Supermacs open Letter to Solicitors

Treppen

So just for legal discussion.

I think fair play to him, I think he's the most vocal on it, but do you think it could bring unfair attention on the Solicitor's practice , or is it all fair and above board to publish?

https://supermacs.ie/open-letter-to-tracey-solicitors-in-relation-to-insurance-claims/

Dear Sirs,

I am writing an open letter to you in relation to several Personal Injuries actions which you are taking against my companies. The reason for this open letter is that, outside of your demands for CCTV footage, you have either refused or neglected to respond to my replies to these actions that you are taking on behalf of your clients and I feel that it is important that we clear up a number of issues.

On reading each of your letters of claim, I am struck by how they are almost identical in nature despite them being for 3 separate claimants even though the three alleged incidents are substantially different from each other. Indeed, the only difference between the 3 letters is the name of the claimant in the reference section. Is there a reason for this?
Your letters are intimidating and threatening. I can only assume your intention is to have the effect of scaremongering to elicit a response? Yet, when I do respond you ignore it. The only time we have heard directly from you is when you demand CCTV footage.

Why do your Letters of Claim state that we are responsible and liable for the claimants alleged injuries without any actual proof?

Why do you automatically assume we are responsible when this is a matter for the Courts to decide?

You also leave out the addresses of your clients in your letters, is this in case we would try and make contact with them directly and perhaps deal with the matter without your involvement? I again can only assume that you are doing this in order to ensure the matter progresses as far as possible thus ensuring higher legal fees for you and your company.
In your letters, you have suggested that I pass them onto my insurer. Why would you not wish to engage with me directly particularly given the fact that I am self-insured in many instances? Again, I can only assume that you feel you can reach a much better outcome with the Insurance companies than those who are self-insured like myself, as it is abundantly clear that insurance companies are much more willing to settle claims. When I have replied to these letters requesting further details of the alleged incidents and alleged injuries, why have you chosen not to respond and give me details which would allow me to investigate and deal with your alleged claim on a more expeditious basis and perhaps avoid the need to bring matters to the Courts?

Why do you choose to respond only when a Solicitor has been appointed on our behalf and PIAB proceedings have issued?

I have noted also that you choose to issue your legal proceedings in the Circuit Court and High Court as opposed to the District Court when clearly some of these alleged incidents referred to should be at District Court level, if they even merit the issuing of proceedings at all? Again, is this so that you can ensure you obtain higher legal fees for you and your company?
I look forward to your response to this letter and to the questions that I have raised above.

Yours faithfully,

Sultan of Bling

In respect of the last paragraph about taking a case through the circuit or high courts instead of the district court, AFAIK if a circuit or high court judge rules that the level of damages fall under district court levels the claimant must pay the difference in legal fees incurred by the respondent.

Open to correction on this.

ohnonotgmail

I'm not sure I would want pat McDonagh to have my home address if I was making a claim against supermacs.

Effects

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure I would want pat McDonagh to have my home address if I was making a claim against supermacs.

What's wrong with him having your home address?

ohnonotgmail

Effects wrote: »

What's wrong with him having your home address?

I'm sure he is a lovely bloke who would never think to contact you directly. Oh wait, he pretty much admitted that he would.

ratracer

Fair play to Pat McDonagh! It’s about time someone challenged the ridiculous ‘claims culture’ and the legal leeches who pursue, and indeed encourage, such vexatious claims in this country.

At least he is a man of means who is able to question the system, and had proven in a number of cases that he is not willing to succumb, but has always said that if his companies are responsible for an accident they will settle costs directly with the individual.

boardise

Delighted Pat McD is exposing these solicitors for the extortionate bullies that they are.

Extra user.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure he is a lovely bloke who would never think to contact you directly. Oh wait, he pretty much admitted that he would.

As long as he doesn't attemp to send any of his food i've no problems with it

storker

Treppen wrote: »

So just for legal discussion.

I think fair play to him, I think he's the most vocal on it, but do you think it could bring unfair attention on the Solicitor's practice , or is it all fair and above board to publish?

I think it that far from being unfair, such attention would be well-deserved. It's high time a strong light was shone under the stones beneath which these ambulance-chasing leeches lurk. We don't usually get to see the details of the process just the direct results: news stories of ridiculous awards, or the indirect results: our premiums going up. Again.

Effects

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure he is a lovely bloke who would never think to contact you directly. Oh wait, he pretty much admitted that he would.

Or maybe he just wants to offer you a direct settlement, and avoid scummy solicitors making money out of both him and you?

