Road Traffic Injury - Recent changes [en]

Diary 2026 continued

Alfas — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:25:42 GMT

2026-06-12 07:36

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 13 June 2026
Line 304:		Line 304:

	The only thing I can focus now is that I cannot change what has happened. I can only focus on what I can do next. Two days ago, one lawyer criticized me for having this site. This is my lifeline. It is the only hope. Without it I could not cope at all. I miss so bad the time I was able to function properly. Yesterday evening, while reading [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers]] I found that part very written very badly. I am expressing my self so bad that it is hard to understand. It is hard to believe that I had such a strong determination to write whole story and seek justice, and I was not able to do it. It feels insane that it can happen, but it does happen.		The only thing I can focus now is that I cannot change what has happened. I can only focus on what I can do next. Two days ago, one lawyer criticized me for having this site. This is my lifeline. It is the only hope. Without it I could not cope at all. I miss so bad the time I was able to function properly. Yesterday evening, while reading [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers]] I found that part very written very badly. I am expressing my self so bad that it is hard to understand. It is hard to believe that I had such a strong determination to write whole story and seek justice, and I was not able to do it. It feels insane that it can happen, but it does happen.

			==== 2026-06-13 11:24 ====
			1h sleep. Livers caused my health so much damage. I am in survival mode.

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Vilma — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:42:33 GMT

Damage to mental health

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:42, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
(No difference)

To-Do

Vilma — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:18:06 GMT

Case against Livers misrepresantation

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 12 June 2026
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 158:		Line 158:

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
	* Not disputed lies ~~skyrelyje~~: Full list is provided on google drive. UPDATE: upload updated list. "[[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Not disputed lies]]"		* In section: Not disputed lies: Full list is provided on google drive. UPDATE: upload updated list. "[[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Not disputed lies]]"

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
Line 165:		Line 165:

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
	~~Skyrelyje~~: Withheld information about barrister representationUPDATE: description, evidence first meetings maybe I asked about it again in emails at the beginning, question from PIC close to tribunal [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Withheld information about barrister representation]]		In section: Withheld information about barrister representationUPDATE: description, evidence first meetings maybe I asked about it again in emails at the beginning, question from PIC close to tribunal [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Withheld information about barrister representation]]

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
	~~Skyrelyje~~: Not provided information about objection by QBE of non-economic and treatment expenses: UPDATE: was there anything else about it in emails from Livers or PIC messages? [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Not provided information about objection by QBE of non-economic and treatment expenses]]		In section: Not provided information about objection by QBE of non-economic and treatment expenses: UPDATE: was there anything else about it in emails from Livers or PIC messages? [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Not provided information about objection by QBE of non-economic and treatment expenses]]

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
	Email [https://roadtrafficinjury.net/email-viewer.php?file=Livers%2Fmessages%2F20230224-FW_%20RE%20APP-10268809%20-%20Alfonsas%20Stonis%20_%20Upcoming%20s-35.html FW: RE APP-10268809 - Alfonsas Stonis : Upcoming scheduled appointment - ref:_00D7Fq1hh._5007F10nZRK:ref] shows attachemnts which should not be there] Pdf file is - [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNG9QpvtmiqfAGrz-piuOzzrsX4YhE09/view?usp=sharing 20230224-FW_ RE APP-10268809 - Alfonsas Stonis _ Upcoming s-35.pdf]		Email [https://roadtrafficinjury.net/email-viewer.php?file=Livers%2Fmessages%2F20230224-FW_%20RE%20APP-10268809%20-%20Alfonsas%20Stonis%20_%20Upcoming%20s-35.html FW: RE APP-10268809 - Alfonsas Stonis : Upcoming scheduled appointment - ref:_00D7Fq1hh._5007F10nZRK:ref] shows attachemnts which should not be there. Pdf file of the email is - [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNG9QpvtmiqfAGrz-piuOzzrsX4YhE09/view?usp=sharing 20230224-FW_ RE APP-10268809 - Alfonsas Stonis _ Upcoming s-35.pdf]

