Legal advice

[dgadee]

If your club has insurance it may have legal advice etc. That can be used. But remember the lawyer you get is working for the insurance company, not you

 

[ashtead]

If your club has insurance it may have legal advice etc. That can be used. But remember the lawyer you get is working for the insurance company, not you

I assume you have in mind BTE legal expense insurance forming part of whatever property or suchlike insurances held. If there is such cover then while the insurers would normally prefer use of a panel insurer they have to access the prospects of success to indemnify you against third party costs the prospects of success have be greater than say65% normally. I suspect based on limited info won’t apply but worth a look as said. You could of course see if RYA can help.

 

[dgadee]

I assume you have in mind BTE legal expense insurance forming part of whatever property or suchlike insurances held. If there is such cover then while the insurers would normally prefer use of a panel insurer they have to access the prospects of success to indemnify you against third party costs the prospects of success have be greater than say65% normally. I suspect based on limited info won’t apply but worth a look as said. You could of course see if RYA can help.

True, but they will not advise you as a normal client. They take their instructions from the insurance company. Assessing potential success is no doubt a mystical art but I suspect those on a panel might be less optimistic about success than an independent solicitor.

 

[ashtead]

Indeed a panel solicitor might take a more conservative view but they might see a far greater number of cases than the independent solicitor keen to take on a case with less experience. In short insurers choose firms with a good track record tracked over many cases by data returns and the firms wish to retain repeat business so don’t take on speculative cases.

 

[coopec]

I’m a member of a small boat angling club and for the last twenty plus years we have kept out tractors and caravan( used as a communication centre for all boats out fishing) we have been told by the Local council ( the owners of the compound and the same council that gave us the compound )that we have to get all our tractors and caravan out as they need to do some work nearby and there would be a health and safety issue if we don’t. Now this did and did not come as a shock , as we had been given the nod that the council want us out for good so they can redevelop the area. Now after twenty plus years they are just dumping us out , they have not offered us any alternative space ( compound) so for all those years we have maintained this compound and never received any complaints as to our use or behaviour in or around the compound. So does anyone know where we stand , we have never had , been offered or asked ourselves for an agreement as to our tenancy of the compound. Can we be just thrown out or should the local council be offering us an alternative accommodation. Hope there is enough information here for anyone who may be able to help. Thanks for reading this post. Kieron

The Shire is under no obligation to give assistance to a private club/association. Consider yourselves lucky the owner allowed you to have use of the land for as long as you did.

People who suggest claiming the land through Adverse Possession are not helpful. The club doesn't own the land and never did and therefore Club cannot claim compensation.

The ultimate ownership of all land in the UK is the Crown and they can do whatever they need to do with it

(Find yourself another site and move on)

What is adverse possession?
Adverse possession (or squatter’s rights) is a principle that allows a person to claim ownership over another person’s property without paying for it, if they have been occupying it without permission. If the person claiming adverse possession is successful, then the owner’s right in the property is extinguished and the adverse possessor becomes the owner of the property.

Adverse Possession | Sharrock Pitman Legal

 

[dgadee]

Indeed a panel solicitor might take a more conservative view but they might see a far greater number of cases than the independent solicitor keen to take on a case with less experience. In short insurers choose firms with a good track record tracked over many cases by data returns and the firms wish to retain repeat business so don’t take on speculative cases.

True. But insurers are well known for trying to reduce their outgoings. In PI cases offering low settlement amounts just before Xmas is one if the most obvious.

Lawyers are in business. They are not your friends.

 

[ashtead]

Indeed lawyers are a business hence why they have no interest in taking on speculative cases where insurers have to pick up third party costs if the claim fails. It’s not economic to run cases where the odds look worse than 65% although of course during the case details change and those odds might reduce. Sadly parties commitment is sometimes poor as well and they don’t realise time they may need to take on the case and they loose commitment. Lastly clients cannot outsource all their thinking to their lawyers which sadly many claimants don’t realise.

 

[dgadee]

Indeed lawyers are a business hence why they have no interest in taking on speculative cases where insurers have to pick up third party costs if the claim fails. It’s not economic to run cases where the odds look worse than 65% although of course during the case details change and those odds might reduce. Sadly parties commitment is sometimes poor as well and they don’t realise time they may need to take on the case and they loose commitment. Lastly clients cannot outsource all their thinking to their lawyers which sadly many claimants don’t realise.

Yes, the system is not great for those who meet it only once.

 

[coopec]

Indeed lawyers are a business hence why they have no interest in taking on speculative cases where insurers have to pick up third party costs if the claim fails. It’s not economic to run cases where the odds look worse than 65% although of course during the case details change and those odds might reduce. Sadly parties commitment is sometimes poor as well and they don’t realise time they may need to take on the case and they loose commitment. Lastly clients cannot outsource all their thinking to their lawyers which sadly many claimants don’t realise.

There is nothing speculative about this situation.

Of course you can be a mug and make an appointment to get legal advice just so you can be told you haven't got a leg to stand on. (AND you will leave his/her rooms with your wallet £ 100 lighter)

 

[ashtead]

If you are only paying the solicitor £100 per hour the advice might not be that useful.

 

[dgadee]

If you are only paying the solicitor £100 per hour the advice might not be that useful.

Yes, the legal system was run to provide for the profession. Unfortunately the state no longer wants to keep you in the style you have become accustomed to. Hopefully we will move to a more German system. More efficient, cheaper and better suited to the needs of the public.

 

[coopec]

If you are only paying the solicitor £100 per hour the advice might not be that useful.

Really? So it would take an English solicitor an hour to explain to you that you have no case in law?

An Australian solicitor wouldn't take an hour to tell us we had no case in law. We'd be shown the door within 5 minutes (and relieved of $200 )