No win no fee or not?
Discussion
I was hit by a car head on, he was on my side of the road and admitted liability.
My insurance brokers had their preferred lawyers contact me for my injury and out of pocket claims. Its on a no win no fee agreement and if they win they take up to 25% of the *winnings. I may have verbally agreed for them to represent me over the phone, but with the pain and lack of sleep I'm not sure who exactly I have talked to about what. I haven't signed anything yet.
I can't see me losing a claim, its pretty clear cut. No witnesses to the accident, but he has admitted it was his fault in his police statement.
Would I be better off hiring a local solicitor? Could there be any problems when I tell the no win no fee guys I'm not using them, if I did verbally agree? I emailed them some questions which I have not received a reply to and I'm not keen on using someone that is not easy to get hold of.
My insurance brokers had their preferred lawyers contact me for my injury and out of pocket claims. Its on a no win no fee agreement and if they win they take up to 25% of the *winnings. I may have verbally agreed for them to represent me over the phone, but with the pain and lack of sleep I'm not sure who exactly I have talked to about what. I haven't signed anything yet.
I can't see me losing a claim, its pretty clear cut. No witnesses to the accident, but he has admitted it was his fault in his police statement.
Would I be better off hiring a local solicitor? Could there be any problems when I tell the no win no fee guys I'm not using them, if I did verbally agree? I emailed them some questions which I have not received a reply to and I'm not keen on using someone that is not easy to get hold of.
- Why is it called winnings, it should be entitlement.
Avoid no win no fee merchants like the plague, and instruct a reputable local firm. You can still agree a conditional fee agreement with them, but do not encourage those firms that specialise in no win no fee as a core business. This way you can still recover damages if you have a good claim, and help to keep the system decent and honest. It may be a losing fight against a tide of scuzzery, but we should resist it for as long as we can.
Signed: Ned Stark QC
Signed: Ned Stark QC
drew.h said:
....
With that sort of attitude, it appears, sadly, that you are a paid up member of the me me me compensation culture, but perhaps I misjudge you. To obtain damages, you have to prove fault and causation of loss. That means winning the case or winning the negotiation for an agreed settlement.- Why is it called winnings, it should be entitlement.
On your question, even if you had agreed that the shysters can represent you, you are free to end that agreement at any time. Please do the decent thing and support a decent local law firm that contributes to your local economy, rather than these bulk business scumbags.
Breadvan72 said:
Avoid no win no fee merchants like the plague, and instruct a reputable local firm. You can still agree a conditional fee agreement with them, but do not encourage those firms that specialise in no win no fee as a core business. This way you can still recover damages if you have a good claim, and help to keep the system decent and honest. It may be a losing fight against a tide of scuzzery, but we should resist it for as long as we can.
Signed: Ned Stark QC
It's an honorable approach. Sadlythe typical PI injury claim (from £1k-£25k) is now little more than an admin job that goes through the MOJ portal to the insurer and back. It only gets interesting if liability and/or quantum is disputed.Signed: Ned Stark QC
The fee for handling a straightforward claim is peanuts.
For communication purposes it might be an idea to support your local reputable firm, but unfortunately there's no guarantee you'll get any better or more committed a solicitor (if a solicitor at all) handling the case than anywhere else. Many, many high street firms have been falling over themselves to sell their PI books to the bucket shops.
Breadvan72 said:
With that sort of attitude, it appears, sadly, that you are a paid upo member of the me me me compensation culture. To obtain damages, you have to prove fault and causation of loss. That means winning the case or winning the negotiation for an agreed settlement.
On your question, even if you had agreed that the shysters can represent you, you are free to end that agreement at any time. Please do the decent thing and support a decent local law firm that contributes to your local economy, rather than these bulk business scumbags.
BV - I have a peripheral involvement in this industry - with all the changes to the system and the fees etc are "normal" local solicitors still taking on such matters? On your question, even if you had agreed that the shysters can represent you, you are free to end that agreement at any time. Please do the decent thing and support a decent local law firm that contributes to your local economy, rather than these bulk business scumbags.