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Vilma — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:03:10 GMT

Other delays

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:03, 12 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1,100:		Line 1,100:
	=== Other delays ===		=== Other delays ===
	; 2023-02-21 and 22 : I sent 2 emails with my work summary and with 5 questions in it. Livers did not reply. I asked the same questions the next time I met Livers, and it became clear to me that he had not read it.		; 2023-02-21 and 22 : I sent 2 emails with my work summary and with 5 questions in it. Livers did not reply. I asked the same questions the next time I met Livers, and it became clear to me that he had not read it.
	: File 2023-02-21 email to Livers - Work Summary.~~pdf~~		: File 2023-02-21 email to Livers - Work Summary [[https://roadtrafficinjury.net/email-viewer.php?file=Livers%2Fmessages%2F20230221-Work%20Summary-31.html]]

	=== Sent me an old QBE Insurer's submissions as if it were new===		=== Sent me an old QBE Insurer's submissions as if it were new===

To-Do

Vilma — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:58:54 GMT

Case against Livers misrepresantation

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 11 June 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 165:		Line 165:

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
	Skyrelyje: Withheld information about barrister representationUPDATE: description, evidence first meetings maybe I asked about it again in emails at the beginning, question from PIC close to tribunal [[[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Withheld information about barrister representation]]		Skyrelyje: Withheld information about barrister representationUPDATE: description, evidence first meetings maybe I asked about it again in emails at the beginning, question from PIC close to tribunal [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Withheld information about barrister representation]]

	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
Line 175:		Line 175:
	== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==		== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
	To do "Document checklist" as pdf and add as an attachment [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YSEr208HseWTdIyR5YHvtLez9R0hQY70mlyxzZq1k9o/edit?usp=sharing]		To do "Document checklist" as pdf and add as an attachment [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YSEr208HseWTdIyR5YHvtLez9R0hQY70mlyxzZq1k9o/edit?usp=sharing]

			== Case against Livers misrepresantation ==
			Where to put this sentence from the section [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers#Impact on determination]] : Past loss of earnings $200,000.00 Future loss of earnings $250,00.00 Past treatment expenses $12,494.21 Future treatment expenses $15,000.00 Future domestic assistance $10,000.00 Total of economic losses and non-economic loss $737,494.21 Total Damages Assessed $737,494.21

	== Split to stonis.info ==		== Split to stonis.info ==

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Vilma — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:36:16 GMT

Not disputed lies

Show changes

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Alfas — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:12:16 GMT

Misrepresentation at assessment conference

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 11 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 36:		Line 36:
	=== Misrepresentation at assessment conference ===		=== Misrepresentation at assessment conference ===

	I have not received any information from Livers about process of the PIC.		I have not received any information from Livers about process of the PIC AC. Having information would have helped me to reduce the damage of Livers misrepresentation. Just having barrister probably would be enough to avoid large portion of damage as preparation would be different as well.

	PIC AC was held 2023-06-28. PIC member Hugh Macken has launched a harsh verbal attack on me. Livers was the only person allowed to provide information and Livers remained silent during this time and did not provide any information that he previously promised to provide.		PIC AC was held 2023-06-28. PIC member Hugh Macken has launched a harsh verbal attack on me. Livers was the only person allowed to provide information and Livers remained silent during this time and did not provide any information that he previously promised to provide.

