I have known John Quail through blogging – his firm supports the free podcasts and the blog – and I am pleased to be able to give a flavour of the work his firm does with this blog post taken from his site.
I have known John Quail through blogging – his firm supports the free podcasts and the blog – and I am pleased to be able to give a flavour of the work his firm does with this blog post taken from his site.
Employment Tribunal fees – the past, present, and future
Chris Hadrill, Solicitor, Redmans Solicitors
As every employment lawyer is (or should be) aware, fees for using the Employment Tribunal became payable on 29 July 2013, with two fee “types” payable dependent upon the type of case made. The purported aim of Employment Tribunal fees was to ensure that Employment Tribunals were a “last resort” for solving employment disputes, deterring spurious claims, and reducing the reliance of the Employment Tribunal system on the Government for its funding. In this post we’ll take a look at the nature of the fees that are now payable in the Employment Tribunal, the contended effect of fees, the legal challenges to Employment Tribunal fees, criticism of the fees system, and potential reconsideration
Type and value of fees
The value of Employment Tribunal fees that Claimants are asked to pay are divided into two broad “types” – Type A and Type B. Type A claims are, broadly, concerned with unlawful deduction from wages, refusal to allow time off work, and breach of contract (among others). Type B claims are the more “weighty” claims, with claims involving detriment, discrimination, and dismissal included within this band. Claimants must pay the following fees, depending upon which band their claim falls in to:
|Fee type||Type A claims||Type B claims|
Fees are also payable upon the making of particular types of applications. The types of applications and the value of fees payable for such applications can be found within this useful document from the MoJ.
Contended effect of fees
Since the Ministry of Justice released the most recent comprehensive Employment Tribunal statistics, there has been a great deal of blog chatter regarding an apparent 79% fall in the number of Employment Tribunal claims being submitted. There is, in fact (as Gem Reucroft points out), a less marked (but only just) drop in the number of single claims being made, with this figure down by 63% as compared to the same period in 2012/13. Although it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the drop in the number of single and multiple claims being made in the Employment Tribunal, it is probable (and can’t be a coincidence) that Employment Tribunal fees are acting as a deterrent to both Claimants in making their claims, and employment solicitors in taking these claims on. It’s not difficult to see why: with unfair dismissal claims it’s not unusual for the maximum potential compensation that the Claimant is seeking to be between £5,000 and £10,000. If the Claimant doesn’t qualify for a partial or full remission of fees then they’re being asked to stump up between 12% and 24% of the amount they’re claiming before the hearing takes place. For people on low incomes and who are newcomers to employment law and the Employment Tribunal, this is a daunting prospect. Not only are you facing what you perceive to be a David vs Goliath situation, but you’re also being asked to pay a significant amount of money to do so.
The probable effect of the introduction of fees is not only to have deterred spurious and/or vexatious claims – it has also probably meant that a great deal of otherwise meritorious claims are not being brought because of the cost and hassle that Claimant face in bringing claims.
Legal challenges to fees
UNISON sought a judicial review of Employment Tribunal fees last year on a number of grounds, including that the fees were indirectly discriminatory, that the Government had not carried out a proper assessment of its Public Sector Equality Duty, and that the introduction of fees would make it virtually impossible to exercise an individual’s rights conferred by European Community law. The hearing took place at the High Court in October 2013 but was rejected by the High Court in February 2014 (reasons here). However, UNISON has this week announced that it is appealing the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, given the impact that fees appear to have had.
Criticism of fees
As well as the legal challenge to the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees, there has also been a great deal of criticism of the impact and effect of Employment Tribunal fees (most notably by Richard Dunstan, aka Wonky Policy Wonk).
Potential reconsideration of fees by the Government
Earlier this week, Jenny Willott, the Minister for Employment Relations, stated at the Westminster Employment Forum Keynote Seminar that the government does not want a system that “puts people off” exercising their rights in the Employment Tribunal and that the new Employment Tribunal fee system was “under review”. Hugh Collins, Professor of English Law at Oxford University, also weighed into the debate this week, stating that fees could be set as low as £50 to deter spurious Claimants.
