"No win no fee"
Discussion
Sorry to be harsh pentoman but do you have any idea what you're talking about???? Conditional fee agreements are a damn good way for those who aren't eligible for Legal Services funding (Legal Aid) to have access to the legal system without having to run the risk of huge legal bills. In an ideal world legal aid would be more readily available to all and the situation might be different but it isn't. The majority of "proper" solicitors will offer conditional fee agreements in some areas of law.
If you're referring to the type of claims management companies that tout round city centres for trip and slip claims then that is different to the whole concept of conditional fee agreements.
Sorry to rant.
If you're referring to the type of claims management companies that tout round city centres for trip and slip claims then that is different to the whole concept of conditional fee agreements.
Sorry to rant.
Piglet said:
Sorry to be harsh pentoman but do you have any idea what you're talking about???? Conditional fee agreements are a damn good way for those who aren't eligible for Legal Services funding (Legal Aid) to have access to the legal system without having to run the risk of huge legal bills. In an ideal world legal aid would be more readily available to all and the situation might be different but it isn't. The majority of "proper" solicitors will offer conditional fee agreements in some areas of law.
If you're referring to the type of claims management companies that tout round city centres for trip and slip claims then that is different to the whole concept of conditional fee agreements.
Sorry to rant.
Absolutely right... where would we be if Solicitors didn't offer 'no sale, no fee' agreements with their clients?
DrDreatH said:
i'm with pento on this...... bloody ambulance chasers wanting to make a few quid out of somebody elses stupid falling over....
This too is not right... theres a line! Ok, so it's more like a fence...
and I'm sitting on it
Piglet said:
If you're referring to the type of claims management companies that tout round city centres for trip and slip claims then that is different to the whole concept of conditional fee agreements.
Sorry to rant.
No problem you didn't rant
. I was referring to the ones who stop you in the street to ask if you've fallen over recently.. or advertise on daytime TV along with the loan companies and bad credit rating car sales people..
And no, I don't know what I'm talking about!
Russell
Piglet said:
In an ideal world legal aid would be more readily available to all and the situation might be different but it isn't.
In an ideal world it bl**dy wouldn't. Legal aid is not free money, it comes out of the tax payers pocket and should only be available for criminal defence cases in my opinion.
>> Edited by JagLover on Friday 16th September 10:13
JagLover said:
Piglet said:
In an ideal world legal aid would be more readily available to all and the situation might be different but it isn't.
In an ideal world it bl**dy wouldn't. Legal aid is not free money, it comes out of the tax payers pocket and should be available for criminal defence cases in my opinion.
Did you mean to have a "not" in the second half of your sentence?
>> Edited by Piglet on Friday 16th September 10:06
Whilst in principle I agree with CFA's, they do have some unfortunate side effects.
Whereas previously the Legal Aid Board would take into consideration the respective merits of a claim & refuse funding for the more "fanciful", with Conditional Fee Agreements, no such filter exists.
This has resulted in the explosion of such claims being lodged, particularly against such Publicly Funded bodies as local Councils, the Police etc. Sadly in my proffesion it is a quantifiable fact that despite the unemployed representing only some 6 to 7% of the adult population, they sadly make up between 75 & 80% of all such CFA claims, ie highway tripping/slipping claims.
This obviously begs the question as to why those who put very little or nothing into the coffers of such public bodies are 10 times more likely to make a claim against it.
Proffesionally speaking, I find it unusual in the extreme as to why so many people manage to fall over a 1 inch high paving slab at 2 or 3am on a Saturday/Sunday morning & occasion injury to only their knuckles &/or their broken nose. lacerated forehead or fractured jaw !
Whereas previously the Legal Aid Board would take into consideration the respective merits of a claim & refuse funding for the more "fanciful", with Conditional Fee Agreements, no such filter exists.
This has resulted in the explosion of such claims being lodged, particularly against such Publicly Funded bodies as local Councils, the Police etc. Sadly in my proffesion it is a quantifiable fact that despite the unemployed representing only some 6 to 7% of the adult population, they sadly make up between 75 & 80% of all such CFA claims, ie highway tripping/slipping claims.
This obviously begs the question as to why those who put very little or nothing into the coffers of such public bodies are 10 times more likely to make a claim against it.