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Vilma — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:09:57 GMT

Misrepresentation at assessment conference

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 11 June 2026
Line 57:		Line 57:

	Livers actions:		Livers actions:
	# '''Did not present my case'''. During the PIC conference QBE insurance representative tried to prove that problems with my right knee started a few months after the road traffic injury even though there is proof that I complained about pain in the right knee immediately after the accident. Mr Livers did not ask any questions regarding that and did not try to prove the truth (transcript pages 7-8). [https://drive.google.com/~~open~~?id=~~1mYVChwrQLKC1n3CPO1~~-~~XxzoK5ZBHsDjR&usp=drive_copy transcript~~], [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Arzi4UrNTw6s_i8hjk5frBFYDd7vbE9m/view?usp=drive_link Certificate of Determination]		# '''Did not present my case'''. During the PIC conference QBE insurance representative tried to prove that problems with my right knee started a few months after the road traffic injury even though there is proof that I complained about pain in the right knee immediately after the accident. Mr Livers did not ask any questions regarding that and did not try to prove the truth (transcript pages 7-8). [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y720wNOtrlhnIgkFiIcSBY2N5t5LtNk_/view?usp=sharing 2023-06-28 Transcript of the AC], [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Arzi4UrNTw6s_i8hjk5frBFYDd7vbE9m/view?usp=drive_link Certificate of Determination]
	# '''Gave me harmful advice about non-economic loss'''. During tribunal Livers insisted that I ask $500,000 for pain and suffering. Livers did not mention the sum for non-economic loss in [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qFD9n5F24FkQ7wKGyMyRFPhzHhbzrLpp&usp=drive_copy his particulars], so $500,000 came as a surprise for me. Previously I asked for $200,000 and insurance agreed. Even Macken, PIC member, said that $500,000 is too high, as just 3 weeks ago he gave quadriplegic only $375,000, and if I leave it this high I will get close to the allowed minimum $100,000. Unfortunately, I trusted Livers and got $150,000 ([https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Arzi4UrNTw6s_i8hjk5frBFYDd7vbE9m/view?usp=drive_link PIC Certificate of Determination]) (pages 6-7). [https://drive.google.com/file/d/18JSscw5JCLewxfmWe_ym46jNUdGGMFua/view?usp=drive_link 2023-08-04 email from Livers].		# '''Gave me harmful advice about non-economic loss'''. During tribunal Livers insisted that I ask $500,000 for pain and suffering. Livers did not mention the sum for non-economic loss in [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qFD9n5F24FkQ7wKGyMyRFPhzHhbzrLpp&usp=drive_copy his particulars], so $500,000 came as a surprise for me. Previously I asked for $200,000 and insurance agreed. Even Macken, PIC member, said that $500,000 is too high, as just 3 weeks ago he gave quadriplegic only $375,000, and if I leave it this high I will get close to the allowed minimum $100,000. Unfortunately, I trusted Livers and got $150,000 ([https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Arzi4UrNTw6s_i8hjk5frBFYDd7vbE9m/view?usp=drive_link PIC Certificate of Determination]) (pages 6-7). [https://drive.google.com/file/d/18JSscw5JCLewxfmWe_ym46jNUdGGMFua/view?usp=drive_link 2023-08-04 email from Livers].