Whether that is the case remains to be seen but at least there’s still a realisation of the problems that fees have caused and an ongoing debate.
Redmans Solicitors are employment solicitors based in Richmond, London
A Call to Arms: Why we Must Hold the Line
“The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark”
The ballot is a referendum on the merits of the deal and not on the leadership. We respect Nigel Lithman QC, Tony Cross QC and members of the CBA executive who have worked tirelessly on our behalf and in what they believed were our best interests. The CBA secured concessions but our demands were too limited in the wider context of the criminal justice system as a whole and it would be wrong to agree the terms of this deal.
The proposed deal and its aftermath have the potential to be the most positive development of the campaign so far. Holding a ballot and a full and open debate is a sign of strength and should be applauded.
We only need to look at the timing of the MoJ’s “ultimatum” and the tactics involved to understand just how effective the campaign had been. The Bar was operating a successful “no returns” policy, combined with days of action. VHCC cases (one of the strongest weapons in our armoury) were about to implode within weeks.
Solicitors had mobilised: supporting our days of action, placating our lay clients and the courts and voting to join with probation officers for two days of direct action, coinciding with Grayling’s birthday (April Fool’s Day, we kid you not). Regrettably, despite rank-and-file support from the Bar, the CBA elected not to support this action and instead to consult. In hindsight, this was a strategic disaster.
Grayling spotted the opportunity to exploit a potential division between the professions and this allowed him to use his infamous “divide and rule” tactics to great success.
Unfortunately, we fell into the trap laid for us by the MoJ and did what we had correctly criticised the Law Society for doing: deals behind closed doors. Grayling deigned to offer a 10-minute audience, during which the CBA was told the deal was (paraphrasing) a “one night only” offer and that discussion and the deal itself was embargoed preventing discussion. One only has to ask, why? The answer has been seen by all: the outpouring of rage, disappointment and dissent, “Not in our name”.
“Comments are free, but facts are sacred” C.P. Scott
For those asking why we want more than the temporary protection of our fees, let us be clear: the independent Bar will be destroyed by the proposed but temporarily deferred cuts. Moreover, justice will be destroyed. Why?
Solicitors face litigation fee cuts of 17.5%.
Profit margins for firms are between 4.8% and 8.9%.
8.75% of those cuts have been implemented.
Even if a firm survives the cuts, the MoJ plans to impose a “dual contract” system: a limited number of duty contracts and then own client contracts for the rest.
Duty contracts are too big for 93% of firms.
Those without a duty contract will not survive.
Larger firms who survive will have no choice but to employ in-house advocates and exploit a modest profit margin to offset losses elsewhere.
The deal is only a temporary stay of execution of our fees and in 15 months’ time, high street firms will have hit the wall (it is happening already). Our professional client base will have disappeared. The temporary protection of AGFS will not matter, because a 0% cut of what will be zero fees is zero. Grayling will have achieved his ultimate aim whilst maintaining a pretence of supporting the independent Bar.
Those who believe that this will lead to us being able to negotiate for an increase in our fees in 15 months are, with respect, naive in the extreme and ignore what has gone before. The MoJ will come back when we are in a significantly weaker position than we are now, and will issue the final death blow.
The BSB have issued a consultation where the proposals, if adopted, could mean that were the MoJ to impose unilateral cuts in the future, we would be unable to return such work notwithstanding that it may be economically unviable.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana
Proclaiming that the deal protects the junior Bar is short-sighted. There will be no junior Bar. We have been here before.
Carter was proclaimed as a big win for the junior Bar. Let us recall back in 2005 that Carter was a response to a call for action with the Bar threatening “strikes”. In fact the Bar continued to work and co-operated. To the surprise of the Government, Lord Carter found “a fragmented system that has not historically recognised a duty to deliver justice at an acceptable overall public cost”. The fees paid to the junior Bar at the time were seen as too low (the irony!). There was an increase in some fees to make up for the effects of inflation. The “victory” was short-lived: by 2009 the government decided to reduce the fees once again, flying in the face of Carter’s findings and an “astonishing volte-face”. In the face of opposition from the Bar, the government then threatened One Case One Fee (OCOF) and used it to secure further cuts in fees.
