WARNING do not use Royds solicitors
The accident, washing machines fell from
30 ft
James Millar Craig Lied
This
post begins from when we stopped using Royds as our solicitor.
We
found another solicitor that was willing to except our instructions and to take
over the conduct thereof, Royds wanted £15,000 + before they were prepared to
released the files after some consultation with our new solicitor they came to
an agreement of an interim payment of £5,875 inclusive of VAT.
James
Millar Craig now our previous solicitor partner in a firm called Royds was
determined to discredit us by lying to our new Solicitor in saying that we did
not attend rehabilitation in March 2004 whereas Mr. Craig considered that
rehabilitation would have been helpful to the both of us.
The
trail for the truth begins on 8 March 2004 why the 8 March because the letter
prior to the 8 March was 9 December 2003, yes one would have thought a case
management specialist would have been involved because of the type of injuries
Mary succumbed, head injury, fractured 3 vertebras, suffering from short term
memory loss and post-traumatic stress disorder and needing constant medication.
I
would like to mention in my e-mail March 9 2004, I mentioned problems with
Mary's memory and change of behavior and her colleagues questioning her
forgetfulness and horrible attacks of depression, at the time I did not know
what all this meant not being a doctor or a personal injury solicitor, bells
should have been ringing in this area of profession, but Mr. Craig chose to
ignore what I was saying in my e-mail? We had the same problem with our
youngest daughter when she complained to her GP of having severe headaches and
losing feelings on one side of her body it took eight months before her GP
considered applying for a brain scan and it took a further 6 weeks for her
appointment and it took a further six weeks before they realize she had a brain
tumor by then it was too late to save her.
This
trail begins on the 8 March 2004, an e-mail from Royds 2 attachments (client)
8th.doc & (ace) 8th.doc, for those who don't understand computer
terminology there was 2 letters attach to the e-mail, one of the attachments
was called (client) 8th.doc, even though it was attach to an e-mail that was
dated 8 March 2004 it was a letter dated 9 December 2003, it was the letter I
received from Mr. Craig before Christmas? Also the other attach letter was (ace)
8th.doc. The date was correct to the e-mail 8 March 2004; of course I am
wondering why (client) 8th.doc was sent again?
The
second letter (ace) 8th.doc Mr. Craig thanks Mr. Neil Anderson of Ace Europe
for his letter 12th February which I have never received, this seemed to be a
clever orchestrated move, that answers why we have a 2003 (client) 8th.doc, he
goes on to say obviously in geographical proximity, it is a pity that he did
not see that logic with Dr. Lieberman in Surrey, he makes this statement here
because it suited him, but he was prepared to send us from Edmonton north
London to Surrey, he goes on to suggest that a rehabilitation specialist Tessa
Gough & Associates in Hampstead, I presume that the letter 12th February gave
an option of 2 rehabilitation specialist?
Mr.
Craig goes on to say in the letter, with regard to matters generally we need to
progress this claim, well this is unusual coming out of his mouth, I tracked
back to 15.5.03 letter from Ace Europe, please confirmed that it would be your
intention to deal with this matter in accordance with the provision of the
Personal injury pre-action protocol, I am so surprised because at the time I
was overtaken by Mary's injuries and never had the time to scrutinize this
letter, personally I did not think that there was an option to hop in or out of
the pre-action protocol, well it looks like Royds had decided to hopped out of
it altogether, so I guest this is where the game begun since it was me that had
to pick a solicitor for Mary the only thing I have to say to Mr. Craig is that
you are an arsehole.
I don't know if we the tax payer had to
pay Lord Woolf, one of our most prominent judge in the land to produce his
pre-action protocol and if the tax payer had to pay for its production I
question that it would be a waste of money if it is not implemented in anyway.
He
also mentioned that Costco had admitted liability, with your letter of 30th May
2003,
That
is another letter that I don't have in my possession, he is amazing, how good
he is in safeguarding the defendants, and I don't even know which type of
liability they have accepted,
The
only time I heard that Costco have admitted liability is when I pursued the
Local Authority for Waltham Forest Council to release their files that
contained a pack of lies.