	# '''Gave bad advice about claiming support'''. During tribunal I asked for $50,000 - $75,000 for Gratuitous Care. Mr Livers was asked by Mr Macken to provide reasoning for gratuitous support. Mr Livers instead of providing evidence for this needed domestic assistance cost convinced me to take back this request. Mr Livers also advised me that I did not need an occupational therapist assessment; however, during the tribunal, I was asked to provide one, which I did not have. Livers has not prepared any information regarding my need for support, something that should have been done earlier. It was a loss, because I didn't get any money for Gratuitous Care. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qFD9n5F24FkQ7wKGyMyRFPhzHhbzrLpp&usp=drive_copy his particulars pages 7-8] [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Arzi4UrNTw6s_i8hjk5frBFYDd7vbE9m/view?usp=drive_link Certificate of Determination]. Macken stated that by the law there can not be support for psychosocial disabilities. Instead of pointing out that it was not true, Mr Livers encouraged me to accept it, stating that it was true. Even Dr Skinder Khan, in his independent medical examination report (page 11), when asked whether the client (Mr Stonis) would require domestic assistance in the future and, if so, the extent of that requirement in terms of hours, stated that in his opinion: ''"… Mr Stonis will benefit from domestic assistance in the future of the order of three to four hours per week".'' [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dynCsnGHkVaXwJ4UpImdO4Q8HH4RKhOB/view?usp=sharing 2018-10-11 Dr Skinder Khan report]. Livers failed to properly prepare for the assessment for the required support, as mentioned in ''[[#Livers did not gather evidence of my mental health problems]]''.		# '''Gave bad advice about claiming support'''. During tribunal I asked for $50,000 - $75,000 for Gratuitous Care. Mr Livers was asked by Mr Macken to provide reasoning for gratuitous support. Mr Livers instead of providing evidence for this needed domestic assistance cost convinced me to take back this request. Mr Livers also advised me that I did not need an occupational therapist assessment; however, during the tribunal, I was asked to provide one, which I did not have. Livers has not prepared any information regarding my need for support, something that should have been done earlier. It was a loss, because I didn't get any money for Gratuitous Care. [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qFD9n5F24FkQ7wKGyMyRFPhzHhbzrLpp&usp=drive_copy his particulars pages 7-8] [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Arzi4UrNTw6s_i8hjk5frBFYDd7vbE9m/view?usp=drive_link Certificate of Determination]. Macken stated that by the law there can not be support for psychosocial disabilities. Instead of pointing out that it was not true, Mr Livers encouraged me to accept it, stating that it was true. Even Dr Skinder Khan, in his independent medical examination report (page 11), when asked whether the client (Mr Stonis) would require domestic assistance in the future and, if so, the extent of that requirement in terms of hours, stated that in his opinion: ''"… Mr Stonis will benefit from domestic assistance in the future of the order of three to four hours per week".'' [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dynCsnGHkVaXwJ4UpImdO4Q8HH4RKhOB/view?usp=sharing 2018-10-11 Dr Skinder Khan report]. Livers failed to properly prepare for the assessment for the required support, as mentioned in ''[[#Livers did not gather evidence of my mental health problems]]''.

