April 2023 to June 2023

 The Curtain Lifted, the Safety Net Fell

The Solicitor Stepped Aside

And The Defendant Stepped In

The Defence solicitor didn’t vanish. Not exactly.

An email dated 19 April confirmed his client’s intent to act in person.

No fanfare. No handover. No explanation.

Just a quiet retreat, timed with the turning tide.

It was enough for the court’s record—But not for mine.

For nearly two years, the Defence solicitor had orchestrated delays, diluted clarity, and wrapped deflection in procedural bows.

The moment the expert’s report tilted away from their defence, he stepped out of view.

I can’t prove the link to that 2020 kitchen threat.

But I remember it clearly:

“I have a family member who’s a top-notch solicitor and enjoys ripping the skin off people like you.”

Six months later, the Defence solicitor appeared.

Coincidence? Perhaps.

But the tactics felt familiar.

And the exit felt planned.

The Defendant Bypassed the Process

On 20 April, the Defendant broke protocol.

Instead of waiting for coordinated submission of expert questions — he went direct.

No copied parties. No procedural respect.

Just a separate email thread, reframing the record, denying responsibility, and repackaging decisions as mutual ones.

He disputed:

• CCTV damage he once acknowledged
• Wet room specifications I never approved
• Utility room choices made without diagrams he’d never seen
• Fence replacement costs he now claimed were waived

These weren’t clarifications.

They were revisions.

Meanwhile, I followed the Court’s Order to the letter:

• Paid the expert's fee
• Submitted my questions on time
• Notified all parties
• Maintained sequence and structure 

Insurance: Declared, but Undelivered

The Defendant claimed Public Liability Insurance.

On record. In writing. Repeatedly.

So, I asked:

• Was the policy active during the work?
• Had his insurer been notified?
• Could it cover the claim if upheld?

My solicitor chased it.

The Defendant did not answer. - Twice.

Her final position:

“I can only assume they will not be indemnifying him…”

“There is no way of finding out whether he had cover in place…”

A claim made for effect.

But never backed by proof. 

My Solicitor: Present, Polite, but Passive

Throughout April, my solicitor remained responsive.

She relayed barrister fees.

Confirmed expert procedures.

Issued reminders and filed timely submissions.

But she did not challenge the Defendant’s breach of process.

Nor did she escalate his early submission.

Her tone softened.

Her stance relaxed.

She noted contradictions — but didn’t contest them.

The baton was placed back in my hand.

I Ran the Case — Again

While counsel retreated and court waited —

I held the line:

• Flagged policy gaps and timeline breaches
• Raised insurance accountability
• Paid and processed key steps
• Monitored procedural compliance
• Maintained the record, while others performed the role

It wasn’t just my name on the claim — it was my structure, my stamina, my story. 

April’s Final Frame

The Defendant didn’t follow the rules.

He played to the optics.

The Defence solicitor didn’t disappear.

He exited without engagement.

My solicitor didn’t falter.

She stood gently aside.

And me?

I didn’t lose control.

I recalibrated it.

With precision. With proof. Without noise.

Because when the scaffolding slipped — the foundation had to hold.

Postscript – A Suspicion That Never Left

By the end of April, the solicitor had vanished, the Defendant had stepped forward, and the procedural mask had slipped. But one memory began resurfacing—one I’d brushed off at the time.

In June 2020, during a confrontation that later became part of the A&S police report, Brace made a comment about having a solicitor in the family. At the time, I took it as an intimidation tactic—bluster rather than truth.

Then, in January 2021, the Defence Solicitor was appointed.

I can’t prove a connection. But the timing, the tactics, and the tone?

They raised questions that have never fully gone away.

His behaviour. His disregard for balanced process. His sudden disappearance after the expert’s report.

It all suggested a dynamic that wasn't entirely professional—or procedural.

I’m not asserting fact.

But I am preserving the record.

May 2023

 The Month They Couldn’t Reframe the Evidence

So They Tried to Undervalue It

Their questions came late. Their denials came thin. But the evidence I built spoke for itself.

By May, the expert’s full replies were in — and they didn’t just endorse my questions, they exposed the flaws the Defendant had spent months trying to downplay. Line by line, the report confirmed what I’d been documenting since 2020:

• The roof was structurally and thermally defective
• The PIR insulation was poorly installed, ventilation gaps sealed shut
• Standard construction knowledge — like the difference between warm and cold roofs — was clearly misunderstood by the Defendant
• A competent builder would’ve seen the issues during construction, not years after we had been forced to live in

This wasn’t an opinion. This was a forensic dissection of a failed build.

