The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

I wouldn't call it spam, Nids. We are generally all here for the same reason; debt issues. This new bill has the potential to affect EVERY one of your users.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

I wouldn't call it spam, Nids. We are generally all here for the same reason; debt issues. This new bill has the potential to affect EVERY one of your users.

Sending an unsolicited email is spam and I am dead against it in case they whitelist us - horrified look on Niddy's face.

However I will make an exception, and also send it to the list of emails I *acquired* the other month which has just over 500,000 UK email addresses - some of those must be in debt eh?

[diddlydee]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

No, spam is sending messages indiscriminately.... this is in OUR interests to know the facts and have the opportunity to fight for OUR rights.

However, your "acquired" email addresses could be seen as slightly more "chopped meat" orientated

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Can we perhaps adapt that letter Paul has posted above to send to our own MP, Perhaps niddy or paul could make that letter a generic one.

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Sadly after the Carey debacle, the ATE providers pulled out of the CCA market.

We had every company you can think of quote for Kotecha, a case that was arguably the strongest case you could run, and yet none of them would insure it.

I do not know of one ATE insurer who will cover CCA cases

[welshperson3]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Is this an infringement of ones human rights ?

Article 6: Right to a fair trial
(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights -
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

How about something like this? We could all send one.....?

Let me know.....

Dear MP Name,

I am a user of an internet consumer-debt forum and collectively we assist those in debt, by helping to teach them their rights and to help them to regain some control, sanity and wellbeing amidst their horrific debt problems.

My reason for writing today is due to the Jackson Reforms on Conditional Fee Agreements.

As I have stated, I partake on a self-help debt forum and part of this is to refer people to a firm of solicitors, Watsons LLP, who deal exclusively with consumer credit related debt; i.e. they offer support to people in debt through no fault of their own where their statutory rights have been infringed by creditors who step outside of the law, namely but not limited to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended).

The users of our forum whom we refer for representation are always in financial difficulty; they cannot obtain legal aid due to their income in most cases and therefore are left with no legal recourse unless they pay large legal fees. The firm we refer our fellow debtors to (Watsons) have a philosophy which is to offer representation to people on a no win no fee basis. This provides them with the legal help they are entitled to, without the costs burden of having to pay large cash sums as they progress the case, with the full bill usually being payable at the end of the case if and only if they win.

A case example would be the recent landmark ruling in Harrison vs Link Financial Limited where our chosen solicitors obtained justice for Mr Harrison, his case is found here http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Watsons represented Mr Harrison on a no win no fee agreement and it should be noted that Mr Harrison would not have been able to take this case to the Court and obtain justice if he had not been placed on a CFA. This case took over two years worth of work to get to trial and large amounts of time involved. Mr Harrisons case was one of the few where Watsons represented him as Claimant; most people who we refer to Watsons face losing their homes and cannot afford legal help. Should income really bar you from defending yourself? We say no, it most definitely should not.

Watsons have represented many many families who have been unfairly treated and whom could not have afforded their help unless they offered the Conditional Fee Agreement. If necessary I am prepared to send you several of the Court rulings Watsons have had against the banks and debt purchase industry. We could present hundreds of these judgments to you showing that we are all using the law as parliament intended - to protect the consumer.

I am concerned to note that the Jackson reforms looks to do away with recoverability of the success fee under a CFA. Watsons, like many others would lose this success fee if the reforms are passed. When Watsons (and others) offer no win no fee they are taking a risk that they could lose ergo they should be entitled to a success fee to reflect that risk, plus under CFA they would not get paid until the end of a case so technically the success fee reflects the risks they take helping those who need it.

I understand the Jackson reforms target Claimant cases, such as Personal Injury cases, and i quote from a press release which says

CFA success fees will cease to be recoverable from an opponent and, in certain cases like personal injury, will be subject to a maximum percentage of damages, which will probably be set at 25 per cent. Similarly, ATE insurance premiums will not be recoverable from an opponent, apart from in certain clinical negligence actions, where premiums relating to insurance taken out to cover the costs of instructing an expert will remain recoverable. The irrecoverability provisions will not apply to CFAs entered into or ATE policies taken out before the legislation comes into force.

It seems unfair that someone who is sued due to a debt, employs the statutory protections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to defend themselves and manages to win his case, then only to face having to pay a success fee to their solicitor because they cannot recover it from the opponent. That is not justice at all - if they cannot use the CFA to assist people with their cases then they will be left without any help whatsoever and will be left vulnerable to some of the most dangerous predators out there right now - the banks.

We can provide thousands of horror stories where peoples rights have been brushed aside and it seems wrong, if our dedicated solicitors are no longer able to offer a CFA and there is no legal aid available. This would also mean that you will have a David vs Goliath situation with banks having huge legal teams and funding to pay vs the man on the street on his own faced with a daunting court battle to protect his home.

Lets not forget the banks who are the claimants in these cases have huge resources, we have numerous users who would have lost their homes if this small firm of solicitors (Watsons) had not took their cases on a 'no win no fee' and recovered the costs of defending the claims from the banks.

If the Jackson reforms go through unchallenged, then whilst we can agree that PI cases are open to abuse and where someone recovers large damages then they should pay for their legal representation, I must also state that the people most decent solicitors represent are fighting for their very existence and their homes. When they win they dont recover anything at all, they get no damages, they save their homes but do not profit. It is these people who would be hurt by the reforms in the Jackson report.

I would be grateful if you could put my concerns to parliament when this bill is being debated as i feel these are legitimate points.

Kind Regards


Your name
allaboutFORUMS

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Is this an infringement of ones human rights?

