Report comment

Anon @ 2.34 indeed we do, the trouble is we're all busy.

What we need is someone to take redacted copies of the dreadful investigations conducted by the LeO and ask the chief executive / board to account for the inadequacies.

We had a case where a client had pre-existing LEI. D did not raise fundamental dishonesty. The client (was proofed in conference as causation was disputed and ti all was fine). The clienty admitted during x-exam to lying through her teeth. She was found to be fundamentally dishonest and wanted us to pay the £7k costs.

The LeO said that despite the client having LEI and therefore not needing ATE it was poor service not to advise her about ATE and the terms of ATE and awarded exactly £0, and no other remedy. They then raised a case fee for £400.

We decided however not to JR as life is too short and the costs risks too great.

Anon @4.02 what are we afraid of? Investigators at the LeO who are functionally illiterate 'the client instructed you firm to recover damage what got done to her vehicle' no knowledge or experience of the matters under investigation and capricious Ombudsmen with no knowledge of law or the ability to properly apply their own rules and no means of appeal short of JR.

You might as well ask me review and MRI scan and then operate, of course I'm no surgeon but I've carved a chicken and have a passion for excellent customer service.