f**king idiot ambulance chasing firms....wasting my time.
Discussion
hora said:
Noger said:
Cloned or badly written down plate ?
Anyway, congratulations on posting both the name of the claimant and law firm. Not many people have solicitors high on their list of people to libel
Libel? If I received such a letter I'd question where they found my contact details as naturally the plate/OP isn't linked to the DVLA and based on this I'd report them to their professional body. Anyway, congratulations on posting both the name of the claimant and law firm. Not many people have solicitors high on their list of people to libel
Willie Dee said:
Oh well that excuses racism then I guess.
Possibly a tounge in cheek comment?These days heaven forbid anyone makes any comment deemed to upset any member of society, heaven forbid anyone makes a sweeping statement.
People from other countries make huge amounts of comments re us Brits, do we immediately shout racism?
You cant watch many programmes on the television these days, without all "The food groups" being covered, regardless of the content.
Heaven forbid you dont have a white, black, gay, lesbian, fat, thin, and handycapped !
As was said a while back, "Humanity long since negated its right to existence"
Rovinghawk said:
Our local market has a stall with an ambulance chaser touting for business.
His 'good morning' got a response of 'I don't like ambulance-chasing parasites'.
Was this reasonable of me?
RH
There;s even one in the local W H Smiths, although it's a phone connected to Parasite Inc or whatever they're called. It advertises all sorts of services, including divorce advice. Who the feck would do that in the middle of Smiths?His 'good morning' got a response of 'I don't like ambulance-chasing parasites'.
Was this reasonable of me?
RH
These people are no worse than the freeloaders that take out loans and then take up the offer of companies that can get them out of repayment on 'technicalities'.
I was cold called by one of these companies and asked the caller why they think I should not pay back money I borrowed.I then asked them if they had lent someone money personally would they expect them not to pay it back due to not having the correct paperwork.
Pip
I was cold called by one of these companies and asked the caller why they think I should not pay back money I borrowed.I then asked them if they had lent someone money personally would they expect them not to pay it back due to not having the correct paperwork.
Pip
s Let me make clear at the outset that I don't do injury work, never have done and it's not an area of the law I have an interest in. There are a couple of points that I can make however that may assist the OP in understanding why he got the original letter in the terms that he did.
As a solicitor, you often have to take what your client tells you at face value and act on their instructions. Sometimes, if things don't make sense, you can push them to clarify something. It may be possible to check certain facts objectively. Sometimes, however, you can't corroborate the "facts" that you're given and so you just have to run them with.
In this case, the solicitor has presumably just fired off a fairly standard form initial letter using the information given to them by their client. If the client has given them duff information, that's probably the cause of the seeming error here.
Add to that, injury work is generally pretty low margin. As such, it relies on minimising the amount of work done on a given file to keep it economical. There is little incentive therefore for the solicitor to second-guess the client and try to corroborate their story and the facts given.
Further, the solicitor in this case will presumably have expected the OP to simply forward the leter to his insurer and let them deal with it.
I'm not trying to justify the solicitor's letter, not act as an apologist for injury solicitors more generally, just to shed some light on how the letter came to be sent out in the first place in a form which suggests that they have not looked very closely at the claim.
OP - if you do want to complain about the solicitor (not that I think you have any real basis to do so, TBH), you would need to do so with the Solicitors Regulation Authority rather than the Law Society. The SRA now deals with regulatory issues.
PS I am just as irked by the prevailing compensation culture in this country as most other people. I had to bite my tongue when my brother in law was talking recently about his whiplash claim (which was, as far as I could see, entirely unfounded) and the couple of grand in compensation he was told he would be receiving.
As a solicitor, you often have to take what your client tells you at face value and act on their instructions. Sometimes, if things don't make sense, you can push them to clarify something. It may be possible to check certain facts objectively. Sometimes, however, you can't corroborate the "facts" that you're given and so you just have to run them with.
In this case, the solicitor has presumably just fired off a fairly standard form initial letter using the information given to them by their client. If the client has given them duff information, that's probably the cause of the seeming error here.
Add to that, injury work is generally pretty low margin. As such, it relies on minimising the amount of work done on a given file to keep it economical. There is little incentive therefore for the solicitor to second-guess the client and try to corroborate their story and the facts given.
Further, the solicitor in this case will presumably have expected the OP to simply forward the leter to his insurer and let them deal with it.
I'm not trying to justify the solicitor's letter, not act as an apologist for injury solicitors more generally, just to shed some light on how the letter came to be sent out in the first place in a form which suggests that they have not looked very closely at the claim.
OP - if you do want to complain about the solicitor (not that I think you have any real basis to do so, TBH), you would need to do so with the Solicitors Regulation Authority rather than the Law Society. The SRA now deals with regulatory issues.
PS I am just as irked by the prevailing compensation culture in this country as most other people. I had to bite my tongue when my brother in law was talking recently about his whiplash claim (which was, as far as I could see, entirely unfounded) and the couple of grand in compensation he was told he would be receiving.
Edited by Lurking Lawyer on Wednesday 25th April 13:27
Lurking Lawyer said:
As a solicitor, you often have to take what your client tells you at face value and act on their instructions. Sometimes, if things don't make sense, you can push them to clarify something. It may be possible to check certain facts objectively. Sometimes, however, you can't corroborate the "facts" that you're given and so you just have to run them with.
Add to that, injury work is generally pretty low margin. As such, it relies on minimising the amount of work done on a given file to keep it economical. There is little incentive therefore for the solicitor to second-guess the client and try to corroborate their story and the facts given.
Up to a point ... when you're dealing with bulk injury claims, a bit of vetting - like making sure that the car registration exists, and matches the description, saves a lot of work down the line. When I did injury work maybe 1 - 2% of cases had data that was wrong and could have been picked up at that stage - not a huge amount but you could guarantee that if you advised purely on the basis of all the facts being true, you can expect to get to this stage in this time, etc. - the ones that started out wrong would end up being a massively disproportionate waste of resources and could turn a profitable business into a loss-maker.Add to that, injury work is generally pretty low margin. As such, it relies on minimising the amount of work done on a given file to keep it economical. There is little incentive therefore for the solicitor to second-guess the client and try to corroborate their story and the facts given.
Minimising the amount of work is economically sensible, but if you can bat the cases that don't make sense off at an early stage, rather than having the opposition pick the client's story apart bit by bit, you have better client care, a better reputation, a better quality of work - and do less work.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff