CFA & ATE insurance

[JonCris]

I wasn't sure where to put this suggestion but here goes.

As we know many members have claims well in excess of the no costs limit of £5,000. In order to avoid costs they are claiming a number of times over the same account.

My question is this. Would it be possible to find an "After Event Insurer" who would give cover if a member where to find a solicitor willing to act on a CFA (conditional fee agreement) otherwise referred to as a "No Win No Fee" arrangement.

I'm surprised one of the claims companies hasn't caught on to this yet

After all as we all know it would be an insurers dream policy as the risk is nonexistant. It would enable members to put much larger claims before the courts without risk & I suggest cause the banks to settle sooner rather than later.

Perhaps I should explain that one of the requirements is that if your bringing a case where the other sides costs might have to be paid.

The judges don't like it but the other side even before trial can & have asked the court to order you to pay a sum into court as a guarantee that in the event of their winning their cost are covered. This has no bearing on the merits of your case & it has meant that some claims have never got off the ground

With ATE insurance they can't use that as a means to defeat a claimant.

Any thoughts anyone?

[zootscoot]

Its already available see

www.bankchargesrefunded.c o.uk

I'm sure there are many others out there

[JonCris]

zootscoot

Thats not what I had in mind.

These companies operate on a "contingency agreement" The take an agreed percentage of your compensation which most of us are quite capable of getting in full with the help of this site.

Also I think their con. agreement is unlawful & would be considered "Champerty"

I was thinking more along the lines of going to a higher court to obtain a judgment against the money lenders

[mallyonline]

Thats not what I had in mind.

These companies operate on a "contingency agreement" The take an agreed percentage of your compensation which most of us are quite capable of getting in full with the help of this site.

Also I think their con. agreement is unlawful & would be considered "Champerty"

[quote=JonCris]

Sadly! not everyone is capable of making claims or arrangements on there own and sometimes need to request the help of others that can deal with affairs for them (on their behalf) Not everyone can follow the instructions found or indeed find the instruction in such a labyrinth of information and will probably have to rely on others to take them through the minefield of information available to them. Consumer action group is a wonderful website and has a huge following with a very wide variety of advice but I have to say that it may actually be necessary for us to have people that act on our behalf’s… like those at x

They offer a service that anyone not able to carry out acts for them selves (for what ever reason) can take advantage of and leave it to others willing & able to provide help for them!!…

We must look at the bigger picture here! It is very easy to sit behind our monitor and make suggestions or assumptions that everyone who visits our site will be able to understand or even find the information that we know exists.. But not everyone can take in what has been said and not everyone can act for themselves!!

I would say that websites like x act in the best interest of anyone that seeks advice from them.

[JonCris]

I'm sorry no they don't as evidenced by the fact that they charge claimants 25% or more which is I believe a scandal.

Yes there are folk who find it hard to get started & it's for them that I'm asking the question about finding a solicitor who will act on a CFA which to be valid must be covered by After the Event Insurance.

We know claimants insurers aren't going to have to pay costs but if this safeguard where not in place ( the promise to pay If) the defendant could have the matter struck out on the basis that if they win (some hope) they have no possibilty of recovering their costs or damages.

Also as I have stated if the matter is issued then I believe the agreement between the claimant & claims management company becomes unenforcable as it amounts to Champerty.

When the defendant solicitors realize that the claimant is using the services of a company/person taking 25 or more % then watch the **** hit the fan. Particulary when the defendant's lawyers demand confirmation of the insurance cover & there isn't any. A real can of worms I'm afriad

[zootscoot]

Hi Joncris - keep crossing paths today!

I think there is a place for the use of these services, as Mally points out some people do not have the know how or the confidence to bring their own claim and I would rather these people get 75% than nothing. I would rather see the 25% in the hands of the lawyers who have at least provided a service for their fee.

Do their costs not get passed on to the defendant if they win? or is the 25% something completely different?

I think also they are particularly useful for those whose claims are above the 5k and therefore likely to go to the County court. At least this puts people on a more equal footing as the banks in terms of representation and bargaining over fear of paying costs if lose. Agreed there are downsides as Joncris points out.


The banks are also probably more likely to be co-operative if dealing with solicitors as they know they can't just fob them off and a person who has instructed a solicitor certainly means business in their eyes. Having said that this site has proved to be VERY effective in helping the majority of people to claim themselves and nothing stated above is intended to distract from that fact. But like I said there is a role.

Now off to reply to your other post!

Zoot

[JonCris]

No they aren't costs they are part of the compensation & they are not dealing with solicitors because a solicitor is not allowed to enter into what is a contingency agreement.

They can't act based omission.They must ask the client IF they have entered into such an agreement & if so they must decline to act. These agreements are only permitted at ET's

Nor is a solicitor allowed to act for a company/person who they know has entered into such an agreement with the claimant.

In other words if your introduced to a solicitor by such a person/company he should refuse your instructions. If he doesn't then he can & should be reported to the LS who take a very dim view of such conduct

Also I suspect they know this because if they where allowed to enter into agreements they would in matters above 5K be able to recover their costs from the other side.

Once a claim for over 5K is issued in the CC the claimant must either be able to meet both sides costs or be insured in the unlikley event they lose. Though we know we are almost guaranteed to win the court though they don't like doing it they won't accept that as an argument if the defence tries to have the case struck out because of the claimants obvious inability to pay in that unlikely event they lose.

Also there is also the small matter of Champerty

They are whilst they not a party to the claim they are in effect seeking a share of the damages on the back of the claimants claim otherwise known as Champerty