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.


Anonymous at 12.:01 - at least Mr Twambley is prepared to stand up and be counted rather than hiding behind "anonymous" as so many correspondents on here do.

If you have a point of view, at least be prepared to identify yourself. Otherwise, the rest of us will just dismiss your views as more insurer-backed, uninformed nonsense.

In my view, it must surely be a just decision to allow claimants on a pre LASPO arrangment to change solicitors without losing the ability to recover the success fees and ATE premiums which they will have to pay, given that they won't have the benefit of QOCs or the Simmmons v Castle uplift.

The rule changes were, as usual, ill thought out and these claimants were left between a rock and a hard place. Firms were forced out of the PI arena and claimants should have the right to instruct new firms while retaining the benefits of the pre LASPO regime. The insurers in these cases were showing their usual opportunism, trying to get a windfall at the expense of injured claimants and their lawyers.

And, no, anonymous (and your numerous similarly unnamed mates), it is nothing to do with fraudulent claims, CMCs or greedy claimant lawyers - it has everything to do with fairness and justice.

Your details