High Court throws out RTA fees cut challenge
The High Court today threw out a challenge to a new fees regime expected to cost personal injury firms £200m a year.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society were challenging a decision by the Ministry of Justice to cut fixed fees for cases managed through the RTA Portal. Claimant solicitors argued that the government had taken the decision without proper consultation.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Elias (pictured) said it was not the government’s duty to give equal weight to polar opposite arguments.
‘If people deem it to be unfair that is a matter for the ballot box not the court,’ Elias said.
The Law Society, which had intervened in the case, said that it regretted the failure of the action. Desmond Hudson, chief executive, said: ‘We remain deeply unhappy with the new recoverable costs rules and the process by which the government made its decision. However it was clear that the decision, however unfair we considered it to be, was going to be difficult to challenge.
‘We will continue to impress upon government the need to ensure that those injured through no fault of their own need to be able to seek redress, without putting themselves in severe financial difficulties.’
In a joint statement, APIL and MASS said: ‘The vast majority of injured people have no knowledge of what their injuries are “worth” in terms of damages, so such negotiations will inevitably be biased in favour of the insurers. A recent independent survey found, for example, that 70% of people would not know what level of compensation to claim for a whiplash injury.
‘This is a dark day for people who are injured through no fault of their own. We can only hope that the government does not take this judgment as a licence to continue to ride rough-shod over the needs of vulnerable people in the future.’
James Dalton, head of motor and liability at the Association of British Insurers, said: ‘The judgment is common sense and good news for customers, clearing the way for their premiums to lower as unnecessary legal costs are stripped out of the system. It is good to know the government’s package of reforms remains on track and the benefits to customers have not been derailed.’
Rod Evans, President of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) added: ‘It is pleasing to have a decision that ends the hiatus which has gripped the industry. We now all know where we stand. It's time to look ahead and start moving towards making the planned reforms work successfully in the best interests of clients on all sides as Lord Justice Jackson envisaged.’
The High Court had heard that claimants were left out of discussions completely in the run-up to a meeting between insurers and the prime minister on 14 February last year.
Instead, a series of emails was sent to insurers, including one from the Cabinet Office that stated ‘this looks good, I think we’re getting close’.
In his submission, Paul Nicholls QC, representing the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘The process involved consulting with insurers. It was not just saying “we’re abolishing referral fees – will it have any relevance?” The government came to a decision in the light of what the insurers say to it. The insurers are a party to the decision-making process. It is more than consultation, it is a negotiation.’
However the MoJ argued that there was no consultation with insurers before or at the 14 February summit, which was held simply to gain agreement on cutting premiums.
The rolled-up hearing amalgamated two stages in which permission for the judicial review to proceed is considered based on submitted papers.
It came in the week that justice secretary Chris Grayling confirmed that fixed recoverable costs for RTA Portal claims up to £10,000 will be cut from £1,200 to £500. The new regime will come in to force at the end of April.
New protocols extending the portal scheme to £25,000 and to employer and public liability claims will be implemented from the end of July.
Fixed costs for RTA claims worth up to £25,000 will be £800, whilst employer and public liability costs will be £900 for lower-value cases and £1,600 for cases up to £25,000.
Comments
Whitewash
MOJ whitewash Shokka.
Inside deal, every day of the
Inside deal, every day of the week. Words don't need to be exchanged (sound familiar, Lord Leveson's enquiry...) We all know it, they all know it. The thing that annoys people is the insult to their intelligence, as though we don't know what's going on here.
All the prefects from snobsville in a room together munching on carrot cake, decimating an entire industry; all the tarquins, paid for from the public purse looking down their noses at injured people like they are all charlatans.
Wasn't in the manifesto, wasn't something that the public voted for. Democracy has left the building.
The Tories will bring this country to its knees, yet again.
Growth they say? They want growth? Grayling has just very possibly put tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out of a job and on to the dole queue and they want growth? He has very possibly cost the economy hundreds of millions of pounds of tax and VAT revenue, and they want growth?
You would only come across this level of incompetence if your wages are funded by the tax-payer and are in public office. Anywhere else in the private sector you would be out of a job VERY quickly.
And yes, the minute the voters get their chance they will be.
Same old Conservatives. A leopard never changes its spots.
