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

13:17

I'm afraid you do not understand why we say ban CMCs. In very brief terms:

1. They do not add anything to the claims process.

2. Their charges reduce the profit costs received by solicitors with the result that the quality of representation goes down (economies of scale and if you get paid peanuts etc...) and the claimant loses out as they get charged a success fee.

3. Being beholden to CMCs mean taking whatever comes.

4. CMCs generally (with no evidence to back it up save for personal experience) are the ones pushing dodgy claims. Yes they may be in cahoots with solicitors but I bet an independent solicitor would sniff out the dodgy claims.

5. CMCs inflate damages via links with credit hire companies and so on. Yes they can get the claimant back on the road but so can the claimant's own insurer in fully comp cases, and the defendant insurer can in admitted cases.

6. The advertising methods stink and have dragged this sector through the mud. I have lost count of how many times friends and family have whinged at me about "solicitors" cold calling them.

And you know what, I recall dealing with one excellent CMC who did charge a success fee (before that was stopped) but they weeded out the dodgy cases.

My personal opinion is...

1. Ban CMCs
2. Ban Marketing
3. Increase fixed costs slightly but ban success fees in RTA and EL/PL
4. Standardise ATE premiums but allow recovery
5. Get rid of MedCo but have all experts on a central register with all experts to provide reasonable terms for repayment e.g. 6 months
6. Allow recovery of interest on disbursement funding

Your details

Cancel