Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Compensation Culture to a new level

Options
12467

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    sonic85 wrote: »
    What's the best way of highlighting this crap? Letter or email to the local TD?

    Making submissions to the various working groups. It'll mean looking into it in a bit more depth that a few newspaper articles and a some boards.ie threads.

    I'm sorry if that sounds condescending but this is a complex issue with various points of view, some that while hard to agree with aren't necessarily wrong. Someone writing a letter on the basis of one or two mildly amusing cases that sold newspapers will rightly be ignored, or unfortunately, possibly not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    You simply can't make that determination. If you want to pursue doctors who give spurious diagnoses I'm all for it, but you can't make a decision on a case based on what seems right to you.



    Nice try at dodging it, but the issue would be we'd see that while legal fees might be a driving factor there are other factors at play. This is why the insurance industry is more than happy to play into the mindless hype. It looks like ye will be getting away with it too, as it's going to be years before they are forced to show what is making up their premiums.



    I'll certainly concede you're giving it some balance there.

    Edit: You can safely insert 'insurance industry' for 'you' in many cases above, it wasn't meant to sound personal, except where it was! :pac:

    People seem to think that just because I sometimes defend the industry that I think they are blameless for the mess we are now in but that's not the case. I have been and will continue to be critical of what I see as being the poor points but I will also 100% refute stuff that I know to be untrue. The problem is that a lot of what I know is anecdotal so its very easy for people to poo poo it. I think though that this thread, and a lot of the threads in the insurance forum show that people are now more in tune and that its not simply a case of the big bad insurance industry hauling the masses over the coals for shyts and giggles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Rod Munch wrote: »
    People seem to think that just because I sometimes defend the industry that I think they are blameless for the mess we are now in but that's not the case. I have been and will continue to be critical of what I see as being the poor points but I will also 100% refute stuff that I know to be untrue. The problem is that a lot of what I know is anecdotal so its very easy for people to poo poo it. I think though that this thread, and a lot of the threads in the insurance forum show that people are now more in tune and that its not simply a case of the big bad insurance industry hauling the masses over the coals for shyts and giggles.

    Fair enough and I really wish yours was the level of debate on this. The press on the other hand know what they're doing when they 'write' this stories.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,213 ✭✭✭sonic85


    Making submissions to the various working groups. It'll mean looking into it in a bit more depth that a few newspaper articles and a some boards.ie threads.

    I'm sorry if that sounds condescending but this is a complex issue with various points of view, some that while hard to agree with aren't necessarily wrong. Someone writing a letter on the basis of one or two mildly amusing cases that sold newspapers will rightly be ignored, or unfortunately, possibly not.

    Not trying to be smart here but how many normal working class joes have the time or resources to do what you suggest? Or are you basically suggesting that nothing can be done and to bend over and keep taking this sh!t?

    What's complex about somebody banging their knee on a table leg and getting 20k for it?

    Like most other people my insurance has gone to hell in the last couple of years and I dont know how much more I can take. Where's the cut off point going to be?

    Why should a persons genuine concerns be ignored?


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭melloa




  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    I'd be interested to know what the cost point is that the insurers decide to simply follow the claimant to observe the extent of their supposed incapacity. If 10k is the difference here is that enough to send out an observer for a few days? I'd take great satisfaction in filming someone swinging their kids around while suffering fake whiplash.

    I'm not in the claims side of the business but I'd say it depends on the overall potential payout.

    For example, if the average pay out through the court system for a particular class of injury is €25k then it would be worth defending if they suspect / know the claim is bogey.

    If the average payout is €10k to €15k then going to through the whole rigmarole of hiring private investigators probably isn't worth it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,506 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Save your opprobrium. She'll plough the €20k back into the economy in one way or another.

    so would all of us that are getting screwed because of thus crap


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    I'd love to see a cap on claims for short-term or minor injuries like they've done with whiplash on the UK. "I hurt myself on someone else's property" shouldn't automatically mean "I deserve lots of money". In some cases it's not even clear what they're being compensated for. The woman who got a big payout a few years ago for walking into a shop shutter - how does a bruised forehead require €16k compensation? Or the kid whose parents sued because a bike fell near him?