"However the Ministry of
"However the Ministry of Justice argued that there was no consultation with insurers before or at the 14 February summit, which was held simply to gain agreement on cutting premiums."
Which oddly...is the only part of the changes which have not been legislated.
In fact - If insurers cut premiums they are in breach of their fiduciary duty to shareholders - but we all know that ain't going to happen.
Unemployment figures
I wonder how Number 10 will deal with the rise in unemployment figures as a result of this travesty of justice. Justice has taken a very big step into the dark ages today !!!
I was expecting this decision
No surprise! I was expecting this decision.
I was expecting this decision
No surprise! I was expecting this decision.
Hardly a surprise
Hardly a surprise
Message Understood.
‘If people deem it to be unfair that is a matter for the ballot box not the court'
......this phrase will haunt this country for many years to come.... it implies that the judiciary sits inside the pockets of the executive/fiscal arms of Government and vice versa - Message understood.
Message Understood.
‘If people deem it to be unfair that is a matter for the ballot box not the court'
......this phrase will haunt this country for many years to come.... it implies that the judiciary sits inside the pockets of the executive/fiscal arms of Government and vice versa - Message understood.
‘If people deem it to be unfair that is a matter for the ballot
box, not the Court"
You read it here, folks.
It would be for the ballot
It would be for the ballot box if it was part of their manifesto. But it wasn't and so, whilst these are inspired words of wisdom, they are plainly misguided.
The judiciary will be hit hard by these changes. No need for so many judges, nor so many County Courts nor all of the staff in them, those of them that are left.
These County Courts must cost so much to build and occupy yet I understand the staff levels have been slashed in them. So yet more empty Pink Elephants being funded, without ceiling, by the willing tax-payer huh.
Incidentall, will the Court fees be reduced in line with the reduction in costs? How about the SRA practice recognition fees? No, I didn't think so.
Just one rule for the private sector and one rule for the public.
Is anyone actually surprised
Is anyone actually surprised by this decision. At least it is now clear the entire system can be bought like any in any third world country.
A Sad Day for Justice from the Ministry of Justice and Judiciary
The problem we have is this is a matter which started with a Labour Government and was jumped on by the Conservative government and followed like sheep by the Liberal Democrats. So lets see, how do we use the ballot box again??
The general public have been bombarded with the very fear of increasing premiums, never once have they had the stark fact that Direct line made Millions in profits and referal fees contributed something like £21million to their pot. If insurers never wanted the customers to claim then why encourage it? Even the solicitors who they referred their own customers to did not charge less for the favour to help reduce the level of the claim. As someone else rightly said reducing premiums is not in the interest of shareholders!!! reducing the level of claims is though!!! Sriously who allows this??? We can only wish that the government one day would look after their citizens as the insurers do their shareholders!!
Just a very very sad day when British Justice is placed in the hands of the insurance industry!
I understand another firm just went into administration?
I understand another firm just went into administration?
History of James Pearce & Co
James Pearce & Co was founded in 1998 by two solicitors Edward Pearce & John James.
Since then, the firm has grown both in terms of the number of offices and the number of staff employed, but still retains the core values of the original business that it grew from. The firm thereafter expanded rapidly and now has over 50 staff in total.
The big Claimant PI
The big Claimant PI organisations need to arrange a protest in the city and fast! Just like the teachers the police and the NHS staff have done. No one outside of the industry will know whats going on beacuse the media have not covered it and wont cover it. At least this way we can get our points heard and make the public aware of what shockingly bad decisions have recently been made which has a direct effect on the people's access to justice.
I would also call on other non PI lawyers to back this movement as they will know that the PI departments up and down the country have helped out during the recession and bad times.
There is still time to rectify this.
You cannot compare this
You cannot compare this situation to the plight of teachers and NHS staff. I agree that the Government has probably gone too far but the owners of claimant PI firms only have their greed to blame. Did you really think hiring a bunch of paralegals and charging upwards of £200 an hour for firing off a few poorly worded template letters was going to last forever? I have sympathy for the employees of those firms, but this isn't about access to justice. There are far, far to many poor quality PI firms out there who have been trying to cash in in this sector for too long. I'm sorry its led to this but I'm not surprised.
Its irrelevant as to whether
Its irrelevant as to whether there are poor PI firms, you're dwelling on the past which will get us no where.
