May 2022

They Called It Settlement, But I Was Still the Target

May 2022 – The Month They All Played Innocent

Where my solicitor downplayed, my opponent rewrote, and the Court watched a performance—while I held the truth.

I began the month in good faith. Genuinely. Thoughtfully.

And I was met with:

• Offers disguised as fair negotiation
• Court emails quietly checking if I had representation
• A solicitor who knew the facts—yet would later claim she didn’t

3 May – I Raised the Alarm

I wrote to my solicitor with everything:

• Pressure tactics from the Defence solicitor
• False claims about “throwing his client off site”
• Intimidation outside our home
• Fear of further intrusion
• And above all, a growing certainty: this wasn’t about expert evidence. It was about cornering us face-to-face.

“There is no way I am allowing the Defence solicitor or anyone else he invites to enter our home, even if he obtains a Court order. It is not happening.”

— (Me, 3 May 2022)

I wasn’t overreacting. I’d already contacted the police.

My warnings weren’t dramatic—they were documented.

Her Response? Administrative Calm

My solicitor replied without alarm:

“Perhaps you would forward the letter to me so I can consider the same.”

“I will need to have firm instructions as to the lowest amount you are prepared to accept.” — (Solicitor, 5 May 2022)

No comment on the intimidation.

No acknowledgment of the urgency.

Just a polished reply about settlement terms—and another request for instructions.

12 May – Representation for a Price

That morning, my solicitor requested £960 to attend the hearing and enter negotiations with the Defence solicitor.

A fee more fitting for a barrister—claimed for presence alone.

She knew we were unwell.

She knew we were already overpaying.

She knew police involvement had escalated.

“I note that you and your son have both still been quite poorly recently…”

— (Solicitor, 12 May 2022).

She acknowledged our health—but not the weight of what she was quietly complicit in. 

Shrinking Her Footprint Further

On 11 May, the Defence solicitor wrote directly to the Court—copying me in—asking whether we would be professionally represented at the hearing:

“I am not sure if the claimants will be represented… they have been professionally represented before.”  —Defence solicitor, 11 May 2022

I forwarded his email to my solicitor.

She replied calmly—then introduced herself to him the next day:

“I have received instructions only in relation to attendance at the hearing… and to enter into without prejudice discussions.” —Solicitor, 12 May 2022

She sent me a copy of her email to him separately.

Her reply, as far as I know:

Just attendance. Just negotiations. No mention of:

• Her past CPR advice
• Her role in managing the case since 2021
• Her submission of our Proposed Directions

In 2021, I had asked whether I needed to inform the Defence solicitor that I’d instructed a barrister.

She replied: “No, you don’t need to tell him anything, so don’t worry. (It will be a nice surprise for him on the day!)”

It was a strategic choice, not a delay.

But when she repeated the same pattern in May 2022—this time without being asked—it felt different.

She didn’t disclose representation until the Defence solicitor wrote directly to the Court.

If he hadn’t, she might never have said a word.

The pattern wasn’t about grand entrances.

It was about control.

And the worst part? They both seemed to think they were good at it.

Disclosure was delayed—once with my agreement, once without.

The pattern wasn’t about grand entrances.

It was about control.

16 May – The Courtroom Shift

In the hearing, the contradictions became public record.

“I am unsure at the moment, sir, to be quite honest with you. I do not have instructions on what works are still remaining.” —Solicitor, Court Transcript, 16 May 2022

“I have raised, yes, questions of the expert—but they are not expert questions…”

— (Defence solicitor, Transcript, 16 May 2022)

Yet for months, he’d invoked CPR Part 35.6, insisted I was liable for expert fees, and accused the expert of procedural failings.

And my solicitor?

She withheld the very emails that proved those questions were formal—and that she’d helped manage them.

Then came the judge’s line

“The solicitor has simply been instructed, as I understand it, to represent the claimants today. That does place her in a difficult position, and I think the claimants need to accept that to dip in and out with instruction of solicitors is not really ideal.”

—(Judge, Transcript, 16 May 2022)

But I wasn’t dipping in and out.

She was.

And the Court believed her.

Why I Wasn’t Allowed to Speak

Inside the courtroom, I wasn’t quiet by choice.