A feeling of deja vu:
Each government assumes that:
there is a gross over-supply of barristers; and
when “push comes to shove” the Bar backs down.
When the Bar is united, the government offers talks with a view to finding savings. The Bar then works extremely hard to identify savings, which are then absorbed back into the MoJ.
Any apparent concession by the MoJ is then swiftly removed by applying the threat of OCOF. One only needs to recall the current Attorney-General’s comments about OCOF at the recent Bar Council conference. The MoJ relies on the Bar agreeing anything to avoid that “doomsday scenario”.
“Divide and rule” is fostered by:
playing the Bar and solicitors against each other; and
playing the senior and junior Bar off against each other (either by Carter “redistributing” top end fees to the junior end or as in the current scenario where VHCC co-operation is part of the negotiation package) enabling the MoJ to say that they are protecting the junior Bar but that the “fat cats” are letting them down.
Under the current deal, nothing is on offer at all beyond a temporary stay of execution on fees and, yet again, an offer to discuss ways of saving money for the MoJ. It also represents a betrayal of those undertaking VHCC work who have shown real courage and strength of their convictions over recent months. If any review of VHCCs come to pass, the terms of the deal specify that it has to be within the current budget, meaning that the cuts of 30% are effectively set in stone. They are not on the table.
“Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer” Psalm 72:4
We are fighting to retain a justice system in which those accused by the state are properly represented, in which victims can engage and in which society can have confidence.
However, in exchange for a 15-month reprieve with a promise of nothing, we have abandoned our solicitor colleagues at a uniquely united moment in our history, abandoned our future clients to an uncertain but almost certainly unjust future, abandoned any hope of a diverse, vibrant and skilled profession and diluted our credibility in society.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me” Anon
The time to win once and for all is now. There is a perfect storm brewing over Petty France: prisons are rioting; private sector MoJ contracts are in tatters; probation officers are striking; for the first time in history, the Bar is striking; the judiciary overwhelmingly oppose these cuts; Treasury Counsel are in revolt; VHCC trials are on the brink of implosion and members of his own party are “railing against Grayling”. He is teetering and now is the time to press home our advantage.
We understand that the Northern Circuit is “not for turning” and is maintaining the “no returns” policy. Those on other circuits should respect their decision and show solidarity by refusing returns in such cases. We salute their courage and frankly, if they hold out, the deal is dead in the water.
The question posed in the ballot is not ideal. It ought to have been a straight question about whether members supported the deal or not. The CBA refuse to alter the question and so we ask members to see this for what it is: a referendum on the deal.
What can be achieved and what price failure? If you, like us, agree that so much more can be achieved, vote yes.
If you vote no we sign our own death warrants and succumb to a lingering death.
If you vote yes, at the very worst, we go down fighting. This is a time of unprecedented unity within the legal profession as a whole. The prize is a properly functioning and funded justice system with a sustainable future and it is within our grasp: it is our duty to fight for it.
Sam Parham, Garden Court Chambers 31st March 2014
Joanne Cecil, Garden Court Chambers
Why I voted Yes in the Ballot and No to the deal.
Tim Thomas, 1 Pump Court Chambers, firstname.lastname@example.org, @TimothyThomas79
The CBA leadership of recent vintage, from Max Hill QC, through Michael Turner QC and now Nigel Lithman QC have done a terrific job in the last few years. They have woken the sleeping giant of the Criminal Bar and given it a voice in the Criminal Justice system. They have of course proposed things such as Grad Fee + that I, as someone who is privileged enough to have 90% of his practice in VHCCs, fundamentally disagree with. But their leadership has been outstanding and proved to us all that we are more than the sum of our parts.
I voted Yes to the question on the ballot.