    For small injuries, you should really just be reimbursed your medical bills and lost earnings if you have to take a few days off work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭Wesser


    There is no such thing as a specialist in muscle spasm.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,360 ✭✭✭washiskin


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-fractured-her-wrist-when-her-mothers-wheelchair-went-out-of-control-at-powerscourt-estate-34752584.html

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/woman-loses-damages-claim-over-powerscourt-gardens-fall-1.2704433

    This particular case last year really bugged the crap out of me. Her 5th case for personal injuries and her mother was also taking Powerscourt to court over this, eventhough she wasn't injured.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?

    I suppose when you see someone being attacked you join in do you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Glenster wrote: »
    I suppose when you see someone being attacked you join in do you?
    No. But another person might.

    Do you blame the person who joins in and does a small bit of damage more than the main attackers who orchestrate and carry out the attack?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    No. But another person might.

    Do you blame the person who joins in and does a small bit of damage more than the main attackers who orchestrate and carry out the attack?

    Not more. But two wrongs dont make a right.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Glenster wrote: »
    Not more.
    Tell that to the newspapers and people in general.
    But two wrongs dont make a right.
    True.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    sonic85 wrote: »
    Not trying to be smart here but how many normal working class joes have the time or resources to do what you suggest? Or are you basically suggesting that nothing can be done and to bend over and keep taking this sh!t?

    What's complex about somebody banging their knee on a table leg and getting 20k for it?

    Like most other people my insurance has gone to hell in the last couple of years and I dont know how much more I can take. Where's the cut off point going to be?

    Why should a persons genuine concerns be ignored?

    What you're saying is, despite not understanding something, you don't like it so therefore it should be stopped. I'm sorry but you have to be able to see the issue there.

    This isn't 20K for banging a knee. This is a legal case and a discussion on damages. It's nuanced but it's actually not difficult to understand, head over to Legal Discussions and pose a question people will go through negligence with you.

    The issue I assume you have is not with the payout but the knock on affect to insurance. That is extremely complicated and if one is not willing to put the time in to understand the issue they've no business trying to influence it. Suffice it to say the problem is, as ever, not entirely with the legal system. It plays a part certainly, but the insurance companies are engaging in smoke a mirrors in relation to loading other costs they have.

    All that said activism is laudable and I applaud people who get involved in trying to make the country a better place. If time is an issue I would suggest focusing in on something like transparency of legal fees, or how premiums are calculated. The two issues are simple, both parties are taking the piss and should be made to be more transparent in what they're doing.

    I assume a senior counsel would have been brought on board when this went to the High Court? I'd very much like to know what they pay was there and what he did for the money. The entry level for barristers has huge competition, I'm not so sure the same can be said further up the food chain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Rod Munch wrote: »
    I've worked in insurance for a number of years and have posted extensively about it across a few forums and did an AMA about it.

    I have been called an insurance industry apologist by a number of people.

    I have been called a liar by a number of people when I have posted about the claims culture in Ireland and how that is the primary driver of increased insurance premiums.

    It is with a certain level of smugness that stuff like this vindicates what I have been saying for the last couple of years.

    The whole thing is rotten, from the thieves that make the fraudulent claims (thats what they are) to the parasitic solicitors that represent them (not all of them are leeches but when what they get paid is directly effected by what their client are awarded then there is little reason to think that many of them have any morals) to the incompetent judges making the awards, its little wonder that premiums have rocketed.

    I do however feel that things are somewhat turning a corner.

    There have been a few high profile claims thrown out recently, the young fella that cycled into the jeep and a couple of others where the judge ruled against the claimant because there was no way that the low impact of the collision could have caused the injuries they were saying they had. Its a start but there is still a huge way to go.

    To give you a real world example. A case came across my desk recently where our policy holder bumped into the back of a third party. They were stopped in traffic so clearly there couldn't be much of an impact and the total repair costs for both cars was around €450 for a bit of buffing. The third party immediately began claiming neck pain, sent in his solicitors letter etc. Its as plain as the nose on my face that there are no injuries and its a complete try on.