I was told I couldn’t speak.

I had legal representation, and with that came a warning:

If I spoke, I could be held in contempt of court.

So, while they misrepresented the facts, and the judge questioned my consistency—

• I was legally gagged
• Professionally invisible
• Emotionally battered
• And procedurally cornered

And Why I Didn’t Object

Not because they were right—but because I was already drowning.

While they traded procedural blows, I was watching:

• My son battle suicidal thoughts
• My sister undergo emergency procedures for possible cancer
• My father’s health slide into crisis

I wasn’t in a courtroom.

I was in a trauma spiral.

And in that moment, I didn’t have the legal fluency, the professional armour, or the cognitive space to know that what they were doing wasn’t just wrong—

It was methodical.  

17 May – The Statement That Reframed Everything

After the hearing, my solicitor sent a draft Witness Statement—framing her courtroom silence as circumstance, not choice.

“I can only apologise that this information was not available to the solicitor at the Hearing on 16 May.” —Solicitor, 17 May 2022

Her statement deflected responsibility—and requested further payment.

This was days after:

• My son’s mental health crisis
• My father’s critical illness
• My sister’s life-saving surgery

She knew.

And yet, she pushed on—strategically, professionally, protectively.

For herself.

During the hearing, she claimed:

• She wasn’t properly instructed
• She didn’t know what works were completed
• She hadn’t seen key materials

But earlier files showed:

• She’d reviewed remedial invoices and expert reports
• She’d commented on them months before the hearing
• She’d accepted and invoiced for that work
• And she’d submitted written case materials

The judge questioned her status:

“The solicitor is not on record… that’s perhaps part of the difficulty.” —Judge, Transcript, 16 May 2022

The truth hadn’t vanished.

It had been restrained by someone paid to protect it. 

What I Was Really Doing in May 2022

• Calling the police to document threats
• Refusing entry to anyone aligned with the Defendant
• Reconfirming my openness to settle
• Paying another £960 for representation I’d already equipped
• Rebuilding a chronology she’d already been paid to digest
• Holding the emotional weight of my family, my case, and the contradictions unfolding in court

While they diluted truth with legal tone,

I preserved it—line by line.

Transcript 16 May 2022 Hearing (Anonymised)

District Judge: Good morning. Now, then, Claimants’ Solicitor, I think you are representing the Claimants today, and I have got Defence Counsel representing the Defendant.

Claimants’ Solicitor: That is right, sir, yes.

Defence Counsel: That is correct, sir, yes.

District Judge: Defence Counsel, I see you are not wearing a jacket. Is there any reason for that please?

Defence Counsel: Oh, I do apologise. Force of habit, I’m afraid. I beg your pardon.

District Judge: Thank you. So Claimants’ Solicitor, it is listed for directions today with  particular consideration to be given as to the need for some expert evidence. You have filed some, I think, proposed directions and I think we have also had an email from the Defendant’s solicitor. I hope you have had some opportunity of discussing the matter before today’s hearing, so let me hear from Claimants’ Solicitor first as to where we are, and then I can hear from Defence Counsel.

Claimants’ Solicitor: Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, we have not had much of an opportunity to discuss proposed directions at this stage, although I do note that the majority of them are basically agreed, other than the issue in relation to the expert evidence.

So the Defendant’s solicitors contend that they want to have their own expert evidence, whereas the Claimants’ position is that the expert evidence of the Expert, a chartered building surveyor, from his report of 11 March 2021, has been dealt with.

The Defendants have put questions to him on 9 April 2021, which were answered on 2 December. Further questions were put on 14 December, which were answered on 4 January 2022, and then again further clarification was sought by letter from the Defendant’s solicitors on 4 January, specifically requesting answers to two of the questions which had not been dealt with in previous correspondence, and the Expert responded on 6 January dealing fully with those questions.

So the Claimants’ position is that expert evidence has been dealt with, Part 35 questions have been put to the Expert, and there is nothing further that can be gained by either party in further costs and time being incurred in further expert evidence being obtained on behalf of the Defendants.   

District Judge: Defence Counsel, what is your position?

Defence Counsel: Well, sir, the Defendant needs an expert report. The Claimants instructed the Expert without prior consultation with myself. They gave no opportunity for a joint instruction of an expert, which I think would have been one of the ways forward on this.