It's not my world, but I understand from colleagues in other chambers that ordinary law firms still do PI cases, and will do CFAs, but not the mega greedy grabby type, and you might get an actual lawyer to look at the file at least once, not just some bloke in a cubicle in a warehouse on a ring road.
I would like to see a competition and business practices investigation into this industry, to encourage insurers to resist dodgy claims, and to promote a culture where claims are dealt with properly, but this will never happen.
The Woolf Reforms have mostly been a disaster, but they were brought on by the antics of the PI lawyers. The rest of us in the civil law (family law apart - they operate in a silo of their own) were getting on with things, and the RSC were fine and not broken. Because of the PI nonsense, Harry Woolf threw out the RSC and gave us the rubbishy CPR, and latterly Mitchell etc. Harry is a member of my chambers and I love him dearly, but he got this one wrong. Beautiful human being, not very good Judge. He is not to blame for Mitchell etc, that's the useless Jackson.
I would like to see a competition and business practices investigation into this industry, to encourage insurers to resist dodgy claims, and to promote a culture where claims are dealt with properly, but this will never happen.
The Woolf Reforms have mostly been a disaster, but they were brought on by the antics of the PI lawyers. The rest of us in the civil law (family law apart - they operate in a silo of their own) were getting on with things, and the RSC were fine and not broken. Because of the PI nonsense, Harry Woolf threw out the RSC and gave us the rubbishy CPR, and latterly Mitchell etc. Harry is a member of my chambers and I love him dearly, but he got this one wrong. Beautiful human being, not very good Judge. He is not to blame for Mitchell etc, that's the useless Jackson.
Breadvan72 said:
It's not my world, but I understand from colleagues in other chambers that ordinary law firms still do PI cases, and will do CFAs, but not the mega greedy grabby type, and you might get an actual lawyer to look at the file at least once, not just some bloke in a cubicle in a warehouse on a ring road.
I would like to see a competition and business practices investigation into this industry, to encourage insurers to resist dodgy claims, and to promote a culture where claims are dealt with properly, but this will never happen.
The Woolf Reforms have mostly been a disaster, but they were brought on by the antics of the PI lawyers. The rest of us in the civil law (family law apart - they operate in a silo of their own) were getting on with things, and the RSC were fine and not broken. Because of the PI nonsense, Harry Woolf threw out the RSC and gave us the rubbishy CPR, and latterly Mitchell etc. Harry is a member of my chambers and I love him dearly, but he got this one wrong. Beautiful human being, not very good Judge. He is not to blame for Mitchell etc, that's the useless Jackson.
Jackson was/is a waste of time.I would like to see a competition and business practices investigation into this industry, to encourage insurers to resist dodgy claims, and to promote a culture where claims are dealt with properly, but this will never happen.
The Woolf Reforms have mostly been a disaster, but they were brought on by the antics of the PI lawyers. The rest of us in the civil law (family law apart - they operate in a silo of their own) were getting on with things, and the RSC were fine and not broken. Because of the PI nonsense, Harry Woolf threw out the RSC and gave us the rubbishy CPR, and latterly Mitchell etc. Harry is a member of my chambers and I love him dearly, but he got this one wrong. Beautiful human being, not very good Judge. He is not to blame for Mitchell etc, that's the useless Jackson.
Fraud is still rife and the inefficiencies of the insurers are still there. You only have to read the number of posts on here about people unhappy with the claims service to see a large part of the problem.
Why not go to a CMC who will just make it happen (at x times the cost) rather than get pushed from pillar to post fighting your corner?
Thread derailed - sorry.
OP you have been offered a contingency fee arrangement not a conditional fee arrangement. You could contact a high street solicitor who takes on cases on a conditional fee arrangement and compare likely costs that you will have to pay from any settlement/award if you win.
Costs that can be claimed from the other party are now so low that you will almost inevitably have to pay some of the costs even if you 'win'.
You are free to choose who represents you. Find someone who gives you the most confidence in their ability and willingness to do the job at an acceptable price.
