Removed...

Hannah2210

sniggings wrote: »

The rule is probably, they will not seek a barristers opinion early on if all sides agree, which they didn't do, they only listen to the barrister went they got to that stage.

This doesn't make sense. If they are allowed to ask a barrister even though both solicitors agree, why not do this from the start and instead do it just before the trial? Surely it would have saved the insurers money to do this from the start and save the 4 months worth of solicitors fees they've already paid

marybelle01

Nobody can force a barrister to represent someone if the barrister doesn't think you have a strong enough case. That is not the insurance companies fault. They can't make the barrister represent you. That is where you are - it is the barrister who has refused the case.

Hannah2210

marybelle01 wrote: »

Nobody can force a barrister to represent someone if the barrister doesn't think you have a strong enough case. That is not the insurance companies fault. They can't make the barrister represent you. That is where you are - it is the barrister who has refused the case.

My point isn't why the barrister said the case isn't strong enough. It's why they went to a barrister in the first place when both parties and the tribunal previously said she does. And why so late. Four hoops you have to go through to claim on insurance you pay for.

If this is policy fine. But it's what I've read on the financial ombudsman saying they will go to a barristers if both parties don't agree which is now giving me doubts if this is correct

sniggings

Hannah2210 wrote: »

This doesn't make sense. If they are allowed to ask a barrister even though both solicitors agree, why not do this from the start and instead do it just before the trial? Surely it would have saved the insurers money to do this from the start and save the 4 months worth of solicitors fees they've already paid

because it costs a lot of money to get a barrister's opinion, it's not just a case of ringing up and 5 mins later you have an opinion, it's costly, so they do not ask if they have agreement up to the point it goes to the barrister, of course onces it's with the barrister, s/he will give an opinion then, most times it will be to go ahead but they got it wrong this time, it should never have got that far.

Yes it's not noce and upsetting o go this far tohave it dropped but at least you got that far, would it have been better to not have even tried? least they made the effort and thought it was winnable, many do not get as far as the barrister stage.

You need to stop trying to fight battles you can not win, they have done nothing wrong, they took your Mam'a case as far as they could, you should be pleased they tried, the barrister says it's less than 51% winnable, then that's it, what rule do you think they have broken? they did not ask for a barrister opinion, the barrister gave their opinion when the case was in front of them.

You would be far better using your time to either find a no win no fee solicitor or find it yourselves, arguing the way you are is pointless.

you keep saying she was sacked for complaining, I doubt that was the reason given, what was the reason she was told?

Hannah2210

sniggings wrote: »

because it costs a lot of money to get a barrister's opinion, it's not just a case of ringing up and 5 mins later you have an opinion, it's costly, so they do not ask if they have agreement up to the point it goes to the barrister, of course onces it's with the barrister, s/he will give an opinion then, most times it will be to go ahead but they got it wrong this time, it should never have got that far.

Yes it's not noce and upsetting o go this far tohave it dropped but at least you got that far, would it have been better to not have even tried? least they made the effort and thought it was winnable, many do not get as far as the barrister stage.

You need to stop trying to fight battles you can not win, they have done nothing wrong, they took your Mam'a case as far as they could, you should be pleased they tried, the barrister says it's less than 51% winnable, then that's it, what rule do you think they have broken? they did not ask for a barrister opinion, the barrister gave their opinion when the case was in front of them.

You would be far better using your time to either find a no win no fee solicitor or find it yourselves, arguing the way you are is pointless.

you keep saying she was sacked for complaining, I doubt that was the reason given, what was the reason she was told?

First off, yes it is as easy as ringing a barrister as far as cost is concerned. We know the price per hour if we was to fund it ourselves and the barrister they picked is actually cheaper than my solicitors.

As I said i don't want to go into detail. The point of the post wasn't about her case, it's way too complex to write in a forum. It was to ask if the insurers are correct after what I read and was told by the financial ombudsman.

Why would we be happy it got to this point? Getting it to this point is pointless, it achieves nothing just getting to this point so why should be grateful? My mums spent months writing statements ect, the time we needed the solicitor the most is at the actual tribunal.
Yes we could research for no win no fee agencies, but to try and find someone in 2 days, and can go through all the material we have isn't possible.

And far better using my time looking at other options than arguing?
I came on here to see if people actual knew or had first hand experience of tribunals and insurers as it's weekend the insurers are shut and so are many employment solicitors, not to argue. I thought that was the whole point of forums, to see if ppl have advice/experience.

Southend1

Thing is, if you ask the advice of an Internet forum, you get a wide range of views and different perspectives. It might not be what you wanted, but it's what you will get, so embrace that.

Hannah2210

Well I wanted advice not people making snide comments of my query saying it's a silly argument. I got a lot more helpful advice from another forum. I appreciate peoples different views, but not people making sarcastic/snide comments for no reason

Jaybee_16

In my experience, when there is a potential case, a solicitor is consulted, an ET1 completed and submitted. The solicitor then deals with all paperwork and will often be the person representing the claimant at the ET hearing.


If the case is complex, it is not unusual for the solicitor to refer the case to a barrister who will represent the claimant at ET.


It appears to me that this is what happened here. The solicitor moved the case to a barrister, who had taken the view that there is a lower chance of success, hence the pulling out at this stage.


I have attended a few ET cases where the case has been conducted by barristers representing each side.


It is likely to be late because the solicitor will not engage a barrister until a short time before the ET.

Hannah2210

Jaybee_16 wrote: »

In my experience, when there is a potential case, a solicitor is consulted, an ET1 completed and submitted. The solicitor then deals with all paperwork and will often be the person representing the claimant at the ET hearing.


If the case is complex, it is not unusual for the solicitor to refer the case to a barrister who will represent the claimant at ET.


It appears to me that this is what happened here. The solicitor moved the case to a barrister, who had taken the view that there is a lower chance of success, hence the pulling out at this stage.


I have attended a few ET cases where the case has been conducted by barristers representing each side.


It is likely to be late because the solicitor will not engage a barrister until a short time before the ET.

Thank for the info. So it's possible my solicitor referred it to a barrister? I've read you can defend yourself, which some people do, and the tribunal will help with points of law. My mum knows the case inside out, but is it really possible to go against a barrister not knowing any law. Have you ever attended any ET cases where someone defended themselves?
Thanks again

Southend1

Hannah2210 wrote: »

Well I wanted advice not people making snide comments of my query saying it's a silly argument. I got a lot more helpful advice from another forum. I appreciate peoples different views, but not people making sarcastic/snide comments for no reason

You get all sorts on this forum. That's a good thing. Look past anything that comes across as sarcastic or snide because there is a wealth of opinion here. Read everything without making assumptions about the poster's motive. Even those posters that annoy you will sometimes come out with a little nugget of wisdom!