Question on data rights and loans

[Hiddentruth]

All lawyers out there, can you help?

Where a loan might be wanted to be taken out by one party for their divorce fees and that loan is going to be secured on jointly owned assets can you help explain with respect to the other joint owner or indeed owners of those assets, how their data gets handled in such a scenario?

Can you explain the rights of these other owners to be credit checked within any application, to comment, object or anything else. Or even to know about it?

Normally any loan has a cooling off period. How would that work too in respect of the non applicant but somebody who is affected by it?

It would be good to get some views on this. I know GDPR changes make us all more aware but we had DPA 1998 for a long time...what would be the situation with 1998 as opposed to the 2018 DPA do you think?

All comments would be welcomed...

with eyes wide open

Hooray. I would have thought so too!!!!

yes, wise advice from daisy. That is what I always start with - have you a good chance of success and will success be a lot of money. If neither of those are satisfied forgetting about it is often a good idea. I am sure that is impossible with some family issues - like those faced with never seeing their child again for example. Money matters not one iota compared to that kind of thing.

Good advice. I am very aware of the risk in stepping back in court at all. The case would need to go to a higher court as the people involved in what has occurred here are big on the local scene. I have no wish to grapple any more with their never ending lies.

I am trusting the regulators will do their duty and reveal exactly what has been paid for what and what has been conveyed and how.

They have extensive evidence. I did the utmost I could to protect my assets and my future that I had worked hard for. It is a complete violation of rights and process and I know I have been wronged and certainly want this exposed in a useful way to ensure nobody else gets fleeced in the court process by use of dodgy products used to financially abuse.

It is not clever and a price will be paid for this I am confident. At the moment it has all been at my sole expense which is a travesty. Be wary of the words vexatious litigant banded about in court. I was accused of this yet the Attorney General confirmed I was not!

Victim blaming.

@Xenia

Having a home is pretty important and this is not resolved. I am also left at risk of future costs in title deeds which goes to show there was no duty of care at all to me from the conveyancing solicitor.

Forgetting about this is just not an option!

@daisychain01

Yes I can quantify my losses.

I am hoping to be awarded compensation via regulators and/or indemnity insurance. I then want my cut of advantages secured which should have been shared with me, if indeed these are lawful!

HI wanted to add something to this thread in relation to court ordered signing of paperwork and @Hiddentruth just remembered something which may have baring to you.

I was advised by my legal representation to sell my family home even though it went against everything I believed and there was some deal to be done with pensions and company.

I believed at the time that my legal reps were acting in my best interests. But between FDR and the court hearing brought by my x husband to force the sAle I started to question this! I was persuaded to attend court alone on their advice that I would do better Unrepresented.

My x dh statement. Had not been received and I understand this could have been grounds to get hearing adjourned although I was told to ask for it at court. AS SOOn as I saw it i knew I was sunk - too many lies and I was too distressed to think clearly. I was accused of bitterness and vitriol and basically because I had agreed to house sale at FDR judge based decision to sell on this even though I was asking him to wait for experts valuation on company.

He then asked me to agree to what he was saying and I refused on the grounds that I was under severe stress, could not think properly due to depression and severe distress and I needed time to compose myself otherwise I would end up as previous hearing - where I felt I was coerced into agreeing to something that had I had more time would not have agreed to.

Hiddentruth I found out a few days later that even though court had ordered the sale of the family home the conveyance solicitor still needed my agreement - this is something yiu never gave if I understand correctly.

I Was also ordered to transfer my shares in the company to my x husband for no value - again I did not sign the paperwork for this as this is where the judge got her maths wrong and would not relook at her figures.

THERE has been a lot of talk on here about how it is really only high value cases that get reopened due to the costs. I can imagine that there is probably more people out there than just hiddentruth and myself who believe they did not get a fair trial and who are not talking in the millions but still enough to have a devastating impact on ourselves and our children.

The toll on my MH has been severe and my children have suffered as a result. This is what angers me the most. unless normal joe bloggs stand up and challenge the system if they believe they have been harmed this will continue.

I know why my hearing fr the house sale was over and done with so quickly- the judge was retiring - just another case to get through for him before his big day.!

@greenberet

Thank you for this post...I will DM you about it.

You make a very important point too...yes we have to all grow the balls to challenge this atrocity in our courts. A DV expert at Barnardos who was involved in the domestic violence perpetrators programme which I could only hope my ex might be ordered by court to go on told me the courts were an absolutely awful place for women despite all the knowledge about how abuse including financial abuse is carried out.

