Report comment

@Anonymous29 February 2016 01:14 pm:

"....If there is a collapse of S+G then the SRA simply will not be able to cope.

Protecting the client's interests would mean (in the case of PI) finding a firm with the capacity to take on what 20, 30 or 40 thousand cases without missing procedural deadlines / over looking evidence etc etc. There quite simply isn't the capacity. .."

Which is exactly why (a) Tesco Law was never a good idea (puppet master and puppet here definitely springs to mind) and (b) If the Claims Handling Regulatory Authority have been in they must be secretly at the very least more than mildly concerned and at the worst bricking it ....

"...The intervention agents won't be able to cope. .."

Enough said. What is it they say about owing money and the Bank (or indeed in this case the Claims Handling Society), being a business partner and not a creditor. ..?

"....The next option is to find a buyer, who's going to buy the practice? The idea that anyone is goign to spend any real money and take the successor practice risk is as mad as the idea of paying £650m for Quindell. ..."

Yes, think of all those ticking 3 Month limitation period in Employment cases and 3 year limitation periods in PI cases.

Not going into the logistics of day to day running and the staffing requirements as you have admirably reflected upon, what a mess.

And giving carte blanche to the Claims Handling Society at 113 Chancery Lane and the Claims Handling Regulatory Authority, to do this to what was once a fairly proud and able profession is all our responsibilities.

It has obviously exceeded the terminology "game changer", Des Hudson stated it would , in many many more than a few senses.

"....I don't think its time to plan to return the patient to the theater, I think it is time to plan for the funeral. ..."

I shouldn't be surprised.