Report comment

12:43

I'm with you on the credit hire thing and where rehab has been a revenue stream rather than a genuine need.

But, "ripped-off" by claimant solicitors? Consider how things have changed:

Pre-1999 - claimant pays own costs. Recovered from defendant if succeeds = not ripped off

Post-1999 - claimant with CFA and ATE pays nothing if they lose. If they win their costs are paid by the defendant = not ripped off

Post-2013 - claimant with CFA and ATE (ignoring recoverable ATE here) pays nothing if they lose. If they win they pay for the ATE and may lose their success fee. That may equate to being ripped off in the eyes of Daily Mail readers.

Post-2020 - low value RTA claimants get F all.

Note that the sea change in 2013 was insurer/Gov led as has been the Civil Liability Act.

If you said that success fees were too high, or ATE was a fee income generator, then I'd be on your side. That has been a consequence of meddling because folks will always try to make a buck. My suspicion is that this practice is largely the provinces of those firms with a CMC tie-in or actually owned by a CMC with a front man.

I remember back to our client satisfaction questionnaires. Always a standard form asking "Did you get value for money?" Clients who hadn't paid a penny kept saying "No". Go figure.