Some background

This is the story of my dealing with Chiltern Solicitors (Luton LU2 8DL).  The individuals involved are Charles Goldthorpe (Paralegal), Philip Ivinson (Solicitor and owner) and Peter Ward (Barrister).

If you are researching any of the above you are more than likely hiring or thinking of hiring them and this is likely your first time in dealing with the legal system.  One thing you will never fully understand until you are in court is how much trust you must have in your legal team.  You might be presenting the verbal evidence but your Barrister pulls all the strings and unless you trust him almost as much as you trust yourself, then do not walk into a court with him.  When there, unless you are on the stand giving evidence then your Barrister speaks for you.  You have no right to talk, you do not even sit next to your barrister (you sit behind him).  You can (if you're lucky) get his attention and whisper something to him, or pass him a note.  And unless he knows your case almost as well as you, he (Peter Ward in this instance) will just make things up as he goes along because he doesn't know the case.  I will detail examples of this at the blog develops.

What happened was nothing short of a total disaster.  They allowed my case to go to court without preparing me in anyway and without presenting any viable case to the court.  As I've said to them 'this was cruel'.  A court case is stressful enough but under these circumstances it was a nightmare.

If anyone reading this has any questions please feel free to contact me alex123case@gmail.com  I'm happy to be an open book with any questions.  I believe the only thing that I can't disclose as it might cause me problems is the name of third parties.

Further, I fully understand that I could be sued for writing anything within this blog that is not factually true.  Which is fine with me and please also don't take my word for it, I will provide accompanying evidence with all of my claims.  On the rare occasion that I do not do this I will expressly inform that the content is my own opinion.  Please forgive any spelling mistakes as I have Dyslexia.

Posted complaints could well be construed as just a disgruntled losing party.  However, I fully offer that any parties involved in this process have a right to reply and I will publish it within this Blog and in full.  Further I openly encourage that any point contain within this Blog can be fully and opening debated by any parties and I will publish all correspondences regardless of their content (other than the possibility of removing identifying information, especially for third parties).

Here is an excellent guide on what a good Skeleton argument should consist of: http://www.biicl.org/files/2223_skeleton_arguments_guide.pdf

This is the Skeleton produced by Peter Ward (Chiltern Solicitors). Please click  You will notes that the case regards a number of reasonable adjustments under the Disability Act.  Mr Ward fails to even mention what they are, it's terrible document.

To show you an example of a good well constructed Skeleton here is my opponents (Click Here).  Even the size of the document is good indicator of how much information is missing with Peter Wards being just 7 pages and my opponents being 16.  I despite a lot of the content of this document but its constructed as a Skeleton should be.

A good quality skeleton should present the full case so that it can be followed by the Judge.   In fact the ideal would be that it reads like a judge would write a judgement.  There is clearly a vast difference in the quality of these document that even a lay person could recognise.  The judge will not have time to read your case in full and relies heavily on the Skeleton.  It must be good!