January 2023 to March 2023

The Letter of Truth That Said Everything

But They Refused to Accept

January 2023

The Statement of Truth I gave my solicitor

Where I stopped filtering my frustration — and gave my solicitor her own Statement of Truth, paragraph by paragraph

This wasn’t an emotional outburst.

It was a forensic call to account.

She said I could move firms? I reminded her I’d already paid for this mess.

• She said I didn’t trust her advice? I showed her why — with case law, chronology, and quotes.
• She blamed paralegals for the statement errors? I reminded her she signed off on them.
• She claimed she “wasn’t aware” of our amendments? I asked how that squared with her reading and approving them a week prior.
• She excused the late exchange by pointing fingers at my objections. I pointed to timeline breaches, coordination failures, and inconsistent communication.

And I carried on — with precision, not permission.

On the Live Stream She Pushed After We Refused It

I made it crystal: this wasn’t about semantics — it was about safeguarding.

She had a Judge’s Order. 

She had my written objection.

She still left the door open for the Defence’s power grab, so I  closed it myself.

“No, it should not [be allowed].”“You have no right to do this.”

“I am staggered that you think you can ignore me in this way and force your own opinions.”

This is not acceptable.”

That wasn’t dismay.

That was discovery — that I’d clocked exactly what she’d done.

On the Retraction Statements She Tried to Draft in Silence

I asked:

“What legislation gives you the right to alter our truth?”

She didn’t answer — because there is none.

I reminded her:

• We followed their instructions
• We were told the statements were ours to amend
• We ensured they were accurate
• We submitted them for review
• She read them, approved them, and exchanged them

Only when the Defence expressed displeasure did she scramble to redact history.

We said no.

“We are not redacting the truth so you can settle this quietly.”

On the Expert, the Inspection,

and

The Consent Order Blame Game

“If this application to amend Directions is being made because you failed to meet the 10 January deadline — it is not because of us.”

I advised her:

• No live stream permission meant no workarounds
• No contact with the expert meant neither party should engage without a Court Order
•  Any amendments must be shown to me first — we were done playing ‘fix it later’

On Trust? I Didn’t Pull My Punches

“This was not an oversight. This was you not fulfilling your duty to us.”

“You’re asking us to pay for your mistakes.”

“You send documents to the Defence without checking them.”

“I don’t believe this advice is legal.”

“You were present during the May 2022 hearing — you know the truth. And you still let that moment slide past the Judge.”

This wasn’t just a client complaint.

It was a professional reckoning.

Her Reply: An Apology Written in Admin Language

She responded — after reviewing with her supervising partner.

But instead of accountability, I received:

• A demand for payment on account, with a threat to come off the record
• A defence of actions she had already admitted were wrong
• A technical argument redefining “personal attendance” to obscure the safeguarding breach
• A shrug at the procedural chaos, blaming “nobody in particular”
• A suggestion I consider switching firms — framed as concern, not withdrawal.

“I am upset that you would think I would make accusations against your son.”

But it was never about emotion.

It was about process.

She’d had weeks to spot if there were any issues with our statements.

She didn’t.

And we were the ones being asked to pay for it.

The Defence’s Follow-Up: Costs Over Care

He didn’t write to me.

He wrote to my solicitor — leveraging pressure through threats:

“If I haven’t heard by Thursday at 2:00pm, I will apply to Court and request wasted costs be charged to your clients.” —Letter dated 31 January 2023

• No mention of obstruction
• No acknowledgment of disclosure delays
• No accountability

My solicitor passed it on like routine admin.

No shielding. No challenge. Just:

“What are your instructions?”

So, I Took the Final Step

No to redacting my claim.

No to settling to preserve reputations.

No to paying for procedural failures wrapped in “best intentions.”

January 2023—Addendum Entry

The Trading Standards Call That Was Misrepresented

Trading Standards: The Call Was Real. The Claim Was Not.

In January 2023, the Defence named a Trading Standards officer in their Reply Statement of Truth.

This was presented as evidence that a telephone call had taken place in January 2021.

I have never disputed that the call occurred.

What I do — and still to this day — dispute is the purpose and authority attributed to that call.

The very documents attached to the Reply Statement confirm that the call was misrepresented.

According to RCT Trading Standards, the call was a routine check on the contractor’s business setup — not a response to my complaint.

The officer named made it clear that Cardiff Trading Standards were leading the investigation into the criminal aspects of my case, and that he could not comment on or make decisions about it.

Despite this, the Defence used the call — and a self-authored Attendance Note — to claim that Trading Standards were “not interested” in my case.

This claim was repeated in emails dated 26 and 27 January 2021 and later used to justify procedural pressure and the withdrawal of settlement offers.

No evidence has ever been provided to support the assertion that Trading Standards dismissed my complaint.

In fact, RCT’s own records directly contradict it.

The use of the call was not evidential — it was strategic.

It was designed to dismantle the verified testimony I had from Cardiff and RCT Trading Standards, and to pressure both myself and my son into retracting our Statements of Truth.

I refused.

And the record now confirms that my refusal was justified.

What Concerns Me Most

Not only were the Defence’s actions unorthodox — But my own solicitor was aware of my contact with Trading Standards.

Despite this, her main objective appeared to be supporting the Defence’s narrative.

She never requested transcripts or proof of the lengthy telephone calls I had with Cardiff TS officers.

I had contact via telephone calls with RCT Trading Standards after the trial in August 2023.

These were recorded and transcribed.

Yet she made no attempt to verify our account.

