Extremely Sensitive - Matter
In Brief :
Leading -Permanent Disability.
Loss of earnings; Loss of future earnings.
1. The Claimant is an individual who was a previous Claimant in civil actions against the police claims brought against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police ('the Commissioner').
2. Reopen of compromised PI Case on medical grounds that redress for long term ill health (The Disability), and future earnings were not considered or included in compromise. HIGH PROFILE MATTER.
3. The Claimant (Me) is now registered (Permanent Disabled).
Did you accept a sum in full and final settlement?
Were solicitors involved?
When was this?
Is the disablement resulting from whatever caused the claim?
1. Did you accept a sum in full and final settlement?
A. The Claimant (Me) did not wish or agreed to the matter being compromise mere one day before commencement of Trial In (RCJ). The Action sought exceeded 1 Million Pounds.
In 1999 the First Action was oddly compromised by "Solicitors" one business day before commencement of Trial On the basis that the Commissioner paid the Claimant £100,000 ('the Award') and pay the Solicitors reasonable costs exceeding £800.000 plus interest; vat.
Were solicitors involved?
A.Yes. However; Solicitors are being sued for Negligence; as on receipt of the aforesaid, it then unlawfully spent the settlement sum on disbursement when it ort not to have done so. ("LIP"). until we Locate a Trustworthy firm or Lawyer.
A. 10 May 1999: Solicitors settlement;
A. 12.09.1994; Injury occurred on;
A. 12.09.1994; Suffered from Disability as a result of injury; unable to return to work. Now (with regret) registered permanently Disabled
On 12 September 1994 the Claimant was (UNLAWFULLY) viscously and brutally assaulted in an unprovoked racially motivated brutal attack by three civilian dressed CID police officers. The Claimant lost the sight in (My) right eye. (The First Action)
So if it isnt settled why does it need to be reopened?
I did not agree to the comprised settlement; the Solicitors in question simply settled in order to receive cost exceeding £800.000. They did not have My interest at heart, "I’m in tears as I write this message".
And I agree!. It is not a settled matter. Nor was the Claimant paid the sum.
What should the writer do now?. . . (Pls).
Did you raise with with Solicitors Regulation Authority as a complaint?
What has happened since 1999?
Q. Did you raise with with Solicitors Regulation Authority as a complaint?
1. A. Yes!. However, its not as simple as it sounds. You see, there’s more corruption; by some individuals in SRA than you’ll ever imagine; Namely, “Who knows who”;
2. SRA simply remained silent on the matter; We later realised, the SRA are in place to protect Solicitors rights (only); SRA are paid a
“Hansom” fee by Solicitors; which forms a (“Blue Chip”) Fund Worth Multi Millions of Pounds; In return for protection at ALL COST.
3. SRA; individual (concerned) has no interest in members of the Public. (Especially when the untoward Solicitors firm (concerned)
deceitfully received cost exceeding £800.000 sterling.
4. According to the SRA; Individual (concerned) “The Victim has no rights!” (AT SRA).
What has happened since 1999?. . .
Worst Day of My Life!.
5. Lost My beloved Mother to Cancer as a result of the
Incidents concerned hereinbefore.
6. Underwent Substantial medical surgeries as result of injuries sustained;
7. Closure of Business; Unable to return back to office;
Suffered loss of earnings exceeding £250,000 per year since incident.
8. On 14 April 2003 made bankrupt by Kings College Hospital for the non-payment of invoice.
9.The Claimant consequently lost a series of financial investments culminating in the repossession of his home;This included forced sales of assets (“investment properties”) exceeding £1M.
In respect of Solicitors Negligence Matter:
10. On 24 November 2003 Master Wright made findings in a Judgment in the Supreme Court Reference 03/A/663, when dismissing the Solicitors firm (concerned) application, confirming the breaches set out in paragraphs 12 and 13. It is averred that this amounts to issue estoppel and prevents the Defendant from Solicitors firm (concerned) resiling from those findings.
11. On 22 December 2007 the Claimant was made street homeless.
Attempted - Study Law. Suffered nervous breakdown. Interrupted studies (“for the moment”).
Disability renders Me Bedridden periodically in sever pain.; Unable to conduct My own affairs.
Trying - make it back!. Damages for loss sustained and future loss will safe My Life!.
"And the Life of others!".
Anyone who has been on the end of the SRA would disagree with you. I will opt out for another expert to consider.
Hi, I am a moderator for this topic. It seems the Professional has left this conversation. This happens occasionally, and it's usually because the professional thinks that someone else might be a better match for your question. I've been working hard to find a new Professional to assist you right away, but sometimes finding the right Professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're ok with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.