An 8.75% cuts to Solicitors fees came in on 20th March. Another 8.75% of cuts will come in next year, despite reports to the contrary, whether deliberately misleading or not. If the majority of the CBA membership vote No to the measure and yes to the deal it does not take a genius to see that the one area that Solicitors must look to offset the catastrophic cuts that will have wiped out their very slim profit margins is AGFS and keeping Crown Court briefs in-house. You cannot blame them for that and as small and medium business owners they would be mad not to. As others have said if we vote No on this ballot measure it is a rerun of the Carter reforms, which we know resulted in a loss of work for the Bar to solicitor-advocates and HCAs such that their share of AGFS is now some 30%. Voting No to the ballot question (and yes to the deal) will be the death of the junior bar.
It is really that straightforward.
We have seen unprecedented unity across the CJS to oppose this Government’s barmy approach. We have had success with all the things we as a Criminal Bar have initiated: days of action getting publicity, VHCCs returned (and not taken up by others) and the No Returns policy making Judiciary and MoJ sit up and take notice. Solicitors have supported us with all these. The success of this approach is that having been put on the naughty step by the MoJ for much of the previous year our leaders are now regular guests at Petty France. The MoJ approached us to negotiate last week – not the other way round. The time limited deal offered last week is not, following another meeting Our Leaders were invited to on 3rd April, apparently quite so time limited. I am sure that I do not need to spell out the implications of this to you.
We can and must do more for all CJS professionals.
A No vote in the ballot is to reject the actions of counsel who took the brave decision to return their VHCCs briefs last year when the 30% cuts were confirmed not knowing whether the rest of the Bar would support them. A No vote rejects the part those who returned VHCCs (and those who have had cases contracted since December who have declined to sign) in getting the MoJ to approach the CBA to negotiate.
Forgive me for personalising this but I was one who returned a VHCC and I did so as the sole breadwinner in my household and with two sons under four. Even though VHCCs are 90% of my practice, enough was enough. I have not worked for 4 months but it remains the right decision. There is no commitment by the MoJ to negotiate on VHCCs other than ‘within the existing financial envelope’ ie they have no intention of reversing the cuts with this deal. VHCCs are not, as some have tried to argue, a separate issue. It may have been a quirk of timing that the return of VHCC briefs has spearheaded the CBA campaign to oppose the MoJ’s cuts but spearheaded it has. Operation Cotton, the VHCC I returned, with 5 defendants without counsel and 101,000 pages of served evidence, is due to begin on 28th April.
I do not think it is an accident there have been two meetings with the MoJ in the last eight days.
The return of VHCCs and the days of action have had an impact. The No Returns policy was making huge waves and if re-initiated will keep doing so. Combined with the radical and brave decision by the LCCSA and CLSA to have its members decline to apply for Legal Aid in the Crown Court from 7th April I believe that we will be successful. It may be painful – it has already has been so for VHCC practitioners and the Junior Bar with No Returns. But we have a once in a life time opportunity here to safeguard the system that we have spent our professional lives supporting, Criminal Justice. We must continue to fight the cuts and unite more closely with our Solicitor colleagues.
Solicitors and Barristers cannot be simply replaced by Green Goddesses.
A Yes vote is a vote for 100% of the Criminal Bar and 100% of the Criminal Justice System.
Tim Thomas, 1 Pump Court Chambers, email@example.com, @TimothyThomas79
My spinal injury continues to repair…so…back to regular blogging and podcasting soon. In fact – I am doing a podcast with John Cooper QC on legal aid soon and this will be up on the blog over the weekend.
East Park Communications are a niche legal publishing house who specialise in the production of periodical newsletters for local Law Societies. The service we provide is free of charge and we will only approach relevant, reputable organisations to advertise their services in the journals.
The newsletters inform the solicitors in the respective regions of all the events that are happening within the forthcoming months, plus news of what’s been happening in the local area.
Local Law Societies offer a wide range services to their members which include annual programmes of training courses, networking, a large number of social events throughout the tear and a printed copy of the society magazine is posted to them.
