I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
I am sure their actual losses would take some calculating. Some took out loans. Others re-mortgaged their home. Some were left with shops, without the post office, and presumably with far less footfall, compared to when they did. They all lost their post office income. Many couldnt get a decent job due to a lack of a reference, or because of a criminal conviction. Some lost their husband/wife due to suicide. Others suffered mental health issues.
I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
I am sure their actual losses would take some calculating. Some took out loans. Others re-mortgaged their home. Some were left with shops, without the post office, and presumably with far less footfall, compared to when they did. They all lost their post office income. Many couldnt get a decent job due to a lack of a reference, or because of a criminal conviction. Some lost their husband/wife due to suicide. Others suffered mental health issues.
Some of that list cannot be claimed. Other parts cannot be claimed without specialist external experts.
As a rule of thumb, the best case scenario normally involves me (back in the day) getting about 70% of my/their costs from the other side. You could try, for example, looking up "Party and Party Costs"-but I really wouldn't recommend it
It is a complex subject. As I vividly recall telling a former client who wanted to argue about that, there are 3 options:-
1. You believe me 2. You can carry on arguing, but this topic is one where I am not going to be able to recover the fees, so I would like you personally to pay me £5,000 to continue this discussion or 3. Find yourself a new Solicitor. I will be duty bound to explain to the funding Insurer why I am no longer acting...
Not saying that applies to you. Delighted that I no longer have to do such things.
Some things in life are complicated. Law? Sometimes. Legal costs/funding? Nearly always
I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
I am sure their actual losses would take some calculating. Some took out loans. Others re-mortgaged their home. Some were left with shops, without the post office, and presumably with far less footfall, compared to when they did. They all lost their post office income. Many couldnt get a decent job due to a lack of a reference, or because of a criminal conviction. Some lost their husband/wife due to suicide. Others suffered mental health issues.
Some of that list cannot be claimed. Other parts cannot be claimed without specialist external experts.
As a rule of thumb, the best case scenario normally involves me (back in the day) getting about 70% of my/their costs from the other side. You could try, for example, looking up "Party and Party Costs"-but I really wouldn't recommend it
It is a complex subject. As I vividly recall telling a former client who wanted to argue about that, there are 3 options:-
1. You believe me 2. You can carry on arguing, but this topic is one where I am not going to be able to recover the fees, so I would like you personally to pay me £5,000 to continue this discussion or 3. Find yourself a new Solicitor. I will be duty bound to explain to the funding Insurer why I am no longer acting...
Not saying that applies to you. Delighted that I no longer have to do such things.
Some things in life are complicated. Law? Sometimes. Legal costs/funding? Nearly always
I wouldnt have a clue what costs they could claim for. I was just making the point that the claims wouldnt necessarily be straightforward. There was a couple involved. She was sacked over a £44,000 loss. She had to repay the money. So lets say she had to take out a loan, over 10 years, and say £20k interest. The husband worked for the Post Office, and also lost his job. So they both lost their income. Lets say it took 12 months for them both to find a job. So much more complicated than saying she had to pay back £44k.
I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
I am sure their actual losses would take some calculating. Some took out loans. Others re-mortgaged their home. Some were left with shops, without the post office, and presumably with far less footfall, compared to when they did. They all lost their post office income. Many couldnt get a decent job due to a lack of a reference, or because of a criminal conviction. Some lost their husband/wife due to suicide. Others suffered mental health issues.
Some of that list cannot be claimed. Other parts cannot be claimed without specialist external experts.
As a rule of thumb, the best case scenario normally involves me (back in the day) getting about 70% of my/their costs from the other side. You could try, for example, looking up "Party and Party Costs"-but I really wouldn't recommend it
It is a complex subject. As I vividly recall telling a former client who wanted to argue about that, there are 3 options:-
1. You believe me 2. You can carry on arguing, but this topic is one where I am not going to be able to recover the fees, so I would like you personally to pay me £5,000 to continue this discussion or 3. Find yourself a new Solicitor. I will be duty bound to explain to the funding Insurer why I am no longer acting...
Not saying that applies to you. Delighted that I no longer have to do such things.
Some things in life are complicated. Law? Sometimes. Legal costs/funding? Nearly always
It is just a very sad story. Our legal system has allowed the Post Office to evade justice for over 20 years, and ruin many peoples lives. Instead of punishing the CEO, she was honoured. Yet the current CEO that has been in post for 12 months, and therefore had nothing to do with this scandal, has been fired. That seems to make perfect sense. This is why we are world leaders in just about everything.