So when the truth has come out that the court has failed to prevent abuse and has actually facilitated it then we have a public crisis. For any lawyer to suggest you would be better to attend as a litigant in person is evading their responsibility to enable something to be done in court which their representation would likely disallow. That is, they are professionally compromised and in this respect I reckon you can ask the SRA whether your lawyer who did this and failed to represent and advance arguments in your best interests and in law actually contacted them to take advice on being compromised. They should do so to log their conflict in case it comes back on them.

As for the Judge 'retiring'...Will DM on that too.

Eveyrone wants the legal system (kost of which is matters which never get near a court) to operate properly. In the rare cases where there are court hearings it is always a bit unprdictable.

People tend to go to court as a last resort and one side is always pretty unahppy with the result as there is a winner and loser which is why many people prefer (where it is possible) to negotiate and compromise without the judge deciding who gets what. That is no comfort of course to those with only a choice of court hearing or give up.

So look at what matters and it sounds there is an issue over the rights over the famly home which is the priority. I am afraid I have not remembered all threads to remember the facts. To hope to win in damages from solicitors' or barristers insurance companies sums a judge decided not to award to a spouse may not be the best route unless you can show wrong doing that led to the specific loss. If a spouse however hides mnoey which is am uch more common issue then the route is to open up the final order and if enough money is at stake litigate against the spouse.

This might be interesting to some www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/family-law-does-not-need-lawyers-claims-ex-policemans-mckenzie-startup/5068760.article?utm_source=dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%20GAZ141016

Actually the man setting that up points out the new rules on supply of certain legal services to consumers about when certain indicative prices should appear on a website (of those rims who actually have a website) do not apply to family law. I think I suggested above that they might. (I don't do family law) None of that changes the general rules that you should get a letter of engagement setting out the fee basis etc.

@Hiddentruth - despite my many many posts on MN and probably on legal too going back a couple of years that is the first time anyone has mentioned “professionally compromised”.

I have known all along something was not right with this situation but never knew exactly what - thank you!

@greenberet

I am delighted that for once I have said something which makes sense!!!

Things might be looking up!

@greenberet

The SRA have an ethics helpline for their regulated members ie. the solicitors we employ, to take advice on the complex situations where their duties may be conflicting and they also have a RED ALERT LINE to report anything suspicious about behaviour by any colleagues whether in their own firm or otherwise.

The SRA keep encouraging use of these vital facilities to keep the profession in order and their members on the right side of their many and sometimes conflicting duties.

If any lawyers on here wish to describe what I have said here better please do!

Thankyou @Hiddentruth - I would be interested to hear if any legals on here have been in a situation where they have advised client to attend court alone and if it is a rare or common occurrence in their experience

Loads of people cannot afford legal help including in business disputes so go alone. It is certainly better to turn up alone than not at all so yes advice would be turn up rather than don't show and lose. I have had some clients without much money just wanting occasional help with court paperwork (in business cases) who have done cases alone. Sometimes they are perfectly good at doing it alone in straight forward cases - X did not pay the invoice and Y says the work was a load of rubbish - in fact the small claims court is based on the principle neither side will usually have solicitors or a barrister present and usually neither side can recover legal costs from the other.

Xenia my situation wasn’t that I could not afford legal help I was specifically persuaded to go alone - for the court hearing brought by my x to force the sale of the family home - your answer just helps clarify how “wrong” this was and how messed up my head was at the time to think I could have coped with this - never mind the fact that his statement had not been received beforehand the court hearing

If cannot afford a lawyer or a plumber or a car repair that is just how life is. It's awfully unfair and horrible at times.

I couldn't afford to go to court with a lawyer either so settled on what many people wuold think were very unfair terms - no child support ever and more than half of capital to husband. I just suck it up and get on with life. Not easy of course. I do think comrpomiseing early even if badly to get everythig over and done with one and for all where that is possible, like swallowing nasty medicine quickly can work for some couples rather than a long dragged out thing. However plenty of spouses want to hurt the other through constant court actions so for some they have no choice but to carry on.

XENIa i really dont get the gist of your posts I thought you had settled amicably but it seems you took a hit to get it all over and done with quickly

I couldn’t afford court when i started i had £6k of children’s savings everything else controlled by x - breast cancer payout gave me means to pay. - I wanted to get out of process many a time and take financial hit my legals told me I would not survive - my settlement far worse - hence why depression currently sever
THE difference I paid FOr professional legal help they mucked about with my financial situation and MH far worse than if I had chosen to do nothing. Whatever way you look at it this cannot be right

@Xenia and other lawyers on here

The gist of the latest comments 9n here have as @greenberet says..,got a bit lost

We are talking about when lawyers become compromised in cases and how they deal with that and in the same breath the sutuations where, as has clearly happened to me and greenberet, where solicitors acting for us actually advise us to go into court alone!!!!