Mr.
Craig called me that evening at 6:00 on my mobile to inform me that Costco had
admitted liability and I would not be able to obtain any files because of the
1974 act, interesting how the Local Authority managed to know who was my
solicitor, and manage to get him out of working hours to call me, considering
that he neglected to do all the crucial work that was required from a personal
injury solicitor, taking months and years to accomplish anything, and as for Mary's
Medical case management never! I do believe that Mr. Craig is corrupted he was
introduced to me by Mr. Findlay my old Jewish solicitor in Southgate who is a
partner in the firm.
The
e-mail we received on the 5 May 2004 attachments 5 client.doc was a letter
dated 2 May 2006 it goes on to say that we should make an appointment to come
and see him, over a year later he had decided to see his injured claimant and
still have not obtained a rehabilitation program for her, it is now 13 months
since her accident.
However
we managed to get an appointment to see him on the 27 May 2004 he certainly was
not in a hurry to see us, when we was there he mentioned about making an
appointment with Tessa Gough which we agreed to.
It is now 1
June 2004 letter from Mr. Craig he had decided to send Neil Anderson of Ace
Europe an urgent letter (we refer to our letter of 8 March 2004) they both seem
to be taking turns behaving outrageously taking months to answer a letter, it
looks like he hasn't done anything yet going by the list of demands he was
asking for, still nothing about rehabilitation why he did not explain to me how
important it is for someone with major injuries should have a rehabilitation
specialist involved when they came out of hospital bearing in mind that he was
a personal injury solicitor that was on the bonafide members list of the Law
Society why didn't he ask me to pay for an independent rehabilitation
specialist so the family could have had the opportunity to contribute? The
rehabilitation specialists may have notice that Mary had a problem with her
short-term memory loss and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Letter
28. June 2004 still nothing had been done, rehabilitation what rehabilitation?
Mr. Craig talks a load of crap in this letter saying that Mary was going to
speak to my accountant regarding my accounts for April 2003 and the period
since.
His
e-mail received 20.7. 2004, document dated 22 April 2006 he seems to be out of
touch and years ahead? (With regard to Mary’s accident claim, if she does need
any treatment we should claim the cost of it privately.) What does he mean by
that? The man in charge of complaints for Royds, Mr. Wright, this is what he
has to say, (It is fair to say, as often happens, Insurers became more aggressive
after they had instructed Solicitors, Praxis Partners.) is this firm run by a
bunch of nutters? Still no rehabilitation specialist for Mary!! Would you still
want to use Royds to represent Mary in this case?
Mr. Craig’s e-mail attachment 20.7. 2004
document 19 Praxis.doc dated 23 April 2006, Royds have decided to submit my
claim to Praxis Partners and made me their claimant but the only problem is
that the date they submit 23 April 2006 happens to run out of time, making it
time bar.
Letter
7.9.04 they have totally forgotten about Mary's rehabilitation specialist, now
they are offering the defendant an opportunity to take full charge on
overseeing the condition and welfare of their claimant and diminish any
responsibility that was behold on to them when they accepted the retainer and
the responsibility that came with it, the defendant have decided to bring in
their own spinal orthopedic surgeon to right a report on Mary's condition,
Letters
2.11.04 Royds have completely discarded Mary's rehabilitation specialist, they
have full interest in taking on my case without me asking them, at this stage I
have no trust in them and do believe that they are colluding with the
defendant,
Letter
18 November 2004 well what do I say Royds certainly don't see the need for Mary
having a rehabilitation specialist, Royds don't even have the ability to obtain
their own orthopaedic spinal surgeon and is prepared to wait until March 2005
before anything is done for Mary!!