Ask yourself this question,
Is £500 a fair amount to pay for the service of a solicitor for a PI claim?
If you think it is then good on you.
I don't.
I think it's a shocking some of money. it's going to have a devastating effect on 10 of thousands of people's livelihoods. Many of which will have to leave law completely. The industry will not survive this and therefore as an industry I'm saying we need our voices and arguments heard ie a protest.
You can dwell on the previous practice of claimant solicitors and defendant insurers it won't make a difference and both have been greedy in the past. There are some good firms and there are some bad eggs, that happens in life. But it doesn't make these costs cuts justifiable.
Let's look to the future and let's fight these outrageous costs cuts head on.
Your post demonstrates the
Your post demonstrates the entire problem and illustrates exactly why the public have no sympathy for us.
PI does not generate £200 ph for firing off template letters. Costs for RTA have been fixed in the portal for some time at a level appropriate to hiring junior fee earners to do the work. There was a profit. Not huge by any means, but a profit, as there should be in any business. To slash portal fees to £500 is patently ridiculous, and it is clear that this is designed for no other reason than to put PI firms out of business and for insurers to capture the vast majority of work.
Even when dealing with low end multi-track work, D's argue grace c rates, again a far cry from your £200ph.
"Probably" gone too far.......? Access to justice in tatters, rife corruption (what else it it - really) publicly declared acceptable by the High Court, unemployment of over 6 figures to come, huge additional welfare burden, huge reduction in tax and all HMRC receipts, lower high street spending, and a clear message that the UK is now officially a despotic society. And why.....for a small reduction in insurance premiums that will clearly never happen.
"Probably" gone too far......?
So why does nobody offer me a
So why does nobody offer me a free ipad if I make a will? Why no £1,500 up-front payment on a transfer of equity? Why no £500 for each friend or family member who makes a lasting power of attorney?
It's disingenuous, to say the least, to pretend that the current scenario has not been precipitated by some crass behaviour by claimant PI firms.
Who is to say that they won't?
Who is to say that they won't?
Precisely what is the
Precisely what is the difference to the "plight" of teachers and NHS staff. They're mainly threatened with the awful spectre of their wages being frozen in a time of austerity not with losing their jobs. And they've got rather generous pensions from HMG too.
Oi, lay off the poor
Oi, lay off the poor teachers...
They only get about 12-14 weeks paid holiday a year, 7 - 9 more weeks than the average private sector worker.
Can you imagine the uproar if teachers taxes funded private sector workers 12 - 14 weeks off work a year....
Fees
I take no pleasure in saying it but I agree with your comments. There are some firms who have given us all a bad name. Those of us left, the professionals will just have to make the best of it.
Tory led Government and a
Tory led Government and a Tory led Judiciary.
What more did anyone expect?!!
The Judiciary has confirmed with this Judgment that the Courts no longer do fairness,apparently the only way to get fairness is through the ballot box, not the Courts!!
The respect that ordinary people have for this far right wing Judiciary diminishes by the day.
Denying Justice to ordinary people has always been the goal of the hierarchy of the Judicial system as they regard anyone who is not like them to be peasants not deserving of access to justice, as do the Eton/Tory elite.
When you have senior members of the Judiciary travelling around the Country speaking at Seminars supporting The Jackson Reforms even before they where Law how can their be even any pretence of independence from those members of the Judiciary who did that when they knew the proposals where not agreed?
What chance do you think there is of those people declaring their bias towards the reforms when any challenge is made to them in The Court of Appeal etc...absolutely zero,because it is an area of law that doesn't matter because it is mainly for peasants and non public school goers that don't deserve a level of independence from this Tory Judiciary.
The Insurers say jump.the Judiciary say "how high please sir",everyone knows that.
On to the denial of access to Justice now of those arrested by the Police[or Criminals as Grayling calls those people] by not allowing proper Legal representation.
They should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Thank you for closing us down!!
Im not at all suprised with todays outcome as it has always been a one sided case from day 1!! Insurance companies and the banks of this country are destroying our country and getting away with it. We will now be concentrating on how were going to survive and how im going to keep the guys in employee in a job!!! Insurance companies have made lots of profit from our industry i wonder if that was ever mentioned!! Thank you to all at Number 10 for closing us down!!