Understanding the Litigation Costs Reforms
The much awaited recent reforms to UK legal costs have caused both unease and a great deal of interest among industry professions. On April 1st 2013, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) became law, after Lord Justice Jackson’s review and report of 2010.
Despite this, many people within the legal community are unaware of the changes that have been made.
In this article, we look at the opinions and thoughts of legal professionals about the reforms to determine what they mean for the industry.
One of the biggest reforms is the introduction of damage-based agreements, which are also known as DBAs. In a damage-based agreement, clients pay a percentage of the damages they’re awarded to their lawyer.
In exchange for this, their lawyer takes on the risk of being withheld payment if the case is not successful. As the fee depends on the damages awarded in the case, many legal experts believe that commercial law firms will avoid these cases due to a lack of commercial viability.
There also remains a great deal of confusion and concern regarding damage-based agreements. Counsel’s fees, disbursements and value-added tax, and protection for consumers from mis-selling remain important topics of discussion.
Arguably the most popular aspect of the reforms is the change to budgeting that is now in effect. Solicitors are now required to budget overall costs at the beginning of their cases and update their budgets as the trial progresses.
This reform ensures that clients aren’t subject to unpredictably high legal bills at the conclusion of their cases.
In the event that the costs of a case aren’t proportionate to the claim being made, the client can enjoy security as the claim can be declared unviable. Because of the latest disclosure rules, clients also enjoy greater transparency in case budgeting.
Over the last five years, the number of third party funding companies operating in the UK has increased substantially. Clients now have a great deal of choice when it comes to selecting suitable third party funders for their cases.
The new reforms reiterate an important factor in selecting a third party funder: that solicitors and clients ensure funders carefully weigh the risks and benefits of taking on your case before they accept it and create a budget.
There remains a great deal of discussion in the legal community about the nature of the reforms and their potential benefits. Some believe that they are an opportunity for both clients and solicitors; others that they’re an obstruction.
While no one can say for certain until the rules have been implanted and observed in practice, it can be said that clients will enjoy a greater degree of transparency in budgeting for their cases.
This increased focus on better budgeting, more transparency and an improved focus on disclosure could, in many ways, be exactly what the legal industry needs over the next year.
This article was written on behalf of Vannin Capital. Visit their website to learn more about corporate litigation.
Divorce: How to make it amicable
When two married people decide that they no longer wish to live together, divorce often follows. However, when children are involved, it’s important to ensure the divorce is as amicable as possible to maintain the emotional wellbeing of everyone involved.
What is an amicable divorce?
An amicable divorce is settled outside of the courtroom in the hopes that after the proceedings the couple in question will maintain a courteous relationship. Despite settling out of court, it’s still important to invest in the services of a lawyer in order to draw up formal documents detailing things like housing arrangements, financial support, living arrangements of the children, etc.
The benefits of an amicable divorce
Aside it being a more affordable option, such a divorce will often result in a better relationship for all. Avoiding court may also be healthier for the wellbeing of the entire family as issues over the living arrangements of children can create stress for everyone involved.
You should also bear in mind that if either parent emanates hurtful behaviour towards one and other then this could affect the long-term development and emotional wellbeing of the children. A healthy, friendly relationship between parents is of vital importance.
Money and assets
Apart from the emotional turmoil that comes with the prospect of divorce, there’s also the dividing of finances to consider. In some cases, the family home may have to be put on the market in order to divide the assets equally.
Discussions over property and financial requirements can often create the most discord. These issues can be talked through rationally with the aid of a therapist or mediator.
Custody of children
One of the most important discussions after divorce is deciding who gets the custody of the children. If international residence is involved, this discussion can become even more complex.
It’s always important to talk to your children at this point and consider where they are in their lives. An amicable divorce allows for open discussion instead of arguments to discuss what is best for them. Pulling them out of school in the height of exam season isn’t going to help them excel in their studies and realising that their needs come first is of utmost importance.
