Report comment

The problem here is that the official view seems to assume consumers are idiot children needing and wanting 100% protection from all and any risk. They are not.
In their report on fee charging McKenzie Friends, which I actually read, the Consumers Association acknowledged that a substantial majority of the population can neither afford to pay for the "full fat", closely regulated solicitors' practice, and nor are they eligible for assistance from CABx or the other voluntary sector organisations. However, they can afford to pay for advice and assistance from some of the less regulated providers out there.
The CA acknowledged that some of those people are competent. Many of them may have at one stage been solicitors but cannot afford to practise as such; if you have been made redundant by a public body or factory firm with a statutory payment and no client contacts you can neither capitalise a solicitors practice nor fund retraining, so what do you do? Seriously?
A few solicitors have already adjusted their business model in order to seek regulation by the BSB - isn't it just possible that a lighter regulatory touch, leading to a reduction in overheads, and hence cost, might not actually benefit consumers?