This thread has seen comments of criticism for people entering into court unrepresented,.,as if we are getting what we are due for being so stupid!

But this is not the point being made. The point being made is that solicitors are reneging on their duty to represent which happened twice to me in what I understood to be normal ancillary relief proceedings.

It then happened at Final hearing too and again at a subsequent hearing when the final order was still unsealed after 3 months!!!!

So, individual case issues aside, when a solicitor feels professionally compromised where does their first duty lie where they know harm is being done to their client?

I would be interested to hear if any legals on here have been in a situation where they have advised client to attend court alone even when they are on the court record. ..and have not come off it and how do they get off the court record without coercing their client to do that for them against the client wishes?

Is it is a rare or common occurrence in their experience and how useful are the SRA in helping such situations?

People are actually being seriously harmed in the court process and this harm is not happening in a vacuum. It is happending by deviation from process and strategic manoeuvres which should be unpermissable because of family procedure rules .

So...how long has this been going on? It really is a car crash in our courts. I could not recommend anyone goes near them. That is an absolute tragedy for the concept of Justice ever being able to be done. I have seen legislation disregarded the rule book torn up.

Did you ask these questions directly to the solicitors who were dealing with your case. If so, what response or insights did they give, as surely that is going to give you the most meaningful resolution to your concern, since they knew the context and rationale for their recommendations. They need to answer your concerns.

Also did you escalate your concerns back through their official complaints procedure?

I can tell from your and greenberets posts you have been through the grinder big time, and I'm sure nothing can take away that anguish, but ensuring you ask the searching questions of the right people, and get responses from them as they are accountable for this, not the legal profession as a whole - will give you a higher likelihood of personal resolution if that is what you're seeking.

As I always encourage on the Employment Issues Board, it is important to be clear what the end goal is - otherwise you'll burn yourself out emotionally, and will remain 'stuck' (sorry if that's psychobabble, but it does help to coin the situation as best I can). Don't harm your longer term emotional well-being by trying to find answers that may never be forthcoming, or be unsatisfactory to you.

I am not sure I have eve rbeen professionally compromised and it depends how you define that too. If a client asked me to do something illegal like launder money or act for both sides in the same transaction I wouldn't do it.

So what is the point about a solicitor or barrister reneging on a duty to represent? In most commercial litigation if court proceedings are started and your client does not pay you you apply to the court to come off the record.

Isn't the point about my settling amicably and taking a hit the biggest issue for most people of all? That most out of court settlements mean both sides feel really badly done to and gave way a huge amount to avoid the cost and time of court - that is what settlement and compromise is about - it's about diving money away and feeling awful because the risk of going to court could be even worse - it might be bette rof course but most people just give up and would rather spare cash (where there is any) goes to the other party in most negotiations over who pays what. It is not a contradiction to have an out of court agreement but it being on bad terms to both sides - that both sides had a chance of winning more in court but chose not to risk it.

When I was advised to attend court alone there was no issue about unpaid fees - my solicitors no 2 was at the end of a phone - incase I needed to speak to her and boy did i - except I was too distraught to make any sense of anything I was told

I have an email sent From court saying shit I am sunk when I saw x statement -

DAIsy - I have gone through the complaints process with the firm their responses utter bullshit which i knew it would be as a step to LO and SRA. 18 months down the line with LO And about to go back to SRA.

Someone else made a complaint ABOUt the firm on a review website - same issues as me but I did not see this until too late

@collaborate I raised an issue on here sometime back - I wondered if you would be willing to answer it please,

OK so I sent the report to the expert - x and his solicitor told the expert he did not have permission to use it in his advice?

Expert had been ordered by court to establish whether I had been disadvantaged as a result of transfer and x been ordered to make copy of his report available to me

BEing an LIP I was not familiar with nuances - but I now thinking I was taken advantage of here (again) and if I had gone back to the judge and said look you ordered x to make transfer report available - I think this needs to be taken into account in experts decision - can you order that expert has permission to use it.

Is this what I would need to have done to overrule x’s Solicitor saying there was no permission and was x’s Solicitor acting questionably here?