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Alfas — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:07:14 GMT

Severe misconduct

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 11 June 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	== Severe misconduct ==		== Severe misconduct ==
	During preparation for the Conference, Peter Livers did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was by asking one question: “How many pots do you have in your garden?”. There was no presentation of medical records, impact of the injury on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team.		During preparation for the Conference, Peter Livers did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was by asking one question: “How many pots do you have in your garden?”. There was no presentation of medical records, impact of the injury on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team.


	Main events of misconduct:		Main events of misconduct:

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Vilma — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:06:19 GMT

Misrepresentation at assessment conference

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 11 June 2026
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Summary ==		== Summary ==
	Peter James Livers represented me at the ~~Personal Injury Commission (~~PIC) Assessment Conference ~~(AC)~~ for my personal injury claim. The result of Mr Livers handling of the claim was that the PIC did not have a chance to consider all the relevant matters affecting the determination. Specifically, this arose due to:		Peter James Livers represented me at the PIC Assessment Conference for my personal injury claim. The result of Mr Livers handling of the claim was that the PIC did not have a chance to consider all the relevant matters affecting the determination. Specifically, this arose due to:

	# Mr Livers did not follow clear client instructions, despite promising to do so, and in some cases telling to a client that he did		# Mr Livers did not follow clear client instructions, despite promising to do so, and in some cases telling to a client that he did
	# Mr Livers submitted incomplete or inaccurate documentation to the ~~PIC~~ and failed to raise the key issues requested and agreed upon		# Mr Livers submitted incomplete or inaccurate documentation to the Personal Injury Commission and failed to raise the key issues requested and agreed upon
	# Mr Livers gave damaging advice during the PIC conference		# Mr Livers gave damaging advice during the PIC conference
	##Compensation for pain and suffering		## Compensation for pain and suffering
	##Compensation for support		## Compensation for support
	# Mr Livers did not share relevant information as required by his role during the preparation process for PIC assessment conference (disputes for medical and legal fees)		# Mr Livers did not share relevant information as required by his role during the preparation process for PIC assessment conference (disputes for medical and legal fees)
	# Mr Livers did not action agreed work promptly and within the ~~time frames~~ required to support the claims process.		# Mr Livers did not action agreed work promptly and within the timeframes required to support the claims process.
	# Mr Livers facilitated the dissemination of misinformation and engaged in deceptive conduct related to my claim.		# Mr Livers facilitated the dissemination of misinformation and engaged in deceptive conduct related to my claim.

	Important documentation could not be considered at the PIC AC. My final Statement (2023-04-26), including references, was provided to Mr Livers. The ~~final document bundle provided by Livers is missing a lot of documents and some were edited by him. In addition the~~ presentation, and ordering, of the submission documents (PIC Reference, AD11-2, 333 pages in total) made it difficult for the hearing to consider my position. This handling of my records, and unclear presentation of the overall Submission, resulted in obfuscation of my Statement (2023-04-26).		Important documentation could not be considered at the PIC Assessment Conference (AC). My final Statement (2023-04-26), including references, was provided to Mr Livers and incorporated into the overall Submission. The presentation, and ordering, of the submission documents (PIC Reference, AD11-2, 333 pages in total) made it difficult for the hearing to consider my position. This handling of my records, and unclear presentation of the overall Submission, resulted in obfuscation of my Statement (2023-04-26):

	Mr Livers failed to challenge misleading work capacity claims made by QBE’s solicitor ~~prior and~~ at the PIC AC, resulting in them being accepted as true. I had explicitly asked ~~Mr Livers~~ to dispute these particulars on my behalf. He failed to do this despite me making it a key condition of my agreeing to engage him as my solicitor.		Mr Livers failed to challenge misleading work capacity claims made by QBE’s solicitor at the PIC (2023-06-28), resulting in them being accepted as true. I had explicitly asked for him to dispute these particulars on my behalf. He failed to do this despite me making it a key condition of my agreeing to engage him as my solicitor.

	In relation to the dispute about Medical expenses: Prior to the PIC hearing, I provided a list of medical expenses in the Statement, which was subsequently disputed by the Insurance company. The PIC responded to this by requesting additional information. Mr Livers did not advise that this happened and as a result, I could not provide the ~~requested~~ information ~~before the conference~~ and medical expenses were not considered for compensation.		In relation to the dispute about Medical expenses: Prior to the PIC hearing, I provided a list of medical expenses in the Statement, which was subsequently disputed by the Insurance company. The PIC responded to this by requesting additional information. Mr Livers did not advise that this happened and as a result, I could not provide the information and medical expenses were not considered for compensation.

	In relation to the dispute about Legal expenses: I had asked him about compensation of legal expenses by QBE Insurance and he said there was no information about it. I was later aware of a dispute from QBE about these legal expenses.		In relation to the dispute about Legal expenses: I had asked him about compensation of legal expenses by QBE Insurance and he said there was no information about it. I was later aware of a dispute from QBE about these legal expenses.
Line 23:		Line 23:
	== Severe misconduct ==		== Severe misconduct ==
	During preparation for the Conference, Peter Livers did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was by asking one question: “How many pots do you have in your garden?”. There was no presentation of medical records, impact of the injury on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team.		During preparation for the Conference, Peter Livers did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was by asking one question: “How many pots do you have in your garden?”. There was no presentation of medical records, impact of the injury on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team.


	Main events of misconduct:		Main events of misconduct:
Line 35:		Line 36:

	=== Misrepresentation at assessment conference ===		=== Misrepresentation at assessment conference ===
	PIC Assessment Conference was held 2023-06-28. PIC member Hugh Macken has launched a harsh verbal attack on me. Livers was alone allowed to provide information and Livers remained silent during this time and did not provide any information that he previously promised to provide.