If the divorce proceedings are kept amicable, custody is often agreed on mutual terms, which means the best interests of the children are given priority.
Recovering well from the spinal injury. Back to blogging daily this coming week…..I have missed it.
Building your Online Law Presence
Starting out in the law business and want to get ahead of your competitors? Read on to find out how to build a strong online presence without breaking the bank.
Before you rush into the online world all guns blazing, take a look at what your competitors are doing. Read their onsite copy, check out their social presence and analyse what is and isn’t working for them. Go beyond this, make a list of the terminology competitors use to speak to their audience and see if you can identify a gap in the market to stand out from the crowd.
Tone of voice is key to developing a strong online presence and used correctly can become the bread and butter of your marketing. Make sure that whoever is in charge of the writing has a strong flair for the written word because copywriters are essentially invisible salespeople. Food for thought.
Once you’ve figured out exactly what your USP is, it’s time to decide on a target market. This will be easy if you are already doing regular business as you can create personas based on your current demographic. Compile persona’s based on age, occupation, budget, goals and trusted sources.
If you don’t have an existing customer base yet, use your competitors as a jumping off point to identify your target market. The more specific your target market is, the more targeted your marketing needs to be. Conversely, if your service appeals to a large variety of people, emulate this in your marketing.
It’s all very well claiming that your law firm is the cat’s pyjamas, but without a regularly updated onsite blog to go alongside your web page copy, it’s going to be pretty hard to prove it. Onsite blogs are the place where you can brag about that award show you got invited to, showcase exceptional client feedback or even put together advice pieces to prove that you really do know what you’re talking about.
The truth is, any business worth their salt needs an online blog to strengthen brand identity, gain the trust of potential clients and rank favourably in search engine results. Come up with a content strategy and aim to update your blog at least once a week.
It’s a common myth that all social media is good social media – there’s no point in creating an Instagram account – which is targeted at 16-25 year olds – if you specialise in divorce settlements. Twitter is a strong social media choice for the law industry as it doesn’t require any flashy images or videos, just a terrific command of the English language.
The basic rules of Twitter are to be generous with other people’s content, follow your target market, develop a tone of voice, be consistent with content and optimise your tweets for search. Follow these 5 golden rules and you won’t go far wrong.
Strategy is important. Just as you wouldn’t run before you could walk, be sure to map out exactly where you want to be in 6 months’ time and exactly how you’re going to get there. Don’t attempt to wing it.
Legal PR is tricky to get right, but the more you prepare, the more likely you are to succeed. Be realistic in your expectations, don’t expect to be featured on the front page of Google or get a shout out from The Guardian in the initial months. From establishing a presence on social media to gaining blog traffic, remember Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Author Note: Byfield Consultancy are a group of established reputation management consultants situated in London. Specialising in legal PR and media skills training, this well-respected PR firm work behind the scenes to raise the profile of businesses using a variety of innovative techniques. For more information or to make an enquiry call 0207 092 3999.
The Employers Guide – Avoiding Workplace Discrimination
An employer’s duty of care to its employees includes ensuring that they aren’t discriminated against on the basis of protected human characteristics. Whether it’s related to career advancement, selection for redundancy or day to day communication, discrimination in the workplace is against the law, and it could result in you or your company being taken to an employment tribunal.
Unfortunately, too many businesses have discriminatory practices and cultures in place without management even realising it, and it makes them susceptible to potentially costly claims from disgruntled employees. By taking some specific steps to combat discrimination in your organisation, as well as seeking employment law advice, you can minimise the risk of action being taken against you and your company.
How to avoid an employment tribunal claim
As an employer, you can mount a defence against alleged discrimination by ensuring you have taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent discrimination in the workplace. There are a number of ways you can fulfil that obligation.
Of course, you may already have an equal opportunities policy in a company handbook, but that alone may not be considered by a tribunal judge as having taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent discrimination. You must communicate the policy on a regular basis and update it as required.
Understanding the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 defined certain human characteristics as having legal protection against discrimination from employers and employers. They are:
The Equality Act also provides protection from discrimination for people who are contemplating, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment.