No
It's depressing to read comments from solicitors blaming the judiciary. Any trained lawyer should know that it is for Parliament (which is elected), not judges (who aren't), to make the law. Blaming the judiciary demonstrates both a lack of basic legal knowledge and a lack of judgment, neither of which is a good advertisement for the profession.
What is clear from all of this is that insurers have the ear of the government and the Law Society does not. That is the problem which needs to be addressed - and it's not one which can be solved by applying for judicial reviews.
Yes, precisely. The Law
Yes, precisely.
The Law Society has been hopeless at the political nous needed to advance our cause-the insurers haven't.
Yes, precisely. The Law
Yes, precisely.
The Law Society has been hopeless at the political nous needed to advance our cause-the insurers haven't.
Indeed, for many years The
Indeed, for many years The Law Society was seen as the legal wing of the Labour Party, when it wasn't disengaged from the debate it was throwing either temper tantrums of brick bats at the Tories.
The comments on here (whether from lawyers or not) do nothing to dispel the myth that the ire is just petty, tribal party politics of the most jejune kind.
The Law Society have had 5 years to engage with the Conservatives and from what I've heard have barely sent a Christmas Card.
When you absent yourself from the debate you can hardly be surprised when the outcome goes against you, a bit like not turning up to a JSM because you don't like the cut of your opponents jib, not exactly mature and considered behaviour.
That's besides the point
I really don't think any of the commentators were suggesting that the courts "make the law"; that point is well and truly conceded, but Judicial Review is the vehicle by which we are supposed to challenge the decisions of public bodies performing public functions. Last I checked the government had not been privatised (although the priggish among us might suggest that this has been a large step in that direction), so JR is the most apt mechanism to challenge the law. Nobody has said that the court needs to change it or create a new one, merely that they ought to recognise the abuse of power, derogation or any other ill mannered tactics used to pass this law.
PORTAL FEE JR REVIEW
Total whipe out and you cannot tell me the JR Judges were not given the elbow before hand to make sure that you do your part. Lord Justice Jackson, you should be ashamed of yourself for the wave of change you have created will no doubt do our fragile recovery from recession real harm also.
Well, guess what you have managed to completely screwed us over today. We will of course get our own back in 2015. There is one thing for certain Mr Grayling and Mr Cameron, we will reap our revenge eventually.
This decision was inevitable
This decision was inevitable following Grayling's announcement on Wednesday but sad to see in every sense of the word.
However the line has been drawn and its time to consider what steps can be taken to bring this to the attention of the general public by direct action.
I would suggest, no quarter should be given to Defendant's either in the form of PAD's, Extensions or otherwise in order to apply pressue and any default in payment (which in my experience is an ongoing issue with insurers) that enforcement proceedings be promplyy against the Defendant.
This will no doubt force a reaction from joe public to address their insurers.
direct line
everyone should close their accounts with rbs and natwest (owners of direct line). tell all friends and family to do so as well. cut their damn profits!!!
Anon - Govts have to act
Anon - Govts have to act according to the rule of law. No requirement to have a consultation or White or Green Paper; but, if you do, it has to be lawful. Zed - RBS lost Billions and we the taxpayer own them!
This judgment does not affect
This judgment does not affect me in my professional life at all.
However I to am very surprised that a high court judge has said that if you want fairness go to the ballot box not the courts.
What are they there for then?
Sometime ago I attended a course and in attendance where a lot of people from insurance companies and solicitors representing insurance companies who seemed to be delighted over what they had got out of our government as regards the costs regimes and the extension of the jackson reforms, that not even jackson himself wanted.
It appeared to be a standing joke that they had asked for things that they never thought they would get in a million years only for it to be put forward by the government.
One very senior man from an insurer even said that once they had finished there would be no such thing as a personal injury claim in this country anymore and when they had reached that goal he would let the government back out of his pocket which met with laughter around the table I was on.
When I was on this course it did surprise me how much enthusiasm there was for the whole thing by relatively lower ranking employees of the insurers and solicitors, turkeys voting for christmas did go through my mind more than once!
I thought no claimants then no defendants,which I thought obvious.
HAS ELIAS ANY EXPERIENCE OF REAL LIFE?
I agree with the comments in the above post. I have no financial interest in this whatsoever. I generally don't have much sympathy with the legal profession.