	The emotional distress I experienced, which was not disputed by Mr Livers during the PIC ~~Assessment Conference~~, can be illustrated by the following example~~. I attended the PIC Assessment Conference, where I met Mr Ceballos, the insurer’s solicitor, for the first and only time~~. I was concerned by the manner in which submissions were advanced on behalf of the insurer, including ~~arguments which I considered to be~~ incorrect and unrealistic in relation to my circumstances (which would require time travel). The insurer’s barrister did not ultimately adopt all of the positions put forward by Mr Ceballos, despite the support of the PIC member. During the conference~~, my solicitor,~~ Mr ~~Peter~~ Livers, remained silent. This was despite my prior request that he challenge incorrect information presented by the insurer and his earlier ~~indication~~ that he would do so during the conference.		I have not received any information from Livers about process of the PIC.

			PIC AC was held 2023-06-28. PIC member Hugh Macken has launched a harsh verbal attack on me. Livers was the only person allowed to provide information and Livers remained silent during this time and did not provide any information that he previously promised to provide.

			The emotional distress I experienced, which was not disputed by Mr Livers during the PIC AC, can be illustrated by the following example. I was concerned by the manner in which submissions were advanced on behalf of the insurer, including incorrect and unrealistic statements in relation to my circumstances (which would require time travel). The insurer’s barrister did not ultimately adopt all of the positions put forward by Mr Ceballos, despite the support of the PIC member. During the conference Mr Livers remained silent. This was despite my prior request that he challenge incorrect information presented by the insurer and his earlier promise that he would do so during the conference.

	Hugh Macken uploaded determination on damages to PIC portal on 2023-07-20. It is very unfair and full of factual errors. I asked ~~my solicitor, Peter~~ Livers, to submit an application for appeal to the District Court, as he was recommending doing for the last several months. Livers replied that he will not do it and will not allow me to do it.		Hugh Macken uploaded determination on damages to PIC portal on 2023-07-20. It is very unfair and full of factual errors. I asked Mr Livers to submit an application for appeal to the District Court, as he was recommending doing for the last several months. Livers replied that he will not do it and will not allow me to do it.

	The result of Mr Livers handling of the claim was that the PIC did not have a chance to consider all the relevant matters affecting the determination.		The result of Mr Livers handling of the claim was that the PIC did not have a chance to consider all the relevant matters affecting the determination.
Line 48:		Line 52:
	##Compensation for support		##Compensation for support
	# Mr Livers did not share relevant information as required by his role during the preparation process for PIC assessment conference (disputes for medical and legal fees)		# Mr Livers did not share relevant information as required by his role during the preparation process for PIC assessment conference (disputes for medical and legal fees)
	# Mr Livers did not action agreed work promptly and within the timeframes required to support the claims process.		# Mr Livers did not action the agreed work promptly and within the timeframes required to support the claims process.
	# Mr Livers facilitated the dissemination of misinformation and engaged in deceptive conduct related to my claim.		# Mr Livers facilitated the dissemination of misinformation and engaged in deceptive conduct related to my claim.

Diary 2026 continued

Alfas — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 21:59:06 GMT

2026-06-12 07:36

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 11 June 2026
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 299:		Line 299:

	It is bizarre how much energy can be consumed by one phone call. I had one phone for 40 min in the morning and now am spending my time staring at the monitor and not being able to do anything.		It is bizarre how much energy can be consumed by one phone call. I had one phone for 40 min in the morning and now am spending my time staring at the monitor and not being able to do anything.

			==== 2026-06-12 07:36 ====
			I woke up at 4:05 and was not able to fall asleep no matter what I have tried. I had a good plan on what I want and need to do in dealing with Livers misconduct and I was not able to do it. Despite not being able to do it over longer time I have now to focus and do as much as I can in short time. I feel that I am going to fail again.

			The only thing I can focus now is that I cannot change what has happened. I can only focus on what I can do next. Two days ago, one lawyer criticized me for having this site. This is my lifeline. It is the only hope. Without it I could not cope at all. I miss so bad the time I was able to function properly. Yesterday evening, while reading [[Misrepresentation by Peter Livers]] I found that part very written very badly. I am expressing my self so bad that it is hard to understand. It is hard to believe that I had such a strong determination to write whole story and seek justice, and I was not able to do it. It feels insane that it can happen, but it does happen.

Misrepresentation by Peter Livers

Alfas — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:36:39 GMT

Severe misconduct

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 11 June 2026
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Summary ==		== Summary ==
	The result of Mr Livers handling of the claim was that the PIC did not have a chance to consider all the relevant matters affecting the determination. Specifically, this arose due to:		Peter James Livers represented me at the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) Assessment Conference (AC) for my personal injury claim. The result of Mr Livers handling of the claim was that the PIC did not have a chance to consider all the relevant matters affecting the determination. Specifically, this arose due to:

	# Mr Livers did not follow clear client instructions, despite promising to do so, and in some cases telling to a client that he did		# Mr Livers did not follow clear client instructions, despite promising to do so, and in some cases telling to a client that he did
	# Mr Livers submitted incomplete or inaccurate documentation to the ~~Personal Injury Commission~~ and failed to raise the key issues requested and agreed upon		# Mr Livers submitted incomplete or inaccurate documentation to the PIC and failed to raise the key issues requested and agreed upon
	# Mr Livers gave damaging advice during the PIC conference		# Mr Livers gave damaging advice during the PIC conference
	##Compensation for pain and suffering		##Compensation for pain and suffering
	##Compensation for support		##Compensation for support
	# Mr Livers did not share relevant information as required by his role during the preparation process for PIC assessment conference (disputes for medical and legal fees)		# Mr Livers did not share relevant information as required by his role during the preparation process for PIC assessment conference (disputes for medical and legal fees)
	# Mr Livers did not action agreed work promptly and within the ~~timeframes~~ required to support the claims process.		# Mr Livers did not action agreed work promptly and within the time frames required to support the claims process.
	# Mr Livers facilitated the dissemination of misinformation and engaged in deceptive conduct related to my claim.		# Mr Livers facilitated the dissemination of misinformation and engaged in deceptive conduct related to my claim.

			Important documentation could not be considered at the PIC AC. My final Statement (2023-04-26), including references, was provided to Mr Livers. The final document bundle provided by Livers is missing a lot of documents and some were edited by him. In addition the presentation, and ordering, of the submission documents (PIC Reference, AD11-2, 333 pages in total) made it difficult for the hearing to consider my position. This handling of my records, and unclear presentation of the overall Submission, resulted in obfuscation of my Statement (2023-04-26).

	~~Important documentation could not be considered at the PIC Assessment Conference. My final Statement (2023-04-26), including references, was provided to~~ Mr Livers and ~~incorporated into the overall Submission. The presentation, and ordering, of~~ the ~~submission documents (~~PIC ~~Reference, AD11-2~~, ~~333 pages~~ in ~~total) made it difficult for the hearing~~ to ~~consider~~ my ~~position~~. ~~This handling~~ of my ~~records, and unclear presentation of the overall Submission, resulted in obfuscation of~~ my ~~Statement (2023-04-26):~~		Mr Livers failed to challenge misleading work capacity claims made by QBE’s solicitor prior and at the PIC AC, resulting in them being accepted as true. I had explicitly asked Mr Livers to dispute these particulars on my behalf. He failed to do this despite me making it a key condition of my agreeing to engage him as my solicitor.