    The claims dept know the claimant is lying however whiplash claims are notoriously difficult to defend against so they offered a settlement of €7500 - €10,000 plus costs to make him go away. His solicitor rejected the offer outright and told the claims department that the minimum they will consider is €20,000 plus costs. Our claims department rightly told him to piss off so now its being investigated.

    People often lament insurers settling "on the steps" rather than defending the claim but there is good reasons for it. To date, we have spent over €5000 between assessors fees, medical assessor fees and investigator fees. Thats without going to court. So you see its often the cheapest option to give the try on a few quid to go away rather than try and defend in full and potentially end up in the high court paying multiples of what they could spend by settling quickly.

    I read through the case file and without giving details I am confident that when this goes to court the case will be thrown out but when its in the hands of a judge you never can tell.

    Funnily people were giving jambon man grief for claiming yesterday. Tbh he was right, now the award of €20k was ridiculous however he was slandered and he deserved reparation for that, not near what he got but he would be entitled to something.

    What needs to happen sooner rather than later is for caps to be introduced.

    The very top of the list should be a cap on legal fees.

    The injuries board was set up specifically, specifically to try and cut out the legal system from insurance claims due to the length of time cases were taking to be heard and the costs associated yet around 90% of injuries board cases are involving people represented by solicitors.

    I guarantee that if the legal fees available for whiplash / soft tissue fees were capped at €500 per case we would see a massive drop in both the number of cases and the number of cases that make it to courts.

    Solicitors fees are in the region of 20% to 30% of the settlement amount so for the €20k claim in the OP their representative likely got €5000 to €6000 for it, talk about money for old rope!

    Unproveable injuries such as the one in the OP should be capped at a max of €5000.

    There should be penalties, actual enforceable penalties for those that are found to be making false claims.

    Minimum fines of €1000 to €5000 should be given to those that deliberately try and defraud an insurer.

    I'd love to see a system whereby people that report fraudsters get rewarded. Say 20% off their premium if the claim being made is found to fraudulent.

    Aside from the last thing these are relatively simple measures to implement and I have no doubt that they would save millions each year.

    Ultimately though the claims environment rests with the public, there is little accountability anymore and we live in a world where recklessness, stupidity and out right lying reaps massive rewards.

    Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the potential of receiving a nice fat compo cheque turns otherwise stand up people into absolute bastards.

    But an extensive report came out last week stating claims are NOT the reason insurance premiums have increased.

    http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170110%20Report%20on%20the%20Cost%20of%20Motor%20Insurance%202017.pdf

    Thread on topic.
    http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057703483


    Legal costs not the reason for insurance hikes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,993 ✭✭✭Barr


    They should have saved this story for April Fools.


    Negligence - not telling someone there is a leg on a table ??? .... please


    This sounds more than reasonable from the defense.


    " Witnesses on behalf of the hotel told the court the table was one of a type used all over the world and had been found to be perfectly suitable in the global catering trade.

    A forensic engineer said that if he had been asked pre-accident to risk assess the set up in the dining room he would not have directed the hotel to warn people about the presence of the table leg under the tablecloth"


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,979 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    Nevermind the 20k damages but what are they actual costs associated to bring a case like this to the high court? Over 20k?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 696 ✭✭✭Noddyholder


    Rod Munch wrote: »
    I've worked in insurance for a number of years and have posted extensively about it across a few forums and did an AMA about it.

    I have been called an insurance industry apologist by a number of people.

    I have been called a liar by a number of people when I have posted about the claims culture in Ireland and how that is the primary driver of increased insurance premiums.

    It is with a certain level of smugness that stuff like this vindicates what I have been saying for the last couple of years.

    The whole thing is rotten, from the thieves that make the fraudulent claims (thats what they are) to the parasitic solicitors that represent them (not all of them are leeches but when what they get paid is directly effected by what their client are awarded then there is little reason to think that many of them have any morals) to the incompetent judges making the awards, its little wonder that premiums have rocketed.

    I do however feel that things are somewhat turning a corner.

    There have been a few high profile claims thrown out recently, the young fella that cycled into the jeep and a couple of others where the judge ruled against the claimant because there was no way that the low impact of the collision could have caused the injuries they were saying they had. Its a start but there is still a huge way to go.