But here, anyone who knows the costs of running a practice and knows the deliberate obstruction and delaying and lengthening of matters by insurance companies (and their downright dishonesty in attempting to avoid or lessen liability) also knows that reducing the costs to this level is ridiculous.
When solicitors stop doing the work, who will do it?
For once, it isn't simply self interest of the legal profession here - it really is Joe Public who will lose out. I'm not sure that it has been presented and publicised in that way.
As for Elias saying the matter can be dealt with at the ballot box, that is simply stupid -quite what I expect of judges, though. This is hardly a matter for that. Isn't fairness something the judges, when it suits them, harp on about? This policy is quite simply government pandering to the insurers.
Have we heard from insurers how much they are going to reduce premiums now the costs are reduced? Please can someone ask No 10 what assurances they received that would happen? Or are the insurers going to simply make more profit?
Typical of the Judiciary -
Typical of the Judiciary - screw over the Solicitors as much as you can but find any excuse for giving JR to their old Barrister cronies.
I, for one, am really going to relish the times when the Judges of this appalling country will have to deal with nutter litigants in person day-after-day and then realise how foolish they were to side with the Tories against the decimation of the Sols profession...
Would you advise ANYONE you knew to now enter the legal profession?
I just hope that I can eke out a living from now until retirement...
Incredible
Incredible isn't it that the Legal Ombudsman will charge a flat fee to solicitors of GBP400 to cover the costs of looking into a complaint by a member of the public. That presumably is a very complex exercise needing a great deal of professional skill. However a solicitor can only charge GBP500 for dealing with a personal injury case from beginning to end!
Let's unite PI firms, pool
Let's unite PI firms, pool our resources and give our £20 million bribe to the Coalition and get them to do our bidding. Surely they will prositute themselves to anyone willing to pay!
The trouble with this, is
The trouble with this, is that the insurers have far, far deeper pockets than all of us put together. I have an altogether more radical and immediate solution.
The public should bear in
The public should bear in mind that if insurers run their case and make a mistake they have no recourse, if they use a solicitor there is. Something to think about.
Anon...What it must be like
Anon...What it must be like to live in your naive rose tinted world!!
If you do not understand the agenda and politics and the undeniable link between that and the Judiciary then frankly you should be in another job!
We have a Judge in this country who has said today that if you want fairness you go to the ballot box not the Courts.
A disgrace, and he brings shame and embarassment to his Office and the Legal Profession by that comment alone, regardless of the rights and wrongs of any case.
I repeat what I said before,when you have the most Senior members of the Judiciary hawking themselves around the country selling the Jackson Reforms to anyone who will pay to listen, supporting the Tory led Governments proposed Legislation how can they even pretend to be independant again? when they knew damn well that these reforms and any following Legislation where to be vehemently opposed by all kinds of interested groups, not just some lawyers.
Those same people will no doubt have the bare faced audacity to sit in judgment on the raft of satellite litigation that will follow for years and years over these reforms.
Any respect from people like me and many many others in the Profession for the independence of the Judiciary went the day they lost their focus regarding independence and forgot what their role was, by supporting pending reforms and legislation yet to be passed, in their desperation to prevent ordinary people having access to justice so that the enormous profits of the Insurance Industry can become even more enormous.
I really do not seehow anybody can disagree with that otherwise we would be saying that it was ok for Judges to offer their services in support of any pending Legislation by any Political Party on any subject even though they know that they may have to sit in judgment on that piece of Legislation in the future.
How can you not see that?
I have viewed some of these
I have viewed some of these posts with increasing despair. The way that litigation in all forms is going is that the client will have to pay for our services- is that somehow wrong?! I have lost count of the number of clients who I have initially, carefully explained the intricacies of a CFA and then at the successful conclusion of a claim ask me how much I will deduct from their damages, despite my previous explanation that they get to keep 100%
We used to charge and I see no reason why we should not in the future, either by agreeing a fixed fee or under a DBA. As long as the client does not have to put his hand in his pocket, he is happy. If firms want to go bust not deducting any costs that's their choice. I know what I will be doing.
Not sure charging will work
The UK public are so used to seeing '100% of your damages' - its almost a given mindset.
There will always be those, the same firms currently paying £900 per case referral fees, that will continue offering '100%' and the public will simply flock to the those firms.
There is no such thing as loyalty.
