July 2021 to September 2021

Harassment, solicitor silence, my son’s crisis, bundle obstruction

The Pressure Before the Collapse

July 2021 – Claimant’s Solicitor Endorses False Liability

When the pressure no longer came solely from the defence — but began to echo through the solicitor I had engaged.

• The claimant’s solicitor instructed me to have the expert respond — without even reviewing the defence’s Part 35.6 questions.
• She overlooked procedural safeguards in CPR 35.4 and 35.6, which made clear I was not personally liable for the fees without a court order.
• She advised me to send her-drafted email accepting responsibility — effectively legitimising the defence’s position without ever evaluating its legality.

“I write further to my two previous emails confirming that I am now aware I am responsible for your fees in relation to answering the defence solicitor’s questions…” — (Drafted wording by claimant’s solicitor, 14 July 2021, 14:50)

I couldn’t yet articulate the legal error — but I sensed something was wrong.

I asked about joint instruction, clarified that my son had not engaged the expert, and questioned whether this pressure was being used to tilt the expert’s stance.

I was right to ask.

Back then, I still trusted that the solicitor I’d engaged would shield me from the legal confusion and fear building around me.

Instead, I found myself pressured from both sides — told to accept unfamiliar costs, follow instructions I didn’t fully understand, and remain silent while the threats escalated.

I wasn’t afraid of the claim.

I was afraid of a legal system that no longer looked like it had room for someone like me.

At the time, the claimant’s solicitor’s reassurance calmed me.

I believed the Claim Form I’d prepared — under stress, with safeguarding pressures hanging over me — had been sound.

And based on her guidance, I had no reason to doubt it.

“I do not consider that there is any real problem with the Claim Form and, certainly, nothing that would lead a Court to strike out the claim. Indeed, for a lay person I think that it has been very well prepared!” — (Claimant’s solicitor, 07 July 2021)

It would take another year before that illusion cracked.

And with it, the realisation of how much harm could have been prevented — if someone had just acknowledged the risk when it first appeared.

August 2021

 Strategic Pressure and the Reframing of Evidence Access

How safeguarding, settlement, and procedural timelines were used not to resolve the dispute — but to reposition power.

By August, the emotional and procedural pressure of previous months had hardened into a new tactic: reframing the litigation as a negotiation failure.

The claimants were no longer treated as parties seeking justice — but as obstacles to closure.

• The push to settle intensified, with the defence solicitor applying pressure framed as practicality — positioning us not as victims seeking redress, but as procedural burdens.
• The defence’s key proposal: “walk away” terms requiring us to abandon all claims and bear our own costs — even as the counterclaim of £4,800 was withdrawn.
• Offers carried implied risk — references to expert findings that could later undermine us, and repeated emphasis on costs as a looming threat.
• Part 36 tactics weren’t deployed to resolve the matter — but to create leverage over future costs, contingent on who “beat” whose offer.
• The claimant’s solicitor, though technically diligent, failed to centre harassment, safeguarding, or power imbalance in her replies.
• She engaged strictly on procedural terms — reframing my query about CPR 35.6 expert fees as “something to be left for later.”
• Her correspondence omitted any reference to the police finding from Avon & Somerset Police and failed to explain why expert access had been paused — context that mattered.

“You will appreciate... the purpose of putting forward an offer of settlement at this stage... will save you significant legal fees.” — (Claimant’s solicitor to Claimant, August 2021)

Why This Month Matters

August 2021 stands as a case study in how legal procedure can be used not to protect — but to reshape perception.

When Part 36 becomes a tool of pressure, and solicitor correspondence mirrors the defence’s logic more than the claimant’s lived reality, justice becomes transactional — less about protection or principle, more about expedience and optics.

I wasn’t avoiding settlement.

I was asking for fairness.

I wasn’t obstructing progress.

I was asking for clarity.

September 2021

 When Everything Became My Responsibility

But No One Took Accountability

How attempts to follow the rules became ammunition — and the silence of those meant to protect me only made it worse.

By September, I was exhausted. I was still reeling from the sustained pressure earlier in the year and trying — desperately — to stay compliant and calm. I wasn’t obstructing anything. I was doing what I thought I was meant to: respond to applications, keep records, and follow guidance. But no matter what I did, it was turned against me.

• I submitted my witness statement in good faith. I explained why I hadn’t responded to the Counterclaim on time. I’d called the Court, I followed what I was told, and when I learned otherwise — I corrected it straight away. That mattered to me.
• I didn’t expect applause. But I also didn’t expect accusations of dishonesty.
• Instead, I was told I had “unlawfully” instructed my expert not to reply to the defence solicitor’s CPR 35.6 questions. That I had “pretended” the delay was his fault. That I was “playing the litigant in person card.”
• I had spent weeks worrying about the pressure to cover expert costs. I’d been misled about my liability, and even the solicitor involved in my case had advised me to accept it back in July. Yet somehow, this was now being twisted as deception.
• And while the defence solicitor fired off three emails in a single day — criticising, accusing, and pushing for costs — the solicitor I had engaged responded with an invoice: £360 upfront before she would review what I was going through.
• There was no formal reply to the accusations. No defence on my behalf. Just process — always process.

The defence solicitor told me to rewrite my Particulars of Claim. He said I could “fix” things, but only by redrafting my entire case — like I was suddenly meant to be fluent in CPR 16 without help. I wasn’t. I just wanted the Court to see the truth.

All I wanted was for someone — anyone — to acknowledge that I’d been trying. Not playing games. Not hiding evidence. Just trying to protect my son and prove the damage caused to our home. That was the point of all of this.

“I wasn’t failing to follow procedure. I was following every sign I was given — even when those signs contradicted each other.”

Why This Month Still Hurts

September wasn’t where I made mistakes.

It was where other people stopped taking responsibility for theirs — and made it look like mine.

• The defence turned my compliance into contradiction.
• My solicitor turned my questions into transactions.
• And somewhere in the silence between them, I was expected to carry the weight of the system’s failure and still respond with grace.

I did respond — with documentation. With dates. With dignity.

I didn’t shout. I didn’t walk away.

And despite it all, I’m still here putting it on the record the way it always should have been.

This was not the end of the harm. It was only the beginning of its recognition.

The safeguarding breach was confirmed — but the consequences were not contained.

What followed was not resolution, but escalation: obstruction, silence, and collapse.

This was not the end of the harm.

It was only the beginning of its recognition.

The safeguarding breach was confirmed.

But the consequences were not contained.

What followed was not resolution.

It was escalation: obstruction, silence, and collapse.

The aftermath begins next.

The silence is no longer safe.

But neither were me and my cubs.

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