I'm not sure civil law is covered, doesn't that HR bumph just cover criminal law etc?

Paul will know but I thought you had 'no' rights, as such, when dealing with legal claims regards debt (ie civil matter)...?

[welshperson3]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

From the first line


(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge


Also goes against civil procedures rules

The overriding objective

1.1

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

From the first line


(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge

civil rights is not civil, common or contract law mate

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

Now you've added that - I dunno! See what Paul says

Cheers though - interesting stuff

[welshperson3]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights such as the freedom from slavery and forced labour, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to defend one's self, the right to own and bear arms, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, it is important to note the distinctions between positive rights and negative rights.
Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

Excellent template niddy ill send it to my MP now.

[Paul.]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

id hold the reference to referals off there, cos they may see it as more commercial interest than that of the consumer.

Also, i can see a McLibel style case coming out of this, google Morris & Steel vs United Kingdom and you will see what i mean.

People will not be able to obtain legal advice if these reforms go through if they cannot obtain legal aid, as most firms will not be running CFAs any more

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Jackson reforms to Civil Litigation funding. NO MORE NO WIN NO FEE!!

OK done and sent my letter below name and address removed of course.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

David Willetts MP
Havant

Wednesday 28 December 2011



Dear David Willetts,

I am a user of an internet consumer-debt forum and collectively we assist those in debt, by helping to teach them their rights and to help them to regain some control, sanity and well-being amidst their horrific debt problems.

My reason for writing today is due to the Jackson Reforms on Conditional Fee Agreements.

As I have stated, I partake on a self-help debt forum and part of this is to refer people to a firm of solicitors, Watsons LLP, who deal exclusively with consumer credit related debt; i.e. they offer support to people in debt through no fault of their own where their statutory rights have been infringed by creditors who step outside of the law, namely but not limited to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended).

The users of our forum whom we refer for representation are always in financial difficulty; they cannot obtain legal aid due to their income in most cases and therefore are left with no legal recourse unless they pay large legal fees. The firm we refer our fellow debtors to (Watsons) have a philosophy which is to offer representation to people on a no win no fee basis. This provides them with the legal help they are entitled to, without the costs burden of having to pay large cash sums as they progress the case, with the full bill usually being payable at the end of the case if and only if they win.

A case example would be the recent landmark ruling in Harrison vs Link Financial Limited where our chosen solicitors obtained justice for Mr Harrison, his case is found here http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Watsons represented Mr Harrison on a no win no fee agreement and it should be noted that Mr Harrison would not have been able to take this case to the Court and obtain justice if he had not been placed on a CFA. This case took over two years worth of work to get to trial and large amounts of time involved. Mr Harrisons case was one of the few where Watsons represented him as Claimant; most people who we refer to Watsons face losing their homes and cannot afford legal help. Should income really bar you from defending yourself? We say no, it most definitely should not.

Watsons have represented many many families who have been unfairly treated and whom could not have afforded their help unless they offered the Conditional Fee Agreement. If necessary I am prepared to send you several of the Court rulings Watsons have had against the banks and debt purchase industry. We could present hundreds of these judgments to you showing that we are all using the law as parliament intended - to protect the consumer.

I am concerned to note that the Jackson reforms looks to do away with recoverability of the success fee under a CFA. Watsons, like many others would lose this success fee if the reforms are passed. When Watsons (and others) offer no win no fee they are taking a risk that they could lose ergo they should be entitled to a success fee to reflect that risk, plus under CFA they would not get paid until the end of a case so technically the success fee reflects the risks they take helping those who need it.

I understand the Jackson reforms target Claimant cases, such as Personal Injury cases, and i quote from a press release which says

"CFA success fees will cease to be recoverable from an opponent and, in certain cases like personal injury, will be subject to a maximum percentage of damages, which will probably be set at 25 per cent. Similarly, ATE insurance premiums will not be recoverable from an opponent, apart from in certain clinical negligence actions, where premiums relating to insurance taken out to cover the costs of instructing an expert will remain recoverable. The irrecoverably provisions will not apply to CFAs entered into or ATE policies taken out before the legislation comes into force".

It seems unfair that someone who is sued due to a debt, employs the statutory protections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to defend themselves and manages to win his case, then only to face having to pay a success fee to their solicitor because they cannot recover it from the opponent. That is not justice at all - if they cannot use the CFA to assist people with their cases then they will be left without any help whatsoever and will be left vulnerable to some of the most dangerous predators out there right now - the banks.

We can provide thousands of horror stories where peoples rights have been brushed aside and it seems wrong, if our dedicated solicitors are no longer able to offer a CFA and there is no legal aid available. This would also mean that you will have a David vs Goliath situation with banks having huge legal teams and funding to pay vs the man on the street on his own faced with a daunting court battle to protect his home.

Lets not forget the banks who are the claimants in these cases have huge resources, we have numerous users who would have lost their homes if this small firm of solicitors (Watsons) had not took their cases on a 'no win no fee' and recovered the costs of defending the claims from the banks.

If the Jackson reforms go through unchallenged, then whilst we can agree that PersonalInjury cases are open to abuse and where someone recovers large damages then they should pay for their legal representation, I must also state that the people most decent solicitors represent are fighting for their very existence and their homes. When they win they don't recover anything at all, they get no damages, they save their homes but do not profit. It is these people who would be hurt by the reforms in the Jackson report.

I would be grateful if you could put my concerns to parliament when this bill is being debated as i feel these are legitimate points.

Kind Regards



Local Moderator
allaboutFORUMS