I always thought the
I always thought the foundation of Tort / damages was to put the victim in the position s/he was in had the incident not happened.
Now, for the first time, the law of this country is that if you are unfortunate enough to have an accident, you will end up in a worse position that you were in but for the accident. Great. Well what did you expect from the Tories?
Secondly, isn't it trite jurisprudence that one cannot judge in its own cause?
Kenneth Clarke, to the best of my recollection, said it was plainly wrong that the NHS and schools should pay success fees to lawyers. I think he said that on a TV interview. Irrespective of the morals of that, for which I have some sympathy of course, that is him declaring to the world that he will create law that ensures protectionism for its own cause.
It's like Mugabe introducing a law saying it's illegal to vote for anyone other than him. Okay it's not but you get the gist...
No surprise
Vote of no confidence in this government is what is needed.
Debacle after debacle.
At a time when industry needs building and supporting - this government seems hell bent on destroying.
Insurance premiums wont go down. Natural competition and the reduction in premiums will take years to filter through. And Im pretty sure there will be future collusion between insurers to fix prices to prevent savings from being passed.
If lower premiums are truly the aim - what is the government doing to decrease the thousands of uninsured drivers on the road?
If you think about it - this
If you think about it - this is just another form of stealth tax, this time on the injured. They will have to pay for legal services. The aim, or so I thought, was to put the injured party back in the position they might have been had the negligence, sorry, I mean alleged negligence the extent of which is neither admitted nor denied (without prejudice to our indemnity enquiries) not occurred.
....but you can trust
....but you can trust insurers to treat you fairly and to always give you the fair compensation that the poor old victim is ENTITLED to........
DBAs
They are not worth doing unless small claims goes up to 5k. The indemnity principle applies to the dba. Whatever you take from tour client is all you will get from the defendants.
It's been coming
People were bemoaning the death of rta as a way of earning a crust 10 years ago. Well, we've finally arrived. The end is nigh etc. Insurers are the bad guys and Joe Public has lost out. Well, maybe he has, but the explanation is uncomfortable.
I've been working as a PI lawyer for 13 years and have always been surprised at the level of fee income for what is, basically, very simple legal work. It is a tragedy that so many people will now face real hardship and the loss of their jobs, but the insurers are a powerful lobbying group and those solicitors that have milked the system dry can not express surprise. Acting for downtrodden claimants? Concerned about access to justice? Do me a favour and cut the bull.
Restore your pride and undertake proper legal work that requires a brain and justifies an hourly rate. Or retrain and do something else. But enough of the crocodile tears from owners of PI factories please, have a look in the mirror before you hand out the redundancy notices. You are partly responsible for turning what was once a calling into an open plan sausage factory.
Magoo, let's get real, you're
Magoo, let's get real, you're way off the line.
Yes there are sausage factories and why is that? Because Labour introduced referral fees and CMCs and there then opened the floodgates.
Then, shortly afterwards, Labour bemoaned the fact that a "compensation culture" had sprouted up, then blamed greedy lawyers and introduced the clampdown that you see now.
Are you following the link so far?
Would you not say it was the Labour party that opened the floodgates?
Unless you are the mercurial one, people in all walks of life, maybe even you, play by the rules that are before them. If someone says you can make money for nothing, people will do it. That's the reality of life.
To allow all kinds of unqualified and often highly questionable human beings enter in to the PI market, it was always going to end up like this. That's what Labour did. Why they did so, heaven knows.
There was not a problem before all of this.
Magoo, let's get real, you're
Magoo, let's get real, you're way off the line.
Yes there are sausage factories and why is that? Because Labour introduced referral fees and CMCs and there then opened the floodgates.
Then, shortly afterwards, Labour bemoaned the fact that a "compensation culture" had sprouted up, then blamed greedy lawyers and introduced the clampdown that you see now.
Are you following the link so far?
Would you not say it was the Labour party that opened the floodgates?
Unless you are the mercurial one, people in all walks of life, maybe even you, play by the rules that are before them. If someone says you can make money for nothing, people will do it. That's the reality of life.
To allow all kinds of unqualified and often highly questionable human beings enter in to the PI market, it was always going to end up like this. That's what Labour did. Why they did so, heaven knows.
There was not a problem before all of this.