Costs that can be claimed from the other party are now so low that you will almost inevitably have to pay some of the costs even if you 'win'.
You are free to choose who represents you. Find someone who gives you the most confidence in their ability and willingness to do the job at an acceptable price.
One benefit I saw from Jackson, was that an awful lot of Claims Management Companies have now gone.
I spent a good period of time at the end of last year cold calling CMCs in the South Yorkshire area and, at a guess, I'd say 60-70% or more had gone. Most were one-man-band operations with a mate who's a solicitor etc. and not really fantastic businesses.
Having said that, now the CMCs are thinner on the ground, we're still left with a small number of large psuedo CMCs such as Injury Lawyers 4U and National Accident Helpline (who I believe have just cut their solicitor panel by half). These companies, as well as some larger ones, have big marketing budgets and bucket-shop call centre style operations.
Of course, the SRA may be putting on enough pressure that the market place is quietening down as far as PI is concerned.
My concern going forward, with the advent of insurer/solicitor ABSs, is that impartiality is really taking a back seat. Not necessarily on a case by case basis, but in the industry as a whole, which without tough regulation, is surely only going to operate in a way that suits itself. This is not good for consumers.
Anyway, the big money (marketing and hiring wise), is now being spent on attacking the NHS through medical negligence. This is going to be the next PI and probably a far tougher battle ground. I can see the end of this one being a nasty knee-jerk after which patients who've suffered will find it much harder to seek redress in the traditional sense.
I spent a good period of time at the end of last year cold calling CMCs in the South Yorkshire area and, at a guess, I'd say 60-70% or more had gone. Most were one-man-band operations with a mate who's a solicitor etc. and not really fantastic businesses.
Having said that, now the CMCs are thinner on the ground, we're still left with a small number of large psuedo CMCs such as Injury Lawyers 4U and National Accident Helpline (who I believe have just cut their solicitor panel by half). These companies, as well as some larger ones, have big marketing budgets and bucket-shop call centre style operations.
Of course, the SRA may be putting on enough pressure that the market place is quietening down as far as PI is concerned.
My concern going forward, with the advent of insurer/solicitor ABSs, is that impartiality is really taking a back seat. Not necessarily on a case by case basis, but in the industry as a whole, which without tough regulation, is surely only going to operate in a way that suits itself. This is not good for consumers.
Anyway, the big money (marketing and hiring wise), is now being spent on attacking the NHS through medical negligence. This is going to be the next PI and probably a far tougher battle ground. I can see the end of this one being a nasty knee-jerk after which patients who've suffered will find it much harder to seek redress in the traditional sense.
Channel 4 News fell far below its usual good standards last night with an ill informed attack on the GMC. It highlighted one case in which a surgeon was alleged to have botched an operation. The allegation was incompetence, not deliberate wrongdoing. The report took the complaining family's side and found the doctor guilty without a hearing. My experience of medico-legal regulatory work is that there are some well dodgy doctors and nurses, but lots of good ones, and some patients will complain about anything. OK, you get Staffords, but not every hospital is in Stafford (and the real cause of Stafford was in Stafford, if you take my meaning).
Ask any doctor who has been GMC'ed if he or she thinks the GMC is a fluffy kitten. The answer may involve swearing.
Ask any doctor who has been GMC'ed if he or she thinks the GMC is a fluffy kitten. The answer may involve swearing.
for those "working from home" I am not sure if Loose Women is on, but if it isn't
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Insurer wins appeal against 95K of hire charges in a claim relating to a written off car - value 7K
5 months (!!!) hire still allowed as well as significant storage charges.
I can see what the CMC was trying to achieve in this claim but what was the insurer up to?
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Insurer wins appeal against 95K of hire charges in a claim relating to a written off car - value 7K
5 months (!!!) hire still allowed as well as significant storage charges.
I can see what the CMC was trying to achieve in this claim but what was the insurer up to?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 2nd April 10:29
Breadvan72 said:
drew.h said:
....