He was instructed and attended site some eight months after the Defendant and his contractors left site, and we do not know what has happened in the meantime. The indication would certainly seem to be that works had been undertaken by third parties and obviously outside the Defendant’s control, and we are just left in a very difficult position.

We do not know what has taken place on site. Certainly we have lay witnesses, namely contractors, who need to come along together with the Defendant himself and have a look at the site. And we need expert evidence to reply to that of the Expert. Questions were raised, sir.

My friend very ably set out the timescale on this and you will see that it was quite extended. There was considerable reluctance on the part of the Expert, and I have to say the Claimants, to enable him to answer the Part 35 questions, and he did so over an extended period of time and needed some cajoling on it.

I am also concerned that he did not have full instructions. He was instructed by the Claimants themselves. I mean no discourtesy to them, but I am concerned as to the documentation that he had before him and the extent of the instructions, albeit that he obviously went to the site. So we need a degree of parity of arms on this, and it does require the Defendant to pursue the option of his own expert.

District Judge: Well, can I say, what troubles me in this case is cost, because the claim is not an insignificant claim. It is just over £18,000, and my understanding is that actually it is a repayment of the entire sum paid by the Claimant to the Defendant. So the Claimants’ case presumably is that there is no value whatsoever to the work undertaken by the Contractor in this case, and the difficulty the court faces is trying to manage the issue of costs and to deal with the case proportionately, whilst at the same time trying to be fair to both sides.

Now, one option that I have is to say the Claimants cannot rely on the report of the Expert.

We are going to have a single joint expert, and both of you will have to agree on the identity of the new expert. That expert can then be jointly instructed, and that saves the potential significant cost of the experts who will be instructed if I were to allow the Claimants to rely upon the Expert, and the Defendant to rely upon another. If those two experts are not able to agree, the only way we could then resolve that issue is for both experts to attend court to give evidence, to be cross-examined, and then the judge would have to decide whose evidence he or she prefers.

The disadvantage, of course — and I accept this — for the Claimants is that they have already incurred expense in going to the Expert. But the rules of the court are quite clear. You can take that risk, but if you take that course of action, it is a risk you take, because the fact you have obtained the evidence does not mean the court will allow you to rely on that evidence.

And as I say, I have real concerns. Building disputes are notorious for being very expensive, and there is a real risk here that we will spend far more in costs than the value of the claim. I think it is important that everybody appreciates that at this early stage so far as the timetabling of the proceedings is concerned — although not an early stage so far as this dispute is concerned, because I see that the proceedings were in fact issued last June, 4 June 2021, and of course the works go back to an earlier time.

So let me put that to the advocates. Claimants’ Solicitor first. Single joint expert — is that an option?

Claimants’ Solicitor: I do understand where you are coming from, sir. First of all, I would like to point out — I think you have misunderstood the basis of the Claimants’ claim in that you have indicated that it appears to be a repayment of the entire—

District Judge: Mmm.

Claimants’ Solicitor: —sum paid. That is not actually correct. The sum of £18,000 is for remedial works to be carried out to bring the works back up to the standard that they ought to have been, in line with the architectural designs, et cetera.

District Judge: Thank you.

Claimants’ Solicitor: As far as a single joint expert is concerned, my view remains that expert evidence has been dealt with. The report of the Expert is concise. The Defendants have had an opportunity to put questions to him under Part 35, which have been answered.

Following the correspondence, the latest letter from the Expert to the Defendant’s solicitors dated 6 January, as I say, dealt fully with the outstanding issues that the Defendant’s solicitors had suggested still needed clarification.

So as far as we are concerned, the expert evidence should stand as it is, with no further order for any further expert evidence in this matter — strictly on the basis that, as you say, the costs of obtaining further expert evidence, whether it be in the form of a single joint expert who will again incur further fees answering Part 35 questions potentially from both parties, it just seems a little bit unnecessary when expert evidence is already on the court record.

It is already available to both parties. If Defence Counsel wishes to put further questions to the Expert, then he can of course do so.

But so far, the Claimants have already been put to significant expense in dealing with obtaining expert evidence — initially paying for the report and also funding the responses to the Part 35 questions.