They Pushed Their Version. I Held the Record.

The Defendant’s response to the expert wasn’t a denial — it was a story. He claimed I’d selected fittings, approved plans, and somehow directed the work. But at no point did he back it up with diagrams or emails. Because those documents don’t exist.

I didn’t take the bait. I didn’t argue narrative. I relied on evidence: emails, contracts, invoices, and photos — all lined up before the report was even written.

The expert saw that. He stayed impartial, but it was clear: my documentation gave him clarity. The Defendant gave him very little.  

They Questioned Damages. I Questioned Why.

When counsel issued advice on liability and quantum, I reviewed it closely. He advised offering £12,500 — less than the total damages outlined in the expert’s report.

I didn’t challenge it emotionally. I asked:

• Why were the past and future losses being set below the expert's findings?
• Why was the CCTV system marked as “betterment” when the replacement I installed was lower-spec than what had been damaged?
• And where was the evidence that my son’s medical documentation — especially concerning his mental health and suicide attempt — had been factored into the witness evidence protection process?

I pressed for clarity. Because if I hadn’t, those absences would’ve carried through to court.

I Didn’t Wait to Lose — So I Planned to Win.

• I had already arranged and paid the £3 land registry search — to protect against enforcement issues before judgment
• I approved counsel’s fees promptly — but questioned line items and requested breakdowns
• I asked why costs were being under-assessed when more accurate quotes existed
• I challenged omissions in the Schedule of Special Damages — to ensure nothing got buried before trial

While they negotiated figures, I safeguarded facts.

They spoke of resolution. I ensured enforceability. 

May’s Legacy in the Record

Outcome and Impact

What May Really Proved:

• The defence lost credibility
• A second expert gave me the same firm ground
• Counsel — appointed through my solicitor, not accessible to the general public — saw rising prospects
• And I didn’t stop to celebrate — I pressed for accuracy, context, and truth

This wasn’t about blame. It was about proof.

They submitted stories.

I submitted evidence.

And for once, the formal record matched the truthful accounts.

Clarifying Counsel’s Role

Counsel wasn’t someone I could approach directly. He was instructed through my solicitor, and access had to go through formal channels.

I’m not sure whether he was acting solely for me or advising more broadly — but his advice shaped the next steps. 

June 2023

I Signed the Schedules. But Not the Silence.

They tried to draft closure. I marked the faults in the margins.

By June, I was exhausted — but not careless.

I’d covered thousands in expert fees, briefed counsel, submitted documents on time, and followed every direction of the Court. The trial was close. 

Pressure rising. And the Schedules of Special Damages arrived for signature.

But they weren’t accurate — especially regarding the wet room.

My solicitor asked for the Schedules to be signed and served by 15 June. I understood the urgency. But I couldn’t overlook what had been lightly papered over across those pages:

• The expert hadn’t inspected the wet room’s standard flooring
• Two specialist contractors had already assessed that the entire floor needed excavation and levelling
• The expert’s “fix” involved only surface latex and a floor covering — effectively placing a smooth overlay onto jagged concrete
• His pricing was based on assumptions, not internal inspection

So, I signed.

But I also wrote:

“These schedules are not factually accurate, especially in regard to the wet room.”

What They Claimed vs. What I Knew and Could Prove

They listed the wet room remedy at £1,433. But I had:

• A quote for £3,000, covering full excavation, re-levelling, and tray replacement
• A quote for £775 to apply latex screed and finish the floor properly
• Photographs submitted to the expert showing broken concrete and hidden hazards
• An earlier expert’s summary (excluded from Court, but never forgotten):

“The falls/cross falls in the wet room floor are inadequate… The whole floor needs to be broken up and reset.”

The expert never saw what the Defendant buried.

His recommendation covered a surface.

Mine preserved a safety requirement.

The Offer Went Out. The Protest Went In.

At the start of June, I’d instructed my solicitor to file a Part 36 Offer of 

£12,500.

I’d already pre-paid counsel’s fees.

I’d followed advice.

And I’d chased accuracy — right down to the maths and missing context.

The urgency to prepare for trial meant things moved fast — but not always cleanly.

And speed, I knew, could be used to silence protest.

So, I spoke before they hit send.

The floor may have been boxed in — but I will not allow the facts to be.

—(From my email, 11 June 2023) 

What June Showed

• They hoped urgency would neutralise objection
• They banked on fatigue to seal compliance
• They asked for silence to get to trial

I gave them my signature.

And then I gave them my dissent.

Because procedure may require a line at the bottom of the page.

But accountability lives in the lines above it.

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