Proffesionally speaking, I find it unusual in the extreme as to why so many people manage to fall over a 1 inch high paving slab at 2 or 3am on a Saturday/Sunday morning & occasion injury to only their knuckles &/or their broken nose. lacerated forehead or fractured jaw !
tonker.
Hi again. Thing is old chap, in the vast majority of instances it is the Local Authorities money (or at least the taxpayers such as you & me) who do fund such Litigation, since more & more Public Bodies are self Insured now. For example they will pay the first £250,000 of any claim & over & above that (for the all too rare cases involving death with multiple dependants & paralysis) Re Insurers will become involved & "take up the slack" as it were.
As such, its very much in their interests to defend such actions & Im pleased to say more & more of my Clients are taking the long term view & are refusing to pay out on purely econmic grounds.
However, the problem I regularly experience in defending such litigation, is the burden of proof in the Civil Courts. Put simply if someone says they fell over a defective paving stone, then its damn difficult to persuade a Court that the individual is lying. Ive even produced medical evidence by way of the A&E records from a hospital which confirms that upon attendance at 3am on Saturday morning that the Claimant confirmed that they were either a) intoxicated & merely fell over pissed or b) they have been involved in a fight & received a good kicking.
The Judges response to this usually involves questioning the validity of such independent medical evidence (thats if it is allowed to be submitted for the Defendant in the first instance).....
Personally Im aware of public houses in the less salubrous Council estates that actually display on their notice boards photos of areas where in the event of a "trip", the person will be compensated !! Madness.
Hi again. Thing is old chap, in the vast majority of instances it is the Local Authorities money (or at least the taxpayers such as you & me) who do fund such Litigation, since more & more Public Bodies are self Insured now. For example they will pay the first £250,000 of any claim & over & above that (for the all too rare cases involving death with multiple dependants & paralysis) Re Insurers will become involved & "take up the slack" as it were.
As such, its very much in their interests to defend such actions & Im pleased to say more & more of my Clients are taking the long term view & are refusing to pay out on purely econmic grounds.
However, the problem I regularly experience in defending such litigation, is the burden of proof in the Civil Courts. Put simply if someone says they fell over a defective paving stone, then its damn difficult to persuade a Court that the individual is lying. Ive even produced medical evidence by way of the A&E records from a hospital which confirms that upon attendance at 3am on Saturday morning that the Claimant confirmed that they were either a) intoxicated & merely fell over pissed or b) they have been involved in a fight & received a good kicking.
The Judges response to this usually involves questioning the validity of such independent medical evidence (thats if it is allowed to be submitted for the Defendant in the first instance).....
Personally Im aware of public houses in the less salubrous Council estates that actually display on their notice boards photos of areas where in the event of a "trip", the person will be compensated !! Madness.
Having recently been working for the council, a large proportion of our time was spent making sure we didn't/couldn't get sued for whatever we did.
E.G.: On weston-super-mare beach the 'yachting ponds' which just get used as paddling pools by children (and it's a great sight to see loads and loads of kids having fun splashing around on them which they can't in the muddy weston sea) are going to be removed because of fears of a kid being injured on something in the water, and an angry parent suing.
Then the same people that sue (i.e. 'general public') will moan & complain at the council for removing them and causing a drop in tourism to the area etc etc.
Absolute joke if you ask me, so who has a right to step in and sort the situation out? Judges? Would they even be interested?? Or is it a gravy train for them too?
Russell
E.G.: On weston-super-mare beach the 'yachting ponds' which just get used as paddling pools by children (and it's a great sight to see loads and loads of kids having fun splashing around on them which they can't in the muddy weston sea) are going to be removed because of fears of a kid being injured on something in the water, and an angry parent suing.
Then the same people that sue (i.e. 'general public') will moan & complain at the council for removing them and causing a drop in tourism to the area etc etc.
Absolute joke if you ask me, so who has a right to step in and sort the situation out? Judges? Would they even be interested?? Or is it a gravy train for them too?
Russell
Trying to get £5K for tripping over a paving stone is silly, but if I had a real case to fight then a lawyer who said 'if we screw up the case, we'll screw up the bill' would be very welcome. It might also ensure they work a bit harder rather than trudge out one standard letter a month.
'if we screw up the case, we'll screw up the bill' is copyright of me
'if we screw up the case, we'll screw up the bill' is copyright of me
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff