A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


Unrepresented - the other side want me to sign ...

  • AbigailRocketblast
  • AbigailRocketblast's Avatar Posted by
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
28 Feb 14 #424034 by AbigailRocketblast
Topic started by AbigailRocketblast
I am unrepresented - due to lack of funds - the other side want me to sign the following:

I Abigail Rocketblast, the Respondent, confirm that I am acting in person. I have been told that I have the opportunity of taking independent legal advice on the effect of this proposed Order. I do not wish to do so and confirm that I fully understand the contents of this Order.


which will go to the court in the hope that it will help the judge to decide not to have a hearing in which we both have to attend. (I don''t mind if there is a hearing).

It seems to be a little on the this-may-not-be-in-my-advantage side of things, especially the last sentence.

I''m thinking of rephrasing it along the lines of:

I Abigail Rocketblast, the Respondent, confirm that I am acting in person. I have been told that I may take legal advice on the affect of this proposed Order, but have been unable to do so due to having insufficient funds. I confirm that I understand the contents of the Order in as much as a averagely intelligent person would.


What do you think?
Am I being paranoid?
Could my version be worded better?

Thanks,

Abby

  • .Charles
  • .Charles's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
28 Feb 14 #424037 by .Charles
Reply from .Charles
It doesn''t scan. The point of the clause is that you were given the opportunity to have legal advice and you declined it (as you cannot afford it).

Your version, or any version that reports in the same way as your version, is too wishy washy and will be rejected by the court.

By introducing vaguaries into the court documentation, you will either (a) have the document rejected by the court or (b) have it accepted but leave it open to dispute at a later date i.e. render it worthless.

The other side''s suggested phrasing is uncontroversial and fairly standard.

Charles

  • AbigailRocketblast
  • AbigailRocketblast's Avatar Posted by
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
28 Feb 14 #424039 by AbigailRocketblast
Reply from AbigailRocketblast
Thanks, Charles.

I''ll go ahead with it, but I''m not sure its true to claim I *fully* understand the contents.

Thanks again,

Ms Rocketblast

  • .Charles
  • .Charles's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
28 Feb 14 #424063 by .Charles
Reply from .Charles
If you don''t understand, you should not sign to say that you do.

Perhaps you should write back and say that you cannot afford representation and that you cannot commit to the process without some form of assistance. Perhaps you should suggest that they pay £300 to you to seek independent legal advice? Worth a shot..

Charles

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11