Our Letter to the Metro Newspaper

October 21st, 2008

We wrote to the Metro newspaper in relation to an Article in their newspaper issue of the 9th October 2008. This Article wrote about the awards and costs paid by local councils:

 

You are quoting officials from the council blaming the compensation culture created by “no-win-no-fee” lawyers.  They contend that legislation needed to be tightened up to prevent false claims.


With respect to the officers at the council I am sure in your research for the article you would have discovered that there are already legislation in place particularly on claims against local authorities.  The claim against local authorities arise out of law of negligence and Parliament has given the local authorities specific provisions to defend claims brought against them arising out of accidents on public highways.  In particular local authorities have a statutory defence on a claim such as these if they are able to show that they have taken reasonably practical steps to safeguard members of the public and that they have a system in place to inspect, supervise and then maintains defective roads and pavements.

In many many cases local authorities and their liability insurers have made decisions on economic grounds to settle these claims out of Court.  The principal reason for these often is the attraction to reduce their own lawyer’s fees and settle on economic grounds. 


Therefore the rise in claims is not because of the “no-win-no-fee” system brought in.  In fact the “no-win-no-fee” regulations were brought in by this Government in 2001 under the legalisation known as “Access to Justice”.  The whole reason for that Act was to provide increase and improve access to justice to all in the community.  Until then access to litigation lawyers was only available to the very rich and those who qualified for Legal Aid.  The “no-win-no-fee” legislation has enabled a vast chunk of the middle-income earners to have access to lawyers without having to pay their fees irrespective of the success of their litigation.

I am not simply writing to you as another Personal Injury Lawyer acting for members of the public.  I have in fact until recently acted almost exclusively for liability insurers and therefore speak with some experience and their philosophies. 

The bottom line is that we do not have a no fault system of compensation.  There are already adequate provisions within the current law for anybody sued whether individually or as a corporate entity for loss and damage that people have suffered either at their place of work on the public highway or in a motor car.  If insurers and their council believe that there are false claims then there are specific provisions for them to argue fraud.  If they succeed the most important thing that access to justice provided is legal expense insurance.  All claims pursued against councils are now backed by legal expense insurance.  Then if they successfully defend those claims unlike prior to 2001 they will be able to recover the cost of defending these actions.  Therefore there are sufficient tools available to these councils not only to defend but also to successfully defend and recover their lawyers fees.

The arguments that you have been referred to by council in your article may have been appropriate prior to 2001 as many of the claims against councils were pursued by those with the benefit of a Legal Aid Certificate.  In those situations councils and their insurers often had to make economic decisions that even if they successfully defend a claim as the litigant against them was on Legal Aid there will no realistic prospect of recovering these costs of successfully defending a claim.  This is no longer an obstacle in their path.

I am not sure where you are based but I am very near Liverpool Street and would be very happy to discuss the contents of this note or any other issues in relation to liability litigation.


I would also like to obtain your permission to publish your article on our website lawclaim.net.  If you were agreeable would you please email this to me so that I can arrange for this to be published.


If you were to give permission please note that alongside your article I will also publish my comments as I have set out in this letter.


Yours sincerely


 
ABDUL A HAFEZI

HAFEZIS
aah@hafezis.com
Direct Line:  0207 377 0811
 
Let’s see if they come back to us!

 p.s. If you wish to comment on our blog please do e-mail us with a request so we may add you to our subscribers list. This is as we keep getting spammers and it is very difficult to moderate such a huge amount regularly. Once approved we will let you comment! Thanks!

referral/affilliation

February 23rd, 2008

We have this week settled to the satisfaction of our client the first referred claim from our referral /affilliate partner.

We sucessfully sued our client’s employers.

We practice what we preach.If you have a wrong commited against you and belive you have suffered injury and loss you should consult a personal injury lawyer rather than a middlman.Ultimately your claim needs to be handled by a specialist lawyer, so why not consult him/her immediatly.

 www.lawclaim.net

claims management companies (cmc)

February 22nd, 2008

Do they serve public interests or harm it ?

my views are set out in my blog of August 2007.

I would be interested on comments from members of the public.

Road Traffic Accident Victims…BEWARE!

August 2nd, 2007


  
 
We have had nearly a 100 enquiries recently from Claimants who had contacted a well known claims management company.   It is now alleged that this claims management company had created some 1,400 false personal injury claims which they have sold to unsuspecting solicitors

 
Many of these claims may be genuine and yet the Claimants have been abandoned by their solicitors on the fear on the part of the solicitors that they may be implicated in this scam.

 
We are now instructed by a number of these Claimants who are now faced with the onerous task of showing to the Courts that their claims are genuine.

 
Our enquiries of these Claimants indicate that members of the public are attracted by the quick solution afforded by claims management companies and particularly the free car.   Whilst on the face of it, it looks hassle free and free of costs, but in reality it never is.

 
Many of these Claimants are now facing a claim for hiring a car.   This is because they had signed a hiring agreement with the hirer (a common practice of claims companies).  As the hirer no longer has a firm of solicitors recovering these costs for them they are now looking to the victim claimants for the cost of hire.

 
These scenarios are classic examples of what can and will go wrong when using intermediaries.   They neither have the Claimant or hirers interests in mind and are driven by greed to make as much money from what is usually a stressful event for the Claimant.

 
The moral of the story is there is nothing free in this world and that if you are injured the best professional to consult is your local solicitor.

 
 

READ ALL ABOUT IT….READ ALL ABOUT IT………

July 20th, 2007


BANKER SUES FOR £1.5 IN COMPENSATION AFTER SLIPPING ON A “KILLER PETAL”………..
…….here we go again..!
 
 
Whenever an interesting claim for compensation is before the Courts the media, particularly the tabloids tend to get on the bandwagon and claim that “compensation culture” is rife and that the public are not prepared to accept personal responsibility.   A cursory glance at the various comments placed on message boards and the like from various members of the public, reflect perhaps a more widespread notion that the UK is heading towards a US style “compensation culture”. This being despite reports from the Department of Constitutional Affairs showing that in reality the facts say quite the opposite. 
 
It is not for the sake of saying it but lawyers will often say that there are always two sides to a story.   A recent claim by a banker against a flower shop has been successful on the grounds that the owner of the flower shop had a duty of care to all those who visited the shop and its surrounding area.   Because the claim was made by a person with a high level of income his potential claim is in the region of 1.5 million pounds.
 
It is often lost on the media that we have a fault based system.  Anyone making a claim has to show that the third party is negligent and it is only when either the third party, their insurers or the Courts have considered them to be negligent that they are entitled to pay compensation.
 
Like many aspects of life, education and globalisation has also meant an increase in awareness of a person’s entitlement to their rights.   Therefore in my opinion we should be proud of the common law countries where public awareness of their rights is so advanced that claims such as these have evolved.
 
It is for nothing that John Locke said that :-
 
“The end of law is, not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom”.   
 
In my opinion evolution of common law as evidenced by claims such as this is in fact enlargement of freedom as envisaged by John Locke.