Help NCFP – Use AMAZON

We get 4% from Amazon so when ordering CLICK BELOW

  

Cheapest.co.uk

ukcheapest

Advocates in the TRNC have ‘no duty of care’ to their clients

ECHR Court Room

I have been reading of late that the Advocates in the TRNC have ‘no duty of care’ to their clients. This is according to their governing body which I suppose would be the equivalent of the Law Society in Great Britain. I reject that claim.

The signing of a Retainer, and the giving over of money by the client to the Advocate, implies a Contract. At the very least, a failure to complete this Contract should result in the repayment of all monies to the Client.  From the moment the Contract exists the Advocate has a professional ‘duty of care’ towards his/her client, in just the same way as any purchased object should be of ‘merchantable quality’ so should the services provided by the Advocate, and their first consideration should be the Client.

It could be argued by Advocates that this contract does not actually say what they are supposed to be doing for their money, but it should be clear to them especially as to what is the legal definition of the word “conveyencing.” For those who are not clear, it means the transfer of legal ownership, in this case property. A considerable number of people have paid £1000 or more to Advocates for this not to have happened. Many Advocates appear to wash their hands of their duty of care soon after receiving full payment unlike in the UK where that payment is not forthcoming until after a Solicitor’s role is fulfilled.

We all know that the Courts here appear to favour the indigenous population, however I can assure you the Court at the Hague is entirely impartial and to act other than in your client’s best interest and not to display a duty of care to that client, is a clear infringement of the client’s Human Rights and is covered by International Law.

I have also read that Advocates have on occasions been found to be acting for both the Building Company and the Purchaser from that Building Company and in much the same way as described above, the Advocate by not withdrawing from the transaction and advising his/her client of this obvious conflict of interest, they are not fulfilling their duty of care obligation to the Client. This also applies when the Advocate is either a shareholder or a Director or Secretary of the Building Company their client is purchasing from.

I am a layman, but this obvious violation of the Human Rights of so many Purchasers in the TRNC should be a cause of concern to the Government and also to the Republic of Turkey by association. I believe these practices are criminally negligent and I advise those who have been treated unjustly to seek justice where justice can be found; in the European Court of Human Rights.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

Comments are closed.