With that sort of attitude, it appears, sadly, that you are a paid up member of the me me me compensation culture, but perhaps I misjudge you. To obtain damages, you have to prove fault and causation of loss. That means winning the case or winning the negotiation for an agreed settlement.- Why is it called winnings, it should be entitlement.
-snip-
"Winnings" is an odd word when considering compensation.
It's compensation, damages, recompense.
It shouldn't feel like winning money, but instead feel like a loss has been fixed.
I guess it's a clash between legal vocabulary and "common' vocabulary.
@Breadvan72, just the opposite, I want my loss in earnings and property, I want my out of pocket expenses such as prescription charges, train fair, etc. I do not want to WIN a big payout. I don't want to have a no fault accident to cost me money, but when I get paid for my losses some law firm wants to say "thanks, we'll take a quarter of that". This is why the system is all wrong.
If this was a competition with big prize money, I would not have entered. The entrance fee was too high. The impact to my chest felt like being hit with a sledge hammer and I was sat trapped in my car with immense chest pain thinking I was going to die.
1 week on and I still don't even have a hire car I was promised. I only got pain killers yesterday, because the doctors had no appointments. I had to go back to hospital on Monday because I couldn't breath. If anyone wants to swap places with me feel free.
If this was a competition with big prize money, I would not have entered. The entrance fee was too high. The impact to my chest felt like being hit with a sledge hammer and I was sat trapped in my car with immense chest pain thinking I was going to die.
1 week on and I still don't even have a hire car I was promised. I only got pain killers yesterday, because the doctors had no appointments. I had to go back to hospital on Monday because I couldn't breath. If anyone wants to swap places with me feel free.
desolate said:
for those "working from home" I am not sure if Loose Women is on, but if it isn't
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Insurer wins appeal against 95K of hire charges in a claim relating to a written off car - value 7K
5 months (!!!) hire still allowed as well as significant storage charges.
I can see what the CMC was trying to achieve in this claim but what was the insurer up to?
And in next week's episode, stay tuned for the prof neg case brought by Elite -v- M&S Legal.http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Insurer wins appeal against 95K of hire charges in a claim relating to a written off car - value 7K
5 months (!!!) hire still allowed as well as significant storage charges.
I can see what the CMC was trying to achieve in this claim but what was the insurer up to?
And later in the series, the passing off case brought by Marks & Spencer against a small law firm in Bolton.
Shnozz said:
And in next week's episode, stay tuned for the prof neg case brought by Elite -v- M&S Legal.
And later in the series, the passing off case brought by Marks & Spencer against a small law firm in Bolton.
I would say that in general it was quite a positive result for Credit Hire / Storage companies.And later in the series, the passing off case brought by Marks & Spencer against a small law firm in Bolton.
desolate said:
I would say that in general it was quite a positive result for Credit Hire / Storage companies.
The outcome might have been positive. The manner in which it was achieved seems to be a series of evidential balls ups and very much case specific. For the record, I'm not having a pop at your post or the reference to the case, just commenting that the facts surrounding the case seemed to rest with the specifics surrounding the debarring order, the failure(s) re evidence of impecuniosity and then the evidential failure re evidence of spot rates etc.
Edited by Shnozz on Wednesday 2nd April 11:35
Before you do that it is well worth ringing the other persons insurer directly assuming you have no major injury etc?
I was knocked off my motorbike once and called the other insurer directly.
They agreed to every last one of my requests instantly and within about a week The claim was resolved entirely.
THe combination of me being reasonable and them being grateful for cost savings that I probably made for them resulted in them bending over backwards to resolve stuff instantly and without quibble.
Definitely worth a try, you might be surprised at how helpful opposing insurers can be when it's in their interest.
I was knocked off my motorbike once and called the other insurer directly.
They agreed to every last one of my requests instantly and within about a week The claim was resolved entirely.
THe combination of me being reasonable and them being grateful for cost savings that I probably made for them resulted in them bending over backwards to resolve stuff instantly and without quibble.
Definitely worth a try, you might be surprised at how helpful opposing insurers can be when it's in their interest.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff