Lets Help More People reclaim their charges!!!

[podgydad]

Yet you are remarkably reluctant to put him (her?) straight with any kind of fact. Your response is the written equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and running away shouting "lalalalala"

 

No but I'm not a lawyer so I don't want to speak out of ignorance on the issue. However Champerty is nowhere near as clear cut as you make out, its a very complicated area of law. I am awaiting a call back from my solicitor on the matter but it certainly isn't something he brought up when we asked him to review our business for this kind of pitfall.

 

As an aside, if this kind of action is champertous please explain Claimsdirect and the endowment misselling companies.

[bottomburp]

deleted

[podgydad]

A few years ago it was decided that the LSC (Legal Aid) would not fund personal injury claims and that solicitors could undertake this work on a contingency basis - hence ClaimsDirect. This seems to be the only area where champerty is allowed.

 

Champerty is no longer an offence, however contracts can still be found to be chapertous. As I've said the law isn't at all clear on this and each case appears to be judged on its individual merits. I'll add more when I have an informed opinion. Having said that, why does the compensations Act seek to regulate claims management companies if they are deemed to be champertous?

[meagain]

Probably to clamp down on extortion (e.g. £2600 to an unqualified layman for work a qualified solicitor would charge around £200 for, if that). Remember that the personal injury solicitors are just that - solicitors.

[bottomburp]

deleted

[podgydad]

Definitions and interpretation / champerty and maintenance:

Criminal Law Act 1967 s.13

 

"A person is guilty of maintenance if he supports litigation in which he has no legitimate concern without just cause or excuse": see Chitty on Contracts (28th edition (1999) volume 1, paragraph 17-050).

 

 

Champerty "occurs when the person maintaining another stipulates for a share of the proceeds of the action or suit": (see paragrgaph 17-054). The Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished both the offences and the torts of champerty and maintenance but expressly preserved the invalidity of champertous agreements. Champerty therefore still survives as a rule of public policy capable of rendering a contract unenforceable if the champerty is not justifiable. Because the question of whether a champertous agreement