Err-it was the Law Society
Err-it was the Law Society Council which allowed referral fees because they didn't have the bottle to tell the OFT to get stuffed, and that a profession was different to a trade.
Most ordinary members did not want referral fees-but of course, we're ignored.
Ironically, a court later decided it was not contrary to the public interest to prohibit referral fees-but even then, no action by the Law Society.
Admittedly, the Council was probably the legal wing of New Labour-but the Tories were more than happy to go along with the destruction of an independent legal profession.
Good point Greg. It's called
Good point Greg.
It's called enterprise. The industry have done nothing more than react to the constant stream of changes - from abolition of legal aid, to cfa's / ccfa's to Woolf reforms to predictive costs to portal scheme to practice directions...anyone recall the mayhem of O17r11?!
Provide the rules and framework, and any business in the private sector will then find the best ways to operate within them. Whilst I agree that the free ipad brigade do lower the tone somewhat, (and I suspect attract the wrong type of client) I would also suggest that some of the frankly pompous old school attitudes here are completely outdated in the modern world. We no longer use quill pens. The world is changing, and although solicitors have notoriously been slow to react, there has been something of a change of tempo, with solicitors becoming more "on the ball" and commercial. I suspect that started around the time of claims direct / TAG era and has been gathering steam since. Is that such a bad thing? Indeed it has had to be, with the constant assault on fees, we have had to become creative and more industrious. But as said by someone else here, there's only so much creative you can "do" with £500, an utterly ridiculous sum on any consideration.
The only difference between PI and any other industry, is that we are now being legislated out of existence because it doesn't suit the insurers that we exist. PI will continue, in some form, and with I suspect some terrible outcomes for the public - but that doesn't matter, apparently.
Welcome to 1984 meets 1939
Bit harsh Magoo, but once we
Bit harsh Magoo, but once we start charging again, we will be fine. If the client wants to go to a claim farmer, that is their call. The solicitor brand is very strong and most claimants want professional advice, not a sausage factory.
not-for-profit fight back
I am not a PI lawyer but all this seems like an awful blow for the industry.
In an honest attempt to assist, can I suggest APIL and MASS now fund an all-singing all-dancing website for the public to use so they can work out exactly how much they are owed, together with a self-help guide as to how it all works and what to do in certain situations. Perhaps a not-for-profit foundation to run it........
it may only help a few LIP's but anything that screws a little more out the insurance companies , and reduces their take from this is surely a good thing.
perhaps a general site encouraging people to use all means at their disposal when fighting these big companies even just the harrassment value of incessant Data Protection applications and complaints to the financial services ombudsman where applicable a war of attrition could be good fun...
this would be a nice little up-yours to those in control.
perhaps even APIL and MASS firms could give all their employees a half-day next week to all simultaneously file DPA requests against all insurers they have ever dealt with. I'm sure there are smarter people out there than me who can think of better ways to get your own back.
best to all.
Access to Justice
A 67% cut in Lawyers fees diminishes the profession and will have a knock on effect across the whole profession, including The Bar and The Judiciary.
Once industry and the general public gets wind of this, once it sinks in, the whole profession will be devalued.
PI Lawyer, Probate Lawyer, Corporate Lawyer, Barrister or Judge. (but to name a few) We all have the same qualifications and similar experience and this, also from a the Client's perspective.
Good God, even the Legal Services Commission will think they are paying too much!!!
Be pro-active
The opportunity for appeal is granted, it is pivotal a voice is heard and the public are aware of the insurers further lining there own pockets, I for one will protest and make people listed that good firms exist and the insurers need constraining!
Beat them at their own game?
I come in peace as a probate practitioner.
Why can't APIL or someone similar form their own not for profit insurer? Simplistic I know but if a new entrant were to enter the market with much lower premiums it would at least force the others to lower their premiums and any claims could be divided between member firms on the basis of locality to the client.
As I say simplistic but thinking outside of the box might ensure this sector of the industry survives.
Now that the judicial review
Now that the judicial review has failed it seems to me the next approach should be for the APIL and MASS to use their fighting fund more effectively by starting to run half or full page adverts in the red tops explaining to the public just what the effects of these "reforms" will be for them and how much they will lose when they have to claim because of the ConDem's arrogant and ignorant interference in what should be the free market of professionals' fees. This would break the deafening silence in the press.
