Son's PI Claim - Solicitor wants to offer a low CPR 36 to settle?

[paulwlton]

My son has a personal injury claim originally valued at £20k.

 

The solicitor was working on a 25% no win no fee basis.

however, a few months ago he found out that the solicitor had failed to advise at the outset that he could have had union backing,

so it was agreed they would discount the 25% fee etc.

 

The matter should be going to trial in circa six months,

but the soilicitor has now written advising that he wishes to offer the defendent the opportunity to settle for £8k pursuant to CPR 36.

This is a 60% reduction on the claim value which doesn't seem right to me.

 

Any advice on this would be appreciated.

 

Regards

[BazzaS]

Your son should ask the solicitor what has changed in either or both of:

a) likely value of claim

b) estimated probability of success.

 

Has there been disclosure of new information affecting one or both of a) and b) ?

 

Your son is protected by QOCS (if a bona fide claim, in good faith), so the reply shouldn't be "I'm worried about the impact of the other sides' costs mounting up"!

 

(QOCS protection doesn't apply if a claimant fails at trial to beat a defendant's offer, but what you are describing is a claimant's offer!)

[paulwlton]

Thanks for your prompt reply BazzaS.

 

The letter says

 

"I have reviewed your claim and believe it is now time to put some pressure on the Defendants by proposing formal offers of settlement to them"

 

Barrister has given above 60% chance of success, I'm not aware that this has changed.

[BazzaS]

Thanks for your prompt reply BazzaS. The letter says "I have reviewed your claim and believe it is now time to put some pressure on the Defendants by proposing formal offers of settlement to them"

 

Barrister has given above 60% chance of success, I'm not aware that this has changed.

 

Is the claim valued at 20k in full?

It might be taking an overly statistical point of view, but

(20k at 60%, chance of winning) + (nothing at 40%, chance of losing) gives £12k.

So you might expect the other side to offer a Part 36 offer at or below 12k, so you might want to ask the solicitor "why 8k?". Why not 12k if valued at 20k with 60% chance of success.

The answer may well be "at 12k they have little benefit in not taking the chance at trial" - the more your son moves below 12k, the more likely they'll accept : and he gets certainty rather than playing the odds!

[paulwlton]

Is the claim valued at 20k in full?

It might be taking an overly statistical point of view, but

(20k at 60%, chance of winning) + (nothing at 40%, chance of losing) gives £12k.

So you might expect the other side to offer a Part 36 offer at or below 12k, so you might want to ask the solicitor "why 8k?". Why not 12k if valued at 20k with 60% chance of success.

The answer may well be "at 12k they have little benefit in not taking the chance at trial" - the more your son moves below 12k, the more likely they'll accept : and he gets certainty rather than playing the odds!

 

Its strange because last July £15k was put to the other side in attempt to settle.

[Guest]

a useful bookmark link i have re 36. double check for any changes since.

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/Part36offerstosettle.pdf

[BazzaS]

Its strange because last July £15k was put to the other side in attempt to settle.

 

Why strange?

Strange would be increasing the sum you were asking for, if they didn't accept the lower offer.

 

If they didn't agree giving your son 15k to settle, they might agree the lower sum .....

[steampowered]

If your claim was successful that doesn't necessarily mean you would get the full amount requested.

[paulwlton]

Why strange?

Strange would be increasing the sum you were asking for, if they didn't accept the lower offer.

 

If they didn't agree giving your son 15k to settle, they might agree the lower sum .....

 

Strange as in the offer to settle has decreased by £9k.

[Ganymede]

My son has a personal injury claim originally valued at £20k.

 

The solicitor was working on a 25% no win no fee basis.

however, a few months ago he found out that the solicitor had failed to advise at the outset that he could have had union backing,

so it was agreed they would discount the 25% fee etc.

 

The matter should be going to trial in circa six months,

but the soilicitor has now written advising that he wishes to offer the defendent the opportunity to settle for £8k pursuant to CPR 36.

This is a 60% reduction on the claim value which doesn't seem right to me.

 

Any advice on this would be appreciated.