Is that possible?

99nsr125

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure I would want pat McDonagh to have my home address if I was making a claim against supermacs.

He's a prick, this is the same guy who went to the high court to reduce people's wages by 50 cents an hour despite being millions in profit

ohnonotgmail

Effects wrote: »

Or maybe he just wants to offer you a direct settlement, and avoid scummy solicitors making money out of both him and you?

Is that possible?

i'm sure it is. It is also possible that he might intimidate you into accepting a lowball offer. why take the risk?

jimmycrackcorm

99nsr125 wrote:

He's a prick, this is the same guy who went to the high court to reduce people's wages by 50 cents an hour despite being millions in profit

I presume you are referring to the JLC being found unconstitutional.

Atlantic Dawn

There should be a publically accessable leaderboard showing how much each solicitor firm has taken in personal injury claims, additionally doctors certifying these illnesses should be included.

listermint

What's specifically unfair attention to this solicitors?

If they are willing to stand over the claims they should be willing for the publicity

Eggs For Dinner

Just to add that the solicitors letter is basically the same boilerplate version used by nearly every solicitor. It is designed to frighten the recipient and it often has that effect.

AndrewJRenko

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure he is a lovely bloke who would never think to contact you directly. Oh wait, he pretty much admitted that he would.

Ah don't be paranoid, he probably just wants to line up a bunch of pen pals to all send the same nice letter to these people?

https://fora.ie/pat-mcdonagh-clare-controversy-4216486-Sep2018/

Sultan of Bling

Eggs For Dinner wrote:

Just to add that the solicitors letter is basically the same boilerplate version used by nearly every solicitor. It is designed to frighten the recipient and it often has that effect.

100%

I think when people receive these letters, they panic.

Only a judge can make an order.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Whatever about Pat McDonagh as a person it is great to see these ambulance chasing shysters being exposed.

zerosugarbuzz

listermint wrote: »

What's specifically unfair attention to this solicitors?

If they are willing to stand over the claims they should be willing for the publicity

Personally I think is free advertising for the solicitors. I’ve never t seen a claim but if I were to I now know where to go.

Darc19

Now here's a leftfield suggestion


Where it is obvious that the solicitors who initiated the case should have known it was false, that they then are responsible for costs if their client cannot pay.


But isn't it funny how so many people who are unemployed or living off social welfare have these unfortunate accidents? Those who are gainfully employed and educated seems to have far far far less mishaps.

Here's a great presentation on whiplash scam
https://www.insuranceireland.eu/media/Dr%20Robert%20McQuillan%20-%20Minimal%20Impact%20Medical%20Aspects%20April%202015.pdf

bbbbb

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Just to add that the solicitors letter is basically the same boilerplate version used by nearly every solicitor. It is designed to frighten the recipient and it often has that effect.

I would have thought the opposite; Because it is so obviously boilerplate and lacks any real substance or specifics, it would easily be dismissed or ignored?
It almost reads like a phising email ffs...

athlone573

There is a lot of bluff and bluster there on both sides which I assume is par for the course.

I guess the defendants have to be given an opportunity to gather information to challenge claims, at which stage does this normally happen?

Eggs For Dinner

bbbbb wrote: »

I would have thought the opposite; Because it is so obviously boilerplate and lacks any real substance or specifics, it would easily be dismissed or ignored?
It almost reads like a phising email ffs...

The likes of Supermacs would be well used to getting these letters, but small businesses and private motorists wouldn't. The good thing, however, about these letters is that the recipient will usually pass them straight away to their insurers. It gets messy when people try and respond to them personally

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Just to add that the solicitors letter is basically the same boilerplate version used by nearly every solicitor. It is designed to frighten the recipient and it often has that effect.

+1 I got such a letter about 20 years ago from a firm of solicitors after a traffic accident which happened right in front of me as I was stopped at traffic lights. I hung around at the scene like a good citizen and gave my name to a Garda as a witness but this shower still sent me the boilerplate letter in an attempt to get me to admit it was all my fault.

In doing so, they lost me as a prospective witness who could have given them ammunition for their client against the other guy, the fellow who caused the accident. Instead, they sent me this accusing letter so I ignored it and heard nothing more.

ohnonotgmail

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The likes of Supermacs would be well used to getting these letters, but small businesses and private motorists wouldn't. The good thing, however, about these letters is that the recipient will usually pass them straight away to their insurers. It gets messy when people try and respond to them personally

private motorists would never get such a letter. their insurance company would get any letters regarding claims directly.