Do you really feel the
Do you really feel the general public are going to be that concerned? It's a bit like telling a PPI claimant they will only get £2000 instead of £2500, they will be just happy to get some compensation and don't care how much they get.
Unless a claimant has suffered a broken limb etc then they are not really concerned what they recover for a whiplash etc claim as long as get some "compo".
The big issue now is if there is no negative public reaction will Grayling then push though increasing the Small Claims Court limit to £5000, or even higher, and play right into Aviva's hands, as that would really destroy the PI industry for both Claimant & Defendant Solicitors.
I do actually. There is a
I do actually. There is a difference between the genuinely injured person for whom the damages are seen as a right and the PPI misselling victim for whom the compensation is a windfall.
If nothing else a campaign would lay the ground for the awkward conversations we are going to have to have with Mrs Miggins et al along the lines of "No Mrs Miggins I can't guarantee you 100% of your damages because the government has changed the rules so much that in order to be able to afford to work for you I'll be taking 25% of your damages thank you."
It would also let the public know who to blame for the loss of what they've come to see as a right.
Fixed fees
Does anyone know is the £500 plus VAT.
I'm not going to complain because everything has been said but what I would say is that all our young hopeful solicitors of the future you may aswell study something else because you won't get a training contract because I suspect at least 50% of law firms will have to close.
It seems that a lot of effort has gone into destroying the pi industry and probably with immediate effect.
I will be interested to know if any claimant firms will be fine and can still make money.
I'm completely numb at the moment.
Claims are not just going to
Claims are not just going to disappear overnight and so somebody will have to pursue them, either claim farms will do them for £500 + VAT, or claimant's will have to start contributing towards the costs themselves out of their damages awards.
The big decision is probably still to come re the Small Claims Court Limit for PI claims if that is increased then even suggesting 50% of PI law firms will close maybe a conservative estimate!!
Insurers have won just a battle today but the outcome of the war will soon be known
Justice through the ballot box
Elias you are an idiot.
Well maybe justice will come through the ballot box, only if Labour grow some and return to their roots and reverse this damage to access to justice and protect the rights of the common man.
"Access to Justice" never has a phrase sounded so empty.
Good Question Mark. And apart
Good Question Mark. And apart from the £500.00 fee. Where else can we generate money?
I know you maybe scratching your heads and thinking? You should know this already. But I am new to the PI game (qualified just over 12 months) and come Monday I am having a meeting with the powers that be and I would like to know some figures so that I can convince them to let me keep my job.
Your employer never tells you exactly what they earn and from where (I don’t blame them) but I want to come across confident.
Good luck to everyone.
PS. Wish me luck. The first I knew about my meeting on Monday was at 5pm today. I wonder why.
This is going to be a long stressful weekend.
No reduction in premiums
The problem is that the insurance industry has become a cartel. There are too few companies in the motor market they can therefore set the market. Fifteen - twenty years ago when Directline and Churchill came on the scene there were brokers and insurers all competing. Now Directline, Churchill and their like have all been bought by the banks etc and the brokers have generally gone. If the Government were genuinely concerned about premiums they would break up the insurance companies or as you have to have motor insurance by law set up a not for profit Goverment backed scheme and kick the insurance mafia out of it.
The above options would be the only way to guarantee reduced and fair premiums but we all know it has never been about that and that was just the Government spin to sell it to the public.
I for one will never vote Tory again.
There will at least be some
There will at least be some pleasure to be gained by the many who find themselves unemployed and unable to service their debts. And there will be lots, despite us all being fat cats. Telling RBS group for example that they can shove their debt up their rear passage would be a glimmer of sun in gloomy times.
Another stitch up
I am wondering how many firms will now have to close. I hope that our unqualified minister is happy. I used to be shocked at his guile - but I've grown so used to the man's sophistry that honesty would be a bigger surprise still.
Fixed fees
Hope the person having a meeting Monday isn't to stressed!!
I think if you have a good reputation you will still get work the problem is running it I wonder whether we need to send out a series of letters and in my view a waste of paper but for £500 it takes someone at least an hour to open a file do you think the SRA will be a little more lenient on our codes of conduct !
I cant afford proclaim so it takes us longer I wonder if they will feel the effect like the rest of us.
If anyone has any good ideas to
Survive this disaster or they want a chat my email is majic280@hotmail.co.uk