Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

There are clearly three issues here, the conduct of CMCs and others recommending / referring work, the acquiescence / connivance of solicitors in dubious claims and finally the role / action of the SRA.

The regulation of CMCs etc seems to be deeply flawed but that is a matter for separate discussion.

In respect of firms acquiescence or even counselling, procuring etc the presentation of a fraudulent claim I have recently reported a firm for acting when the client had not instructed them.

The SRA is investigating and I trust will take robust action, however, does the dust need to be ground so fine?

It is one thin to find oneself in the unhappy position of having a client admit, for the first time, under cross examination that their claim is a fraudulent one but a wholly different one to routinely be acting in cases which carry all the hall marks of fraud and yet be blind to them.

If one acts in numerous transactions which bear all the hall marks of mortgage fraud, money laundering & etc the one's ignorance as to the clients' malign intent will not be a defence before the SDT nor should it: the question must therefore be, what is different about acting repeatedly in what are clearly fraudulent claims? My answer is, very little; if anything.

Driving out those firms who facilitate these fraudulent claims should be something that we all assist in and welcome.

Your details

Cancel