	Mr Livers failed to challenge misleading work capacity claims made by QBE’s solicitor at the PIC (2023-06-28), resulting in them being accepted as true. I had explicitly asked for him to dispute these particulars on my behalf. He failed to do this despite me making it a key condition of my agreeing to engage him as my solicitor.		In relation to the dispute about Medical expenses: Prior to the PIC hearing, I provided a list of medical expenses in the Statement, which was subsequently disputed by the Insurance company. The PIC responded to this by requesting additional information. Mr Livers did not advise that this happened and as a result, I could not provide the requested information before the conference and medical expenses were not considered for compensation.

	In relation to the dispute about Medical expenses: Prior to the PIC hearing, I provided a list of medical expenses in the Statement, which was subsequently disputed by the Insurance company. The PIC responded to this by requesting additional information. Mr Livers did not advise that this happened and as a result, I could not provide the information and medical expenses were not considered for compensation.

	In relation to the dispute about Legal expenses: I had asked him about compensation of legal expenses by QBE Insurance and he said there was no information about it. I was later aware of a dispute from QBE about these legal expenses.		In relation to the dispute about Legal expenses: I had asked him about compensation of legal expenses by QBE Insurance and he said there was no information about it. I was later aware of a dispute from QBE about these legal expenses.

	== Severe misconduct ==		== Severe misconduct ==
			During preparation for the Conference, Peter Livers did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was by asking one question: “How many pots do you have in your garden?”. There was no presentation of medical records, impact of the injury on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team.
	~~Peter James Livers represented me at the PIC Assessment Conference for my personal injury claim.~~ During preparation for the Conference, Peter Livers did not forward information provided to him for my claim, which would have corrected information relied upon to assess damages under the claim. During the Conference, Livers did not present any information supporting my claim despite promising to do so before the conference. His whole presentation of my claim was by asking one question: “How many pots do you have in your garden?”. There was no presentation of medical records, impact of the injury on my life or loss of income, no challenge of statements made by the opposing team.

	Main events of misconduct:		Main events of misconduct:
Line 37:		Line 35:

	=== Misrepresentation at assessment conference ===		=== Misrepresentation at assessment conference ===
	PIC Assessment Conference was held 2023-06-28. ~~Tribunal~~ Hugh Macken has launched a harsh verbal attack on me ~~and abused his position of authority~~. ~~He declared that his mission is~~ to ~~serve QBE insurance~~ and to ~~protect their interests so that injured people do not claim compensation~~.		PIC Assessment Conference was held 2023-06-28. PIC member Hugh Macken has launched a harsh verbal attack on me. Livers was alone allowed to provide information and Livers remained silent during this time and did not provide any information that he previously promised to provide.

	The emotional distress I experienced, which was not disputed by Mr Livers during the PIC Assessment Conference, can be illustrated by the following example. I attended the PIC Assessment Conference, where I met Mr Ceballos, the insurer’s solicitor, for the first and only time. I was concerned by the manner in which submissions were advanced on behalf of the insurer, including arguments which I considered to be incorrect and unrealistic in relation to my circumstances (which would require time travel). The insurer’s barrister did not ultimately adopt all of the positions put forward by Mr Ceballos, despite the support of the PIC member. During the conference, my solicitor, Mr Peter Livers, remained silent. This was despite my prior request that he challenge incorrect information presented by the insurer and his earlier indication that he would do so during the conference.		The emotional distress I experienced, which was not disputed by Mr Livers during the PIC Assessment Conference, can be illustrated by the following example. I attended the PIC Assessment Conference, where I met Mr Ceballos, the insurer’s solicitor, for the first and only time. I was concerned by the manner in which submissions were advanced on behalf of the insurer, including arguments which I considered to be incorrect and unrealistic in relation to my circumstances (which would require time travel). The insurer’s barrister did not ultimately adopt all of the positions put forward by Mr Ceballos, despite the support of the PIC member. During the conference, my solicitor, Mr Peter Livers, remained silent. This was despite my prior request that he challenge incorrect information presented by the insurer and his earlier indication that he would do so during the conference.