Question for lawyers/solicitors and those with an interest in law

Tangerinenick

Tangerinenick

Well-known member
So we have a legal process.
As part of this process we now have a mediation service. This is currently non mandatory and without prejudice.
So you enter into mediation and agree the protocols and procedures - usually 3 points (this may differ)
Now on the day of the mediation I was told that the mediation wasn’t suitable just before hand. Now I know that prior to mediation (2 hrs before) or at least my participation the other party gave one of the following reasons to the mediator.
You are not willing to compromise
You don’t have enough information
You are unable to attend or schedule a call

Effectively I view this as a deliberate attempt to bullshit that they didn’t refuse mediation.The repercussions of course being a very grey area.
Clearly they ain’t for mediation as the second points can be addressed with a postponement.

So is mediation worth it if people can effectively block or boot it into touch. Is there any way that a court can be informed that this was the case or can people generally take the piss out of our legal process?

Incidentally It suits me to continue on to court as it’s a win win for me. I have found mediation usually through Cedr and RICS as being worth doing - this mediation service attached to money claim online (linked to HM courts) are a bit shit .
My opinion.
So what do people think about mediation - apparently it has a great success rate ?
 
I went through a similar paid mediation service about 2 years ago with a tenant as I was trying to find a common ground and not go legal.
Tenant agreed to participate after 3 months of me trying and only after I informed the court that the tenant had refused to enter into mediation.

When it finally started, the tenant just used it to ask for £40k to leave the property and to tell me how he was going to bankrupt me
Even the mediator said the tennant was just going through the motions for the court and had no intentions of discussing anything.

What I do know is that anything that happened or was mentioned in that mediation, cannot be used in court.
So even if you know 100% the 'other side' is at fault, it's not until you get in that court that you can prove them wrong

And a little bit of advice......no matter how good you think you are.....get a Solicitor
60% are blood sucking, whores who just want the money.....but even if you just have the advice, can save you a fortune in pain and stress
 
Tangerinenick said:
So we have a legal process.
As part of this process we now have a mediation service. This is currently non mandatory and without prejudice.
So you enter into mediation and agree the protocols and procedures - usually 3 points (this may differ)
Now on the day of the mediation I was told that the mediation wasn’t suitable just before hand. Now I know that prior to mediation (2 hrs before) or at least my participation the other party gave one of the following reasons to the mediator.
You are not willing to compromise
You don’t have enough information
You are unable to attend or schedule a call

Effectively I view this as a deliberate attempt to bullshit that they didn’t refuse mediation.The repercussions of course being a very grey area.
Clearly they ain’t for mediation as the second points can be addressed with a postponement.

So is mediation worth it if people can effectively block or boot it into touch. Is there any way that a court can be informed that this was the case or can people generally take the piss out of our legal process?

Incidentally It suits me to continue on to court as it’s a win win for me. I have found mediation usually through Cedr and RICS as being worth doing - this mediation service attached to money claim online (linked to HM courts) are a bit shit .
My opinion.
So what do people think about mediation - apparently it has a great success rate ?
Click to expand...
Well as “a blood sucking whore” (retired) and also a mediator, I can confirm it works quite well when the parties enter into the process voluntarily. Which seems to be your experience.

I’ve always been dubious about making it mandatory. As far as I can tell that idea came from people who didn’t understand the process, but hoped something magical might happen along the way to avoid the expense of full trials. Whether that was a genuine resolution or people just thinking “I really can’t be arsed with this” and throwing in the towel. Which I suppose is just another filter to stop pesky cases clogging up an underfunded legal system.

In short, mediation has its place. Enforced mediation doesn’t work that well.
 
The Court one isn't really a mediation in the strict sense of the word - well at least in my experience

It's just I guy ringing you up asking you if you want to make any offers

Like Mex I find mediations incredibly useful but only if the parties and their advisers enter into it in good faith
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
The Court one isn't really a mediation in the strict sense of the word - well at least in my experience

It's just I guy ringing you up asking you if you want to make any offers

Like Mex I find mediations incredibly useful but only if the parties and their advisers enter into it in good faith
Click to expand...
Good faith being the key!
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well as “a blood sucking whore” (retired) and also a mediator, I can confirm it works quite well when the parties enter into the process voluntarily. Which seems to be your experience.
Click to expand...
Mex, Please don't take my view of Solicitors to heart.....That's why I only put 60% are spawn of the devil.
Having had 'dealings' with quite a few, my overall experience has been extremely poor...in fact one was very well known to AVFTT for suing a fan.
He was on the other side......and a professional c##t, who I am amazed is not doing time for (allegedly) fraud....Horrible, horrible person.
 
Interesting, my daughter is having a child care battle with her ex, and you can’t submit a C100 form, unless you have had mediation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top