Darc19

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The likes of Supermacs would be well used to getting these letters, but small businesses and private motorists wouldn't. The good thing, however, about these letters is that the recipient will usually pass them straight away to their insurers. It gets messy when people try and respond to them personally

This is the problem with these letters. They are worded in a threatening manner to unnecessarily frighten businesses into handing the letters to insurance companies in the hope that the insurers will make an offer of 10k for it to go away.

That 10k is then added to the insured policy over the next couple of years.

Until the day comes where the solicitors themselves are hit in the pocket for pursuing frivolous claims they know are untrue, this scamming by a certain type of solicitor will continue.

The law society don't give a damn about such underhand mode of operation.

godtabh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

private motorists would never get such a letter. their insurance company would get any letters regarding claims directly.

My wife has one from an accident last year. Not sure how they got her address. It wasnt 100% correct but enough to get it to her.

We've passed it on to our insurance company who are no dealing with it.

Yyhhuuu

Very interesting article in the Irish Times regarding Planning objections for a fast food outlet near Suprrmacs Eyre Square.

I personally would never enter a Supermacs or other take away again..and I don't eat expensive fast food as it contributes to Heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases. I much prefer home made food.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-who-objected-to-rival-fast-food-outlet-works-for-supermac-s-1.3611771

I also really objected to the way Mc Donagh referred to relatively low -paid employees on Covid 19 payments as: " like winning the Lotto". When he himself is a multi-millionaire.

Eggs For Dinner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

private motorists would never get such a letter. their insurance company would get any letters regarding claims directly.

That is not correct, they do.

punisher5112

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

private motorists would never get such a letter. their insurance company would get any letters regarding claims directly.

I did.

Even through the company I work for, the other driver tried to personally sue me over a collision they caused and were found to be at fault.

Compo82

I think what Pat is trying to say is that lawyers are for people like him they're involved in an intellectual dispute and not people injured through no fault of their own.

Victor

The only objection I have to the solicitors letters is they come across as poorly written. One would expect something a bit more polished.

godtabh wrote: »

My wife has one from an accident last year. Not sure how they got her address.

Likely from the other party (given by your wife) or from the Gardad.

The DayDream

I worked there once. I hope they lose every single case.

Calahonda52

The DayDream wrote: »

I worked there once. I hope they lose every single case.

And?

Compo82

In fairness I don't think this is a set against Pat. All claim letters are genric. The big issue for Pat with this is that's it's a business cost he has no control over. I'd say Pat has also left himself open for another cause of action by releasing this, so the solicitors will be delighted. For a man who had his workers minimum wage or just above and makes employees pay for their uniforms, he can hardly be holding the moral ground here.

listermint

Compo82 wrote: »

I think what Pat is trying to say is that lawyers are for people like him they're involved in an intellectual dispute and not people injured through no fault of their own.

The irony of your username is not lost on me

Odelay

listermint wrote: »

The irony of your username is not lost on me

And look who thanked your post..... they’re all in here getting ideas..

coylemj

You can say what you like about Pat and low wages, unhealthy food etc. But he has enough CCTV clips to show that false and exaggerated claims represent a major headache for someone in his line of business.

And the point of that letter is that ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers churn out those letters like they were printing money.

Dempo1

Is this same Mc Donagh who refused access to CCTV in a recent case? The same chancer who if he could would have his own CCTV channel.

Whilst therrs no doubting some dodgy claims, even he knows its not up to him where a claim is lodged and writing an open letter to a solicitor is just childish.

Personally I can't abide the man, by all accounts he'd have the national minimum wage at €3.50 p/h, he's also by all accounts less than pleasant to work for and whilst I'm at it, Supermacs is utter S*****

Ash.J.Williams

Effects wrote: »

What's wrong with him having your home address?

He’s a nasty piece of Work is why , you don’t him at your door, however he’s completely right in these cases

partyguinness

...because Letter before Action and indeed the Particulars of Claim tend to be 99% pro forma.

Robbo

Dempo1 wrote: »

Is this same Mc Donagh who refused access to CCTV in a recent case? The same chancer who if he could would have his own CCTV channel.

Fought voluntary discovery and an order of a County Registrar all the way to the High Court....to stop a plaintiff getting CCTV which she was absolutely entitled to under the GDPR.

It's not the first time Supermacs haven't been keen on CCTV that wasn't entirely flattering. In this case discovery was fought because it quite clearly showed what the bouncer got up to.

partyguinness wrote: »

...because Letter before Action and indeed the Particulars of Claim tend to be 99% pro forma.