    To give you a real world example. A case came across my desk recently where our policy holder bumped into the back of a third party. They were stopped in traffic so clearly there couldn't be much of an impact and the total repair costs for both cars was around €450 for a bit of buffing. The third party immediately began claiming neck pain, sent in his solicitors letter etc. Its as plain as the nose on my face that there are no injuries and its a complete try on.

    The claims dept know the claimant is lying however whiplash claims are notoriously difficult to defend against so they offered a settlement of €7500 - €10,000 plus costs to make him go away. His solicitor rejected the offer outright and told the claims department that the minimum they will consider is €20,000 plus costs. Our claims department rightly told him to piss off so now its being investigated.

    People often lament insurers settling "on the steps" rather than defending the claim but there is good reasons for it. To date, we have spent over €5000 between assessors fees, medical assessor fees and investigator fees. Thats without going to court. So you see its often the cheapest option to give the try on a few quid to go away rather than try and defend in full and potentially end up in the high court paying multiples of what they could spend by settling quickly.

    I read through the case file and without giving details I am confident that when this goes to court the case will be thrown out but when its in the hands of a judge you never can tell.

    Funnily people were giving jambon man grief for claiming yesterday. Tbh he was right, now the award of €20k was ridiculous however he was slandered and he deserved reparation for that, not near what he got but he would be entitled to something.

    What needs to happen sooner rather than later is for caps to be introduced.

    The very top of the list should be a cap on legal fees.

    The injuries board was set up specifically, specifically to try and cut out the legal system from insurance claims due to the length of time cases were taking to be heard and the costs associated yet around 90% of injuries board cases are involving people represented by solicitors.

    I guarantee that if the legal fees available for whiplash / soft tissue fees were capped at €500 per case we would see a massive drop in both the number of cases and the number of cases that make it to courts.

    Solicitors fees are in the region of 20% to 30% of the settlement amount so for the €20k claim in the OP their representative likely got €5000 to €6000 for it, talk about money for old rope!

    Unproveable injuries such as the one in the OP should be capped at a max of €5000.

    There should be penalties, actual enforceable penalties for those that are found to be making false claims.

    Minimum fines of €1000 to €5000 should be given to those that deliberately try and defraud an insurer.

    I'd love to see a system whereby people that report fraudsters get rewarded. Say 20% off their premium if the claim being made is found to fraudulent.

    Aside from the last thing these are relatively simple measures to implement and I have no doubt that they would save millions each year.

    Ultimately though the claims environment rests with the public, there is little accountability anymore and we live in a world where recklessness, stupidity and out right lying reaps massive rewards.

    Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the potential of receiving a nice fat compo cheque turns otherwise stand up people into absolute bastards.

    Really , The Law Society has welcomed the publication of the Report on the cost of Motor Insurance, which was issued on 10 January. The Working Group on the Cost of Motor Insurance stated that it “did not find that legal costs were a major contributory factor in the recent increase in premiums”.

    And , ...hopefully this claims database will provide that sort of information. It will then give us an idea as to where the money is going and why premiums have gone up so much, because I think what’s perfectly clear from the report is that the legal costs and compensation costs are not the cause of premium rate increases. The report is very clear on that.



    Don't know how you can be smug at all, imo Yis run a cartel in this country & there is no way you can justify the cost of motor insurance in this country, Its just another racket that folks here put up with.
    http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057703483


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    When will people just cop on an realise that the whole legal system is just setup to maximize the amount of work there is for the legal system and to price the little guy out of getting justice.

    Appeal appeal appeal, it's all billable hours, off to the high court, kaaaaachiiiing


    If a judge gives out a rubbish ruling in a lower court then can you afford to not appeal it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    When will people just cop on an realise that the whole legal system is just setup to maximize the amount of work there is for the legal system and to price the little guy out of getting justice.

    Appeal appeal appeal, it's all billable hours, off to the high court, kaaaaachiiiing


    If a judge gives out a rubbish ruling in a lower court then can you afford to not appeal it?