Instead, she sided with the Defence — and her primary objective appeared to be getting her own clients to retract their statements. 

January 2023

Strategic Misrepresentation and Continued Pressure

Trading Standards Call: Misused, Not Disputed

• The Defence referenced a call with a Trading Standards officer, claiming it proved TS were “not interested” in the complaint
• This call was real — but its purpose was misrepresented
• The officer was conducting a routine check on the contractor’s business, not commenting on my case
• The Defence used this call to justify pressure placed on me and my son in 2021–2022
• The Attendance Note was not supported by any independent evidence
• I did not dispute the call — I disputed the strategic framing of it
• Full transcripts and TS correspondence are available on request

Reply Statement: Strategic Framing Over Substance

• The Reply Statement attempted to retroactively justify earlier pressure
• It framed my refusal to retract as unreasonable, despite:
• My possession of verified TS correspondence
• The absence of any TS statement supporting the Defence’s version
• The Reply Statement omitted key context and relied on assumptions over evidence

 Solicitor’s Role: Pressure Without Advocacy

• My solicitor continued to relay Defence concerns and pressure me to retract verified statements
• She did not request my transcripts or TS correspondence, despite knowing they existed
• She dismissed safeguarding concerns raised by my son as “misunderstandings,” despite their basis in court directions and documented threats

My Position: Evidence First, Always

• I refused to redact or retract verified evidence in favour of unsubstantiated claims
• My record is built on documented fact, not instinct or pressure
• I maintained my position with clarity, resilience, and forensic precision 

February–March 2023 Developments

• The pressure to retract our Statements of Truth continued into February and March
• The issue of the live video link — initially dismissed — began to resurface

These developments will be addressed in the next entries, with the same evidential clarity and strategic focus.

 The Polite Pressure and the Performance of Progress 

Where the Joint Expert was finally brought into play — only after months of orchestrated delay, engineered uncertainty, and timeline sleight of hand

Let’s start with the obvious:

The expert should have been instructed months earlier.

The Order permitting a Single Joint Expert was made back in August 2022.

What followed:

Silence.

Then stalling.

Then the quiet chill of inaction — until February cracked with a sudden burst of carefully curated admin.

Emails pinged.

Letters of instruction were redrafted — then redrafted again.

Photographs were referenced, revised, queried — sometimes included, sometimes not.

My concerns?

Access.

Scope.

Safeguarding.

Bias.

My solicitor didn’t address them.

She polished over them:

“I will ensure the documentation is transferred in a user-friendly manner…”

“The report will be Part 35 compliant…”

“There is no cause for alarm…”

There was.

It wasn’t formatting.

It was truth control.  

Meanwhile — the Defence Objected to Every Ray of Clarity

When I submitted factual corrections to the expert — clarifications he needed to remain neutral — the Defence tried to block them:

“These further submissions should be disregarded…”

“They are inappropriate at this stage of the process…”

“They should not form part of the expert’s report…”

After six months of inertia, they tried to shut down a single moment of precision.

And my solicitor? She thanked them.

Late February’s Final Flurry — Cloaked in Cooperation

Just before month-end, the emails intensified:

• Formatting confirmations
• Agreement on annex structure
• Carefully worded reassurances
• Recitations of neutrality

It looked like progress.

It read like resolution.

But underneath it?

The outcome was already shaped.

The expert was boxed in — bound to report only what he saw, on that day, through photos and narratives they had filtered first.

Consent Under Duress Isn’t Consent. It’s Strategy.

They didn’t break the August 2022 Order outright

They chipped away at it — then framed my refusal as obstruction.

• Contact reframed as “flexible”
• Additional attendees floated as “reasonable”
• Safeguarding downplayed
• Me? Cast as “difficult” for holding the line

But I wasn’t difficult.

I was protective.

March 2023

 The Clock Was Running

And They Were Still Holding the Stopwatch

Where the expert finally reported, the trial unravelled, and control shifted — again

March opened with the long-overdue arrival of the Single Joint Expert Report.

It landed on 22 March 2023, delayed by illness — but also by a timeline padded with strategic silences.

This document, months in the making, should have been the turning point.

Instead, it became the starting pistol for another round of procedural spin.

My solicitor received the report at 15:49.

By 18:16, she had already flagged that the trial might not go ahead — without waiting for my view, my review, or my voice.

The clock was running.

But they still thought they controlled the hands.

Delays Rebranded as “Unforeseen Circumstances”

Let’s be clear:

• The expert was appointed in August 2022
• There was no contact for months
• The Court Order was clear and untouched
• The delay wasn’t Covid — it was cultivated

But the moment the report dropped:

• The Defence and my solicitor agreed the trial was “no longer feasible”
• Draft applications circulated before obtaining my consent
• The delay was reframed as “unavoidable” and “beyond control”

The Application to vacate trial?

Already in motion.

Consent Framed as Courtesy — But Wasn’t Optional

The emails were polished.

The tone? Collaborative.

But underneath that gloss, the moves had already been made:

• My solicitor pushed to keep “control of the application wording”
• The Defence agreed before their client had
• I was invited to “confirm” decisions they had already made

Even the Application Fee of £108 was expected — but backfilled with paperwork after I asked.

I Managed More Than My Case

While this unfolded, I was:

• Physically unwell
• Navigating GP restrictions
• Awaiting Covid confirmation
• Coordinating payment of £1,230 for the joint expert
• Reviewing the report, alone, in full
• Drafting questions with precision and no margin for error

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