District Judge: The response to the Part 35 questions, presumably, were paid for by Defence Counsel or his client, at least?

Claimants’ Solicitor: They have not been settled at the moment, sir, but I do not believe we have had the invoice through — unless Defence Counsel has received that invoice indirect. I am unsure.

District Judge: Well, the point I am making is the person who asks the question should pay the expert for responding. So that expense should not fall at the feet of the Claimants. But that is as an aside. Defence Counsel, what is your response to what I have said?

Defence Counsel: Well, sir, I am entirely in agreement with a joint report. As I say, I was not consulted by the Claimants when they went to instruct the Expert. Had they done so (inaudible) report. I deal with these not infrequently, and I have proposed these when I am acting for Claimants in terms of building disputes.

I propose a joint report and meeting — usually very mixed results — but it is certainly something that I am mindful of in what is clearly a fast track matter. And Yes I have raised, yes, questions of the Expert, but they are not expert questions. I have never been to the site. I have not been there with the Contractor, who can only rely on memory.

So it is not really parity of arms in that sense. He had not been there for some considerable time, can only comment really on photographs, and so it is an uneven and unlevel playing field just to allow the Claimants to have an expert.

And again, in certain classes, we do not know what instructions were sent to him, and I say a joint expert is the most sensible way forward. If there is still a deadlock between the parties when we have his or her report, one hopes then that can be swiftly brought to a conclusion.

District Judge: Claimants’ Solicitor, I have not got an indexed bundle in front of me, and I have got a court file which has a significant amount of paperwork in it. I am just going through trying to find the original report of the Expert. Has that been filed? Do you know whether that was filed, and if so, when?

Claimants’ Solicitor: I believe it has been filed, sir. I have not been instructed throughout this matter, so I am unsure of the date it was filed, but I can just check now and see if it was attached to the particulars of claim in this matter — or perhaps Defence Counsel can shed some light on that. He has sort of dealt with the matter more than I have throughout.

Defence Counsel: The only thing, sir, that may be before you is that there was an application — in fact, two applications — made by the Defendant at a preliminary point—

District Judge: Yes.

Defence Counsel: —and there may be a bundle there, not an insubstantial one, which runs to 173 pages, and it will be within that. Now, if that is before you, I can very quickly find it, but obviously I do not know whether the Claimants themselves have filed the report. But the report is certainly within that bundle. I am just trying to quickly find it now.

I have come across a preliminary expert report. It is headed Preliminary Expert Report, date of inspection 2 February 2021, date of report 11 March 2021. So is that the report?

Claimants’ Solicitor: That is the report, sir, yes.

District Judge: Just have a look at this. Well, that was a preliminary report. Was that ever converted into a final report?

Claimants’ Solicitor: Sir, I believe the intention behind the report was that it was a final report. I believe Defence Counsel submitted some questions to the Expert querying the reason why it was labelled a preliminary report, and I believe that the Expert addressed that in one of his responses — either 2 December, 4 January, or indeed maybe 6 January — but I think it was dealt with in the 2 December response.

District Judge: Because if I look at Paragraph 9 of the report, it says:

“This preliminary report is prepared solely for the use of the client and her professional advisor solicitor. No responsibility is accepted to any other party for the whole or any part of its content. It may be disclosed to other professional advisor solicitors in respect of the purpose for which this has been prepared. This report is of a preliminary nature and may be used in contemplation of litigation. It therefore takes the benefit of legal privilege.”

So it seems to me that that is very much preliminary — but that may have been dealt with by way of—now, let me go through the file again and try and locate questions on the report. What was the date, Defence Counsel, of the first response to questions?

Defence Counsel: Sir, bear with me.

Claimants’ Solicitor: The first response, sir, was 2 December 2021.

Defence Counsel: Yes, thank you.

District Judge: Just bear with me. Yes. I have got that. “In your response in Paragraph 12, this is stated in Section 9.”

Of course, I have not seen the questions, so I am doing my best. I have only got the responses.

“It was preliminary because it was issued in contemplation of these proceedings. I did however state it was CPR 35 compliant.”

What was the question, Defence Counsel?

Defence Counsel: I can very quickly find that for you. Number 9.