 

Regards

 

When was it valued at £20k? Before all the medical reports were obtained or afterwards?

 

In the letter to your son last year about the £15k offer what was he advised about the value of the claim?

[paulwlton]

When was it valued at £20k? Before all the medical reports were obtained or afterwards?

 

In the letter to your son last year about the £15k offer what was he advised about the value of the claim?

 

It was valued at £20k after medical reports and the CPR 36 offer was a 10% reduction - £18K NOT £15K. This was when the solicitor was working on he 25% success fee.

[Ganymede]

Rather than waste time asking people on here who will not know the case, call the solicitor and ask him why he thinks £8k and what has changed.

[paulwlton]

Rather than waste time asking people on here who will not know the case, call the solicitor and ask him why he thinks £8k and what has changed.

 

The letter came yesterday morning so i thought id ask for advice on a public forum. The solicitor will be asked to explain this tomorrow. If I'm wasting anyones time on here i apologise.

 

Regards

[Ganymede]

Not wasting anyone's time but nobody here knows anything at all about the details of your sons claim so at the very best all we can do is speculate.

[callum1999]

My son has a personal injury claim originally valued at £20k.

 

The solicitor was working on a 25% no win no fee basis.

however, a few months ago he found out that the solicitor had failed to advise at the outset that he could have had union backing,

so it was agreed they would discount the 25% fee etc.

 

The matter should be going to trial in circa six months,

but the soilicitor has now written advising that he wishes to offer the defendent the opportunity to settle for £8k pursuant to CPR 36.

This is a 60% reduction on the claim value which doesn't seem right to me.

 

Any advice on this would be appreciated.

 

Regards

 

It my be of benefit if your son can still be represented by his union.

 

If the solicitor failed to mention this, that is not your son's problem.

 

Sounds to me that since this was highlighted, the solicitor has devalued the claim???

[paulwlton]

The solicitor has just confirmed that the claim was valued too high in July 2015.

[callum1999]

The solicitor has just confirmed that the claim was valued too high in July 2015.

 

Ask them how they come to that figure that was to high in July 2015, and once they have the amounts and the reasons why they come to that figure.

 

Have they giving you reasons or set out how they have reached the new figure that they now value the claim?

 

If you email the firm and ask them to respond by email, that evidence and how they are valuing the claim is there in the event that your son could use, which i think is central to the value of the claim, and what it is really worth.

[paulwlton]

Ask them how they come to that figure that was to high in July 2015, and once they have the amounts and the reasons why they come to that figure.

 

Have they giving you reasons or set out how they have reached the new figure that they now value the claim?

 

If you email the firm and ask them to respond by email, that evidence and how they are valuing the claim is there in the event that your son could use, which i think is central to the value of the claim, and what it is really worth.

 

It was another solicitor working on behalf of the current solicitor . The reason was that they added high costs that were unreasonable. They were working on 25% at the time so, it looks like they were chancing it.

[steampowered]

It is common to do that. For example, if you have a claim which you think is probably worth 30k but you could potentially get 50k, you would claim 50k.

 

In determining an appropriate settlement figure you need to factor in the possibility that your claim might not be successful and also the possibility that, even if you are successful, you might get lower damages than you claimed.

 

Of course you would need to take advice on how likely your claim is to succeed and how likely it is that the damages might be less than you claimed, in order to determine what to propose as a settlement.

 

It is possible to offer a reduced settlement (such as 12k or 15k) to see if the defendant bites, and consider reducing the amount further if required.

[paulwlton]

It is common to do that. For example, if you have a claim which you think is probably worth 30k but you could potentially get 50k, you would claim 50k.

 

In determining an appropriate settlement figure you need to factor in the possibility that your claim might not be successful and also the possibility that, even if you are successful, you might get lower damages than you claimed.

 

Of course you would need to take advice on how likely your claim is to succeed and how likely it is that the damages might be less than you claimed, in order to determine what to propose as a settlement.

 

It is possible to offer a reduced settlement (such as 12k or 15k) to see if the defendant bites, and consider reducing the amount further if required.

 

Thanks.