwise, just a solicitor she had engaged in this matter). These people are in their fifties. I am totally shocked that they would have the nerve to do this, but they have picked on the wrong neighbours........Surely this is an odd case. Moby.
 
What damage did the dog do. What kind of dog is it (size, breed). 2K is a lot of damage.
 
Has he actually stated he is a solicitor, or is he just writing/advocating on her behalf and using legalese.
 
I know the OP is annoyed, however when you read one of Bronte's post's you will see how silly the whole situation is and what a costly waste of time it may turn out to be for Moby. If these people are in their fifties as you say, and have nothing better to do, I reckon you are on a hiding to nothing if you sue. They sound like complete nutcases.

Rather than waste time engaging Solicitors, etc, could you just not take up the issue of the dog with the landlord first and take it from there.

Could the law society not take up the issue of the bogus solicitor. They should prosecute him for fraud.
 
Thanks MandaC and SarahMc. He definitely was acting as her solicitor in his letters, no question about that. And yes MandaC I am annoyed in fact I am hopping mad that they think this behaviour is acceptable and think they can get away with. Tho we do not think we are wasting our time, whatever about the money, this is now about the principle. If they intend this to go back to court again I will pursue every avenue to expose him and his girlfriend/client. Cheers Moby
 
This may sound weird, but sometimes there is no point in having principles when there are nut cases involved. The worst thing sometimes can be to give your wit to these people (easier said than done)

They sound as mad as a box of frogs.

All I am saying is, if the Law Society can come after someone for pretending to be a Solicitor, then let that be your satisfaction. Did he send a letter on official stationary or anything like that....I would love to know where his office is.......

If there is a case to answer for originally and you are happy to pursue that, well and good........but sometimes legal actions can turn out to be costly....there is more than one way to skin a cat....
 
"They sound as mad as a box of frogs." Love it MandaC.
Ye you are right they are. But surely it doesn't matter how mad they are, a judge will see the facts. Can't go into more details as much as I would like to with you but we have him "hook line and sinker"! Moby.
 
Case Number 666 on your Civil List is next Judge.

Mr & Mrs Moby Dick, plaintiffs vs Mrs & Mr Box of Mad Frogs, defendants.

Cap'n Ahab of Great White Whales & Co is for the plaintiffs and Mr. Kermit of Hoppit Spawn & Croak is for the defendants. Testimony is expected from Shep, the dog whose ownership is in dispute, and emergency medical cover is being provided by Mr. Siegfried Farnon, Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Cap'n Ahab do you have any opening remarks to make?

"Arrrr! Thankee Judge. Speak not to me of blasphemy. I'd strike the sun if it insulted me. Arrrr!"

Mr. Kermit do you have any opening remarks to make?

"Ribbit, ribbit."

The case continues before Judge David Attenborough tomorrow, up in the Zoo-a-logical Gardens.
 
MandyC methinks there are full box of mad frogs in this case, and some of them are stone deaf.
 
Bronte, can you explain yourself a little more. Where is the madness on our part. Are we not entitled to pursue compensation when someone else is responsible for the damage. And the stone deaf comment - you think we should just drop case because other side are clearly whacky. I don't think so but then again it is only my opinion. Moby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register