District Judge: Well, actually, hold on. I have now come across a further response — 4 January. - “My report was, as far as I was concerned, fully finalised and in compliance with the requirements of CPR 35.”

So although it is marked preliminary, it seems to be that the expert is saying it is final. Just looking at some of the other responses — I have got responses dated 2 December 2021, 4 January 2022. Are there any other responses?

Claimants’ Solicitor: There was another further response, sir, dated 6 January 2022.

District Judge: Right, hold on. All right. Bear with me a moment  (inaudible) report.  Can I ask, Claimants’ Solicitor, has the remedial work now been carried out?

Claimants’ Solicitor: To some degree, yes, sir. I believe quite a bit of work has been carried out since the Defendant left the property. I believe the receipts for some of the works have been disclosed to the Defendant as well.

District Judge: So what is left to be done?

Claimants’ Solicitor: I am unsure at the moment, sir, to be quite honest with you. I do not have instructions on what works are still remaining.  

District Judge: Is this not a case, as far as you are aware, that the majority of the works highlighted by the Expert as needing to be dealt with — they have been dealt with? Or is it a case where the majority have not? Which are we looking at?

Claimants’ Solicitor: My understanding is that the majority of the remedial works have been carried out, sir — which is another reason why I am not sure whether a further expert attending the site—

District Judge: No.

Claimants’ Solicitor: —is going to be of benefit to any party.

District Judge: Defence Counsel, I think I would have to agree on that. If we are dealing with a case where the majority of this work has been carried out, then I think we are in difficulty in bringing in a new expert — either instructed solely by the Defendant or a single joint expert — because of course he will not be able to review the works, as the remedial work will already have been undertaken.

Defence Counsel: Well, sir, I do not think it has been undertaken — unless something has taken place since February when the Expert attended. I am not sure it has. I think that is one of the issues that the Defendant has. Some works had been undertaken by the time the Expert went there — eight months after the Defendant left site. So that is appreciated, but the issue is what has been undertaken since that time — since he went there — and as far as I can see, the Claimants are not putting forward any new works. They are putting it forward as future remedial works to be undertaken.

District Judge: Mmm. Right. Then I think what I will do — I am not going to make a decision on this today. It is an important decision for both parties, and there seems to be a dispute between you as to what works exactly have been carried out — Claimants’ Solicitor believing that the majority of the works identified in the Expert’s report have in fact been put right, Defence Counsel for the Defendant not accepting that — and it is a difficult situation because I do note that this is not a case where Claimants’ Solicitor is on the court record as acting for the Claimants—

Claimants’ Solicitor: Mmm.

District Judge: —and she has simply been instructed, as I understand it, to represent them today. That does place her in a difficult position, and I think the Claimants need to accept that to dip in and out with instruction of solicitors is not really ideal.

But I think what I would like, before I make a decision, is a witness statement from the Claimants setting out what work, if any, they say has been undertaken since the preparation of the Expert’s report — that report being dated 11 March — and what works are outstanding. Because I think that is a relevant consideration for the court in deciding whether at this stage to allow further experts — either as a single joint expert or as an expert simply instructed by the Defendant — to be relied upon.

I would like that witness statement — unless Claimants’ Solicitor tells me that the Claimants are going to be on holiday and this is going to cause some difficulty — to have that within, let us say, 14 days. Looking at my desk calendar, that would take us to 30 May. Claimants’ Solicitor, as far as you are aware, any difficulty with that?

Claimants’ Solicitor: Not as far as I am aware, sir, no.

District Judge: And then we will have a further hearing — first available date after 6 June. That better be before me because of my involvement today — and by CVP again — and we can have a time estimate. We had better have 45 minutes, because who knows what will come out of the witness statement. And then I think we will make a decision.

My preliminary view today — I can tell you if this assists — is that I am going to be reluctant to go down the route of allowing the Defendants their own expert (inaudible) already alluded to, and therefore (inaudible) the option of:

I either allow the Claimants to rely upon the expert evidence of the Expert, and the Defendant not to have any expert evidence of their own — but they can obviously put questions, as they have done. If they want to put further questions, they can — although I note what the Expert says in his most recent response — and obviously the Expert, if need be, could attend court and could be cross-examined by the Defence.