I got this book on Saturday, it's such a good read. Around 560 pages, so a meaty tome, but it's unputdownable. What a genuine scandal this whole thing is. Those responsible, mainly in the Post Office, must be held to account.
I got this book on Saturday, it's such a good read. Around 560 pages, so a meaty tome, but it's unputdownable. What a genuine scandal this whole thing is. Those responsible, mainly in the Post Office, must be held to account.
I only watched the drama last week. I found the whole thing incredible, and was astonished that this was allowed to happen in the UK. The buck must stop with the Post Office, but others were involved. The Post Office wilfully pursued these prosecutions, even after they had to be aware that something serious must have gone wrong. I have no idea of the usual figures, but you have to smell a rat when the number of sub-postmasters suddenly defrauding them runs into hundreds. I was annoyed by their lack of cooperation with any of the investigations. In fact they were probably guilty of going out of their way to obstruct the investigations as much as they could. They ruined many peoples lives. Some ended their lives. It was a complete disaster that should have been settled many years ago. Paula Vennels should be in jail. The other woman had a Dutch name, so I guess some on the forum will wish to blame the EU. She should also be in jail.
Comments
Some took out loans.
Others re-mortgaged their home.
Some were left with shops, without the post office, and presumably with far less footfall, compared to when they did.
They all lost their post office income.
Many couldnt get a decent job due to a lack of a reference, or because of a criminal conviction.
Some lost their husband/wife due to suicide.
Others suffered mental health issues.
As a rule of thumb, the best case scenario normally involves me (back in the day) getting about 70% of my/their costs from the other side. You could try, for example, looking up "Party and Party Costs"-but I really wouldn't recommend it
It is a complex subject. As I vividly recall telling a former client who wanted to argue about that, there are 3 options:-
1. You believe me
2. You can carry on arguing, but this topic is one where I am not going to be able to recover the fees, so I would like you personally to pay me £5,000 to continue this discussion or
3. Find yourself a new Solicitor. I will be duty bound to explain to the funding Insurer why I am no longer acting...
Not saying that applies to you. Delighted that I no longer have to do such things.
Some things in life are complicated. Law? Sometimes. Legal costs/funding? Nearly always
I was just making the point that the claims wouldnt necessarily be straightforward.
There was a couple involved.
She was sacked over a £44,000 loss.
She had to repay the money.
So lets say she had to take out a loan, over 10 years, and say £20k interest.
The husband worked for the Post Office, and also lost his job.
So they both lost their income.
Lets say it took 12 months for them both to find a job.
So much more complicated than saying she had to pay back £44k.
Our legal system has allowed the Post Office to evade justice for over 20 years, and ruin many peoples lives.
Instead of punishing the CEO, she was honoured.
Yet the current CEO that has been in post for 12 months, and therefore had nothing to do with this scandal, has been fired.
That seems to make perfect sense.
This is why we are world leaders in just about everything.
No
I got this book on Saturday, it's such a good read. Around 560 pages, so a meaty tome, but it's unputdownable. What a genuine scandal this whole thing is. Those responsible, mainly in the Post Office, must be held to account.
I found the whole thing incredible, and was astonished that this was allowed to happen in the UK.
The buck must stop with the Post Office, but others were involved.
The Post Office wilfully pursued these prosecutions, even after they had to be aware that something serious must have gone wrong.
I have no idea of the usual figures, but you have to smell a rat when the number of sub-postmasters suddenly defrauding them runs into hundreds.
I was annoyed by their lack of cooperation with any of the investigations.
In fact they were probably guilty of going out of their way to obstruct the investigations as much as they could.
They ruined many peoples lives.
Some ended their lives.
It was a complete disaster that should have been settled many years ago.
Paula Vennels should be in jail.
The other woman had a Dutch name, so I guess some on the forum will wish to blame the EU.
She should also be in jail.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/judiciary-not-responsible-for-horizon-scandal-convictions-top-judge-says/ar-BB1hRqOu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=598ceb87fbfc4944b8080539793f2130&ei=38
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/post-office-pursued-post-mistress-182622373.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/alan-bates-rejects-ridiculous-invite-154440235.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/it-s-kemi-badenoch-v-the-post-office-the-show-where-ministers-sweep-everything-under-the-carpet/ar-BB1jpPz8?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=47c617329ce640f6a0982b82df665f24&ei=34
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/post-office-chief-misled-high-154757925.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/paula-vennells-dismissed-proposal-end-111410964.html