Defending a claim of discrimination at a tribunal
If you and your legal representatives believe that a claim for discrimination made against your company has credence, it may be worth negotiating a settlement before the case reaches a tribunal. Not only will this course of action avoid many of the associated legal costs, it will stop your company’s good name being sullied in the public domain.
Your employment lawyers may ask for a pre-hearing review of the case, particularly if they believe the claim to be spurious. Your former employee may be warned that their case stands little chance of success, and they may also be asked to provide a large deposit – up to £1,000 – in order to demonstrate their commitment to the process. The complainant must also pay an upfront registration fee – something designed to stop spurious claims from getting to employment tribunals. Your legal representatives can now, in certain circumstances, seek legal costs where a failed claim is deemed unreasonable or misconceived.
Employment law is there to provide protection from unscrupulous employers, but there are also provisions for defending unwarranted discrimination claims from disgruntled employees. If you put a stringent and comprehensive anti-discrimination policy in place, and seek employment law advice from experts, you can protect your company from the costs and bad press associated with employment tribunals.
And I will enjoy having a good look at what the lawyers and Lord Chancellor are/is up to!
Important Information to Know Before You Make a Road Traffic Claim
There are now more people on British roads than ever before. Accidents are inevitable, human error is a part of life, but ultimately the results can be serious. Especially accidents involving traffic collisions at high speed, the consequences can be severe for all involved.
Despite having some of the safest roads in Europe, nearly 200,000 people get into accidents every single year. Some people end up with lasting health issues caused by the negligence of a total stranger. When traveling on the motorways it is easy to see how this can happen; one mistake can easily cause a collision with a fellow road user.
After being involved in a serious crash, injured people can often feel alone and overlooked. It is a horrible situation to be put in. Especially when the accident was not your fault, or if there were extraneous circumstances, the life altering experience can be hard to bear.
The best option in this situation is to hire a reputable compensation firm to process your claim and to make sure that you get the most out the problem.
Seek free expert advice to ensure that you receive a fair amount of money for the accident. Often these professionals offer extensive information available to people that are in this situation and can advise on the best option for you.
Seek good advice
If you play your cards right with the correct insurance firm, after an accident you could definitely be in with a good chance of winning the claim. It is essential to be aware of your policy, because that is the ironclad contract that has been made between you and the insurance company. Be aware of any deductibles and excess fees; always read the small print.
After an accident you need to make sure the insurers that holds your policy are contacted as soon as possible. Keep duplicates of everything, receipts, contact telephone numbers and copies of your contract are all important information that may need to be presented in order to claim.
Why was my car written off?
If your vehicle’s repairs add up to more than the value of the car, then it is likely that your insurance company will just write it off. This is seen as a “total loss” from the insurance company’s point of view and it could affect the cost of your future insurance access.
This action is done by your insurer because it is just not economical or viable to repair the damage that has been sustained to the car.
The insurance company must always get full permission of the owner before they proceed with a write off. After that stage, there are a number of things that will happen to the vehicle afterwards. It could be crushed, stripped or sold off for spare parts and scrap metal.
Are you interested in finding out about a potential accident that you have been involved in? Use our Road Traffic Accident Calculator at Accident Compensation 4 UK and find out how much you could claim in just thirty seconds.
The Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain knows a thing or two about the law. Whilst other Minster’s were gaily ‘troughing’ to the fury of tax payers forced to fund their excesses, he managed to skate elegantly round the rules and prove that having a constituency home within 17 miles of parliament, not to mention a couple of buy-to-let apartments, was no reason for the tax payer not to legitimately fund yet another home in Pimlico for those essential late nights at the bar.
Not that sort of bar, for Chris Grayling – it is he – is not a barrister, nor a solicitor; heavens, nor even took a law degree. He was a BBC producer with a mediocre history degree. The ideal qualification to sit in judgment on our historic judicial system?
Do, please, read the rest of this excellent article by Anna Raccoon