    This is one of the reasons the jurisdictional limits where increased. It's also why you see judges saying costs will be added if appeals are presented. They're trying to keep these cases in the DC and CC. Yet and as if to prove my point, insurance companies use this as a justification to INCREASE premiums. You couldn't make this **** up, it's hilarious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Triangle


    This isn't 20K for banging a knee. This is a legal case and a discussion on damages. It's nuanced but it's actually not difficult to understand, head over to Legal Discussions and pose a question people will go through negligence with you.

    I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context.
    A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions.
    The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves!

    When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment!
    If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems.

    Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,865 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    Triangle wrote: »
    I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context.
    A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions.
    The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves!

    When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment!
    If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems.

    Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.

    Further to this, I have to wonder when the strict legal angle of a case like this became so divorced from common sense?

    I can see - but not understand - why she may have been entitled to the award because of the way the law has been written and has evolved over the years - but as a layman looking on at the bare facts (and I also appreciate that we're only going on what the press has reported, which in itself is a whole other day's work!) I find it incredible that there is no element of "is this reasonable" applied to these judgements.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Triangle wrote: »
    I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context.
    A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions.
    The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves!

    When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment!
    If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems.

    Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.

    I have no idea what point you're making here.

    Negligence requires a rosbust process of proving each element. Once that happens the quantum is set by the proven injury. People commenting on the legal system in this thread haven't spent even 5 minutes trying to find out how it works. The see 20K and banged knee and fail to take anything else into consideration.

    There are reams and reams of research on the Egg shell skull rule and it's pro and cons this stuff isn't just accepted at face value.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    Further to this, I have to wonder when the strict legal angle of a case like this became so divorced from common sense?

    I can see - but not understand - why she may have been entitled to the award because of the way the law has been written and has evolved over the years - but as a layman looking on at the bare facts (and I also appreciate that we're only going on what the press has reported, which in itself is a whole other day's work!) I find it incredible that there is no element of "is this reasonable" applied to these judgements.

    There is, one of the elements of negligence is the public policy considerations.

    Until the full facts of the case are presented no one knows what really happened. The law is not divorced from common sense, common sense requires all the facts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭✭BPKS


    The awards made by some judges probably reflects these judges sentiments that solicitors, who lost their shirts through poor investments in property and shares during the boom, need to be helped back on their feet. Award €20k/€30k/€40k/€50k for a bit of whiplash, a bruised leg, a one inch scar on the thumb, falling between beds while jumping on the beds in a hotel and so on and so on and the judges know their mate will get 25% of the award.

    The judges know the solicitors/barristers, the solicitors/barristers know the judges. The often socialise together. Their children and grandchildren go the school together and play rugby together. They meet each other at the theatre. They are members of the same golf clubs

    I'll scratch your back old chum, see you in the 19th hole.


  • Registered Users Posts: 826 ✭✭✭Eoin247


    Could we not get like a megathread for all these compo posts? I really couldn't care less anymore

    Maybe some day you'll feel differently if you put all your money into a restaurant and get sued for 20k because somebody didn't realize that tables don't float in mid-air?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Eoin247 wrote: »
    Maybe some day you'll feel differently if you put all your money into a restaurant and get sued for 20k because somebody didn't realize that tables don't float in mid-air?

    Might be worth conducting a risk assessment and mitigating the risk then. I dunno I'm no expert but perhaps by moving the fcuking chairs a bit?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 733 ✭✭✭Tea-a-Maria


    BPKS wrote: »
    The awards made by some judges probably reflects these judges sentiments that solicitors, who lost their shirts through poor investments in property and shares during the boom, need to be helped back on their feet. Award €20k/€30k/€40k/€50k for a bit of whiplash, a bruised leg, a one inch scar on the thumb, falling between beds while jumping on the beds in a hotel and so on and so on and the judges know their mate will get 25% of the award.

    The judges know the solicitors/barristers, the solicitors/barristers know the judges. The often socialise together. Their children and grandchildren go the school together and play rugby together. They meet each other at the theatre. They are members of the same golf clubs

    I'll scratch your back old chum, see you in the 19th hole.

    Nice rant there. Just one small problem: The charging of fees as a percentage of the overall award is prohibited by the Solicitors Acts (excepting for debt recovery). Any action to recover the fees would be unenforceable.


Advertisement