Letter
22 February 2005, after reading about mild brain injury early intervention is
required I do feel that even if a rehabilitation specialist is acquired now it
wouldn't help Mary in any way, however Mr. Craig goes on to say we had an
appointment with Mr. Noordeen 8 December, the last time we heard from Mr. Craig
was on the 18 November 2004, 3 months ago and he is asking me Dr. Colin Berry
how is Mary's condition any medical treatment, somehow I think he thinks he is
employing me to gather this information for his claimant and if I gather the wrong
information who will be blamed for it?
Letter
28 February 2005, Mr. Craig has finally got Mr. Noordeen's report that is over
3 months from the examination, going by hindsight it has taken from the initial
letter 16 October 2003 that I can trace mentioning Mr. Noordeen, the letter
dated 29 September from Ace Europe request for Mr. Noordeen spinal surgeon was
never sent to me, however using the date 16 October 2003 approving Mr.
Noordeen, and the receiving of Mr. Noordeen’s report on 28 February 2005 that
is over 1 year and 14 weeks it took these two firms to obtain a professional
report.
But
it doesn't stop there, these two firms seem to be collaborating well, going by
hindsight they have further plans for us, Mr. Craig knows we need our own
independent report on Mary's spine considering that Mr. Noordeen had only made
a brief report, considering the time they took to obtain Mr. Noordeen's report,
but Mr. Craig decided to send me 2 orthopaedic surgeons names on the 5th July
2005 that is 4 months since he received the report from Mr. Noordeen and that
is not all the 2 orthopaedic surgeons names that he gave me wasn't spinal
surgeons this is a website of one of them
http://www.fareshaddad.com/
after my refusal to choose one of them Mr. Craig had decided not to bother. I
painstakingly found the names of 2 spinal surgeons on 14.7.05 and sent them to
Mr. Craig; he ignored me for another month.
Letter
5 August 2005, Happy birthday Colin, this is my birthday present from Royds
still playing the delay tactics I have already sent him 2 sets of forms of
authority for some reason he is looking for another set, Mary's and mine! He
says that they may have gone astray in the post, Mr. Craig wants Mary and I to
see a doctor Lieberman in Surrey, and asks have I received the appointments
from Dr. Clarke, I may be thick but I believe in accomplishing important jobs
one at a time such as the orthopaedic spinal surgeon for Mary, he missed
completely getting her a rehabilitation specialist so that is 2 misses out of
2, two crucial elements that he was supposed to fulfill by Lord Woolfs'
protocol but as far as Royds was concerned who is this Lord Woolf, Royds is
only listening to Praxis Partners the goose with the Golden egg, now he goes on
to say, about the Consultants Spinal Surgeon perhaps I could let him know who
is suitable, the man forgot that I sent him the names of 2 spinal surgeon on
14.7.05 all that hard work I done for him to enable him to fulfill Lord Woolf's
protocol is out of the window.
He
goes on to say in the letter, with regard to a police report I recall that
there was an incidents number, the guy has not managed to get the report would
you believe it, this angers me I manage to get him this information on a plate,
I had to go to my local MP to get him to get in touch with the police officer
in charge of the case, and he gave me full information to give to Royds 19.6.03
Detective Inspector McFee, does Mr. Craig know the amount of work involved in
getting an appointment with your local MP, in Edmonton they hold their
appointments on Friday evenings when I turned up there was about 10 people
waiting to be seen, however if he wants to play the silly Billy card there is
no getting away from it, 2005 the freedom of information act came into place
when he was waiting around for 2 months here and 3 months there he could have
done it, or has he the intention of playing the devil's card saying that he
never received it. He goes on to say, as far as the other side are concerned
their view is as liability is admitted they do not have to disclose, I haven't
heard so much of shit in my life if we happened to die while proceeding is
issued, is he going to tell me that all crucial information will be saved
guarded for 3 years and presented to him on a plate the man is living in dream
land.
All
the letters mentioned could be read in File
Sharing 2 click here
Click here to e-mail me. Put topic as
subject