That is option number 1. Or option number 2 would be to say the Claimants cannot rely on the evidence of the Expert — there will be a new expert appointed who will be a single joint expert instructed by both parties — and then we will see what that expert says.

But as I say, before making that decision, I need some more information — particularly with regard to what works have been carried out and what is outstanding — and I think that that is the best I can do for you today. Claimants’ Solicitor, it is therefore a witness statement from your clients—

Claimants’ Solicitor: Yes.

District Judge: —by the 30th of this month. A further hearing then. As far as you are aware, Claimants’ Solicitor, any dates to be avoided so far as that further hearing is concerned?

Claimants’ Solicitor: Not that I am aware of, sir, no.

District Judge: And may I ask, Defence Counsel, any dates to be avoided from your good self?

Defence Counsel: Just 25 July immediately springs to mind.

District Judge: All right.

Defence Counsel: And 17 to 19 August.

District Judge: All right. Well, certainly I would hope — excuse me — it will be well before then, but equally I am conscious of the pressure on the court list. Although we will try and get it in in June, if not, certainly in July, and we will avoid the 25th. All right. Is there anything else, Claimants’ Solicitor?

Claimants’ Solicitor: No, no thank you, sir.

District Judge: Thank you. Anything else from you, Defence Counsel?

Defence Counsel: No, thank you, sir.

District Judge: All right. Thank you both, and I look forward to seeing you at the next hearing.

Defence Counsel: Thank you very much.

Claimants’ Solicitor: Thank you.

District Judge: Thank you, bye-bye now.

Claimants’ Solicitor: Bye.

Disorganised & Misrepresentation by Both

Legal Representatives (16 May 2022)

Notice: Misrepresentation by Both Solicitors — Confirmed by the Record

This transcript does not stand alone. It is now supported by dated emails, invoices, and procedural documents that confirm both solicitors misled the court—not by accident, but by design.

Claimants’ Solicitor - Claimed uncertainty about remedial works, stating:

• “I do not have instructions on what works are still remaining.”

Fact: The solicitor had received multiple breakdowns of completed and outstanding works since August 2021. She emailed them back to me, confirming possession and advising that they needed to be attached to my Reply to Defence.

Note: In one email dated 8 August 2021, she referred to “my letter to the builder dated 22 December 2021”—a date that had not yet occurred. The correct date was 22 December 2020. This appears to be a typographical error. She had the correct document on record and had previously acknowledged its relevance.

Her statements to the Judge was false.

• "Claimed uncertainty about the Expert’s invoice and report."

Fact: She was actively involved from March 2021, charged £970.70 between December 2021 and January 2022 to assist with responses to the Defence’s Part 35 questions, and had full access to the report and its filing history. She confirmed this in writing..

Additional Confirmation: In an email sent at 12:02 on the day of the hearing, the solicitor wrote:

• “I note that you have previously provided me with various invoices and quotes in respect of the works to be carried out.”

This confirms she held the documents, acknowledged their relevance, and was aware of the Judge’s request for a Witness Statement detailing completed and outstanding works.

Her statements in court were false.

Defence Counsel

• Claimed reluctance from the Expert to answer Part 35 questions, then denied they were expert questions at all.

Contradiction: He cannot claim:

• Reluctance to answer expert questions
• And then deny their expert status minutes later.

Implied the Expert’s report was preliminary.

Fact: My expert had received and responded to the Defence’s Part 35 questions, as instructed under CPR 35, on:

• 2 December 2021
• 4 January 2022
• 6 January 2022

Each of these emails also confirms that the report was finalised and compliant with CPR 35.  

Conclusion

Both solicitors held the documents.

Both solicitors misled the Judge.

And the record now holds the proof.

This transcript is not just a procedural record.

It is a capsule of betrayal.

And it marks the beginning of the reckoning.

What Followed
May 2022 ended in a courtroom.
But June began with a door.
Not one we opened — but one they tried to walk through.
The hearing hadn’t resolved the harm.
It had rehearsed it.
And while the transcript cooled in official archives,
The pressure reheated in my inbox.
They weren’t done.
They were regrouping.
And this time, they weren’t looking for mediation.
They were demanding we vacate our home.

Demanding unauthorised access.

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved