More Chalres Goldthorpe concerns

On further investigation of Charles Goldthorpe I contacted Moon Beever to verify his claims as being employed in the role of 'litigator' (see his LinkedIn profile). On speaking to human resources they informed that they could not disclose information on any previous employees'. So instead I asked 'does you company employ any people under the role of 'litigator', to which she replied was no, they have never employed people under that role. I also spoke to a partner at the firm and he again informed he could not discuss any ex-employee but informed that he would consider himself to be a litigator, this adds further credibility to my above claim that using this title falsely indicates that you are a Solicitor. I also attempted to verify his claims of working as an "investigator" for the Law Society. However, they could not find him on their computer. Please note this does not mean he did not work for them as I could not establish how far back the call operators system kept records. I have written to the law society and they are investigating this (all be it very slowly).

Also, Charles Goldthorpe makes the following claim “and I am a qualified Fellow of the Institute of Paralegals and an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.” I have spoken to the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and they have informed me that he isn't a member. I have raised this as an issue with Philip Ivinson and he has said he was investigating it but never got back to me. On the subject of never getting to be Philip Ivinson has now had a number of requests from me regarding obtaining copies of files held in relations to my case. However, many months have now passed and no documents have been sent or any explanation as to why they have not been sent. I believe that as this request was made under the data protection act his failure to comply (without a legitimate explanation) is of legal concern. In fact there as so many inconsistencies regarding Charles Goldthorpe that it raises concerns that if these are also present on any legal insurance paperwork then Chiltern Solicitors policy would be invalid and that dealings would be without cover. To check this I've requested of Philip Ivinson a copy of his insurance policy but he has refused to share this information with me.

Who is Peter Ward?

Peter Ward isn't that easy to pin-down as he appears to work alone, he doesn't have a LinkedIn profile, his own website and he only has a Yahoo Email.  This is the limited information I can find:

He appears to work from 88 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6AA and is registered as "The Chambers of Peter Ward".  I never met or was invited to meet him here, or given a telephone number for this location.  This address appears to be Serviced Offices and he might possibly just use this as a PO Box.

On inquiring of Chiltern Solicitors who this man was as it was so difficult to find anything about him.  This was the reply I received:

"If modesty permits the best advert I think I can give are my reported cases:

Moxam v. Visible Changes Ltd. & Anor. [2012] EqLR 202

Nixon v. Ross Coates Solicitors & Anor. [2010] EqLR 284, New Law Journal 160: 7447

Kopel v. Safeway plc [2003] IRLR 753

Lassman v. De Vere University Arms Hotel [2002] ICR 44

H. J. Heinz Co. Ltd. v Kenrick [2000] IRLR 144, ICR 491

Parveen v. Little & Ors. [2000] ICR Part IV xiii

Reed & Anor v. Stedman [1999] IRLR 299

Tullett v. Page Group & Ors. (1998) Employment Lawyer 4:9

Both recent cases were reported fairly widely in the mainstream media when at first-instance as well. The Sarah Nixon case is still on the Daily Mail website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189290/Former-chair-Tory-policy-unit-denies-telling-female-colleague-women-sterilised.html"

He is also sometimes refer to as Chambers of Mr Peter Ward.  

Who is Charles Goldthorpe?

On contacting Chiltern Solicitors I received a reply from Charles Goldthorpe. As I had contacted a Solicitors I expected a reply back from a Solicitor. However, Charles Goldthorpe never actually explained what his role was. However, before paying the first down payment of £5000 I thought I should check him out. And I couldn't find anything to show he was a Solicitor. The reason for this is that he isn't a Solicitor, he's a Paralegal. For those that don't know a Paralegal can be anything from some as experienced as a real Solicitor to someone who does photocopying. Also at £175 plus VAT £210 per hour (I need to double check this is plus VAT) this is a very expensive paralegal, in fact this is more comparable with the fee you would pay a fully qualified Solicitor.

Employing a paralegal is a risk, you are not protected by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. However, there are a few organisations that do weakly govern paralegals such as the Institute of Paralegals. However, to the best of my knowledge Charles Goldthorpe was previously a member of the Institute of of Paralegals (IoP) but his membership had lapsed (I need to get the exacts dates on this, I'm awaiting a response to my inquiry from IoP).

I was quite alarmed on finding out he was a Paralegal and raised it as a matter of concern.  However, we were only a few weeks away from the court date and I had no choice but to stick with him.  If I'd have known he was a Paralegal from the start I would never have employed him.  He knows many clients would feel the exact same way that's why he hides this fact.  On initial communication with him he had no role stated within his email signature, he now has consultant.  I feel he is very dishonest in not disclosing this, it effects how you are protected, doesn't give you a clear understanding of his level of legal knowledge, and has a bearing on the fee he charges.

Also, Charles Goldthorpes LinkedIn profile claims the following on previous employment experience "litigator Moon Beever March 1997 – December 1998 (1 year 10 months)Bloomsbury" My understanding is that a 'litigator' is another terms for a Solicitor/Lawyer: http://www.yourhillcountrylawyer.com/what-is-a-litigator/ Again I feel that a serious misrepresentation has taken place. Further, another issue became very apparent from the start. He doesn't appear to be able to construct a document in a succinct manner. This is taken from his LinkedIn profile: "After leaving school i joined williams & Co a local solicitors as a trainee leaving to further my job prospects to join Young & Co before moving to CC Bell & Sons in 1985.my roll was that of a litigation clerk/legal executive dealing with personal injury and family law." As you can see, its extremely sloppy, he must know that i's should be capitalised and that a space comes after a full-stop. His legal documents also have these types of sloppy errors. You want your legal opponent to fear your Solicitor and to think he has an eye for detail and the ability to present your case in the best possible manner. These errors weaken your position before you even start to look at the content.

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!