I'd imagine that this is the first time McDonagh has been sued such is the tone of perfomative naivety in his open letter.

The DayDream

boardise wrote: »

Delighted Pat McD is exposing these solicitors for the extortionate bullies that they are.

Whereas I'm delighted to see the extortionate bully Pat McD, a fast food fat cat who begrudges his workers even the national min wage get stung for a few bob.

Dempo1

Robbo wrote: »

Fought voluntary discovery and an order of a County Registrar all the way to the High Court....to stop a plaintiff getting CCTV which she was absolutely entitled to under the GDPR.

It's not the first time Supermacs haven't been keen on CCTV that wasn't entirely flattering. In this case discovery was fought because it quite clearly showed what the bouncer got up to.

I'd imagine that this is the first time McDonagh has been sued such is the tone of perfomative naivety in his open letter.

Yes, that's the one, Mr Mc Donagh needs to understand what's good for the goose, not always good for the gander.

He seems to have an obsession with solicitors rightly presenting cases on behalf of clients, I can just imagine this odious buffoon sitting at home with a wall of monitors, watching everything. Quite sad really

Dempo1

mikemac2 wrote: »

Having read the three pages, why so nasty?

Surely there is a plain speaking way to write a letter asking for a reply without the threats

Maybe I'm a sensitive soul The letter is pure intimidation

I guess the primary issue is he shouldn't be writing to anyone, particularly if proceedings or notice of same has commenced, unless of course he foolishly intends defending claims in court himself which is highly unlikely.

He just comes across as a petulant bully, bored, obsessed and delusional.

Worth pointing out from an earlier issue I raised, Mc Donagh was very fond of releasing cctv footage to local and national media, indeed I'm surprised he hasn't his own YouTube channel and yet he throws GDPR obligations at defendants seeking access to CCTV

I'm not disputing there's dodgy claims, every business has them, this buffoon would have us believe every customer of supermacs is at it.

Eggs For Dinner

I believe Pat McDonagh has a high voluntary excess on his liability policy, which means he is free to spend his own money defending claims if he feels they are bogus or exaggerated. He benefits from a win and carries the can for a loss. He maintains it is cost effective.We're in this mess because Sean Quinn used to buckle and throw money at the 1st sight of these letters. It's something Liberty have carried on. That fed the beast and we're only now trying to reverse the damage.

He's right not to release the CCTV to the claimant until he has to. It's a regular occurrence for a solicitor to amend their details of claim to suit what they see on the video rather than press on with the version of events their client has given them. Insurers love holding on to CCTV as long as they can where a scam is obvious as it racks up legal fees the claimant can't recover when a claim is thrown out.

ohnonotgmail

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I believe Pat McDonagh has a high voluntary excess on his liability policy, which means he is free to spend his own money defending claims if he feels they are bogus or exaggerated. He benefits from a win and carries the can for a loss. He maintains it is cost effective.We're in this mess because Sean Quinn used to buckle and throw money at the 1st sight of these letters. It's something Liberty have carried on. That fed the beast and we're only now trying to reverse the damage.

He's right not to release the CCTV to the claimant until he has to. It's a regular occurrence for a solicitor to amend their details of claim to suit what they see on the video rather than press on with the version of events their client has given them. Insurers love holding on to CCTV as long as they can where a scam is obvious as it racks up legal fees the claimant can't recover when a claim is thrown out.

you mean a solicitor will amend a claim to reflect what actually happened? the unconscionable swines.

Eggs For Dinner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean a solicitor will amend a claim to reflect what actually happened? the unconscionable swines.

In effect, they will see a flaw in what their client will have told them happened if it's a scam and try and scramble some sort of result from the ashes. Better to let them dig a big hole for themselves. If events are straight forward, the CCTV will be shared at discovery anyway.

coylemj

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean a solicitor will amend a claim to reflect what actually happened? the unconscionable swines.

I can well undersand why solicitors are anxious to see the CCTV. Otherwise, they have to rely on exaggerated and (often) concocted stories provided by their indigent clients. Who have nothing to lose so they dress up the story as far as they can. Then it's the solicitor who takes the hit on the legal costs when his client is exposed as a liar and the case is thrown out.

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

We're in this mess because Sean Quinn used to buckle and throw money at the 1st sight of these letters. It's something Liberty have carried on. That fed the beast and we're only now trying to reverse the damage.

We're in a similar mess in relation to motor insurance and soft tissue (aka whiplash) injuries. Except you can't blame Quinn and Liberty alone for that situation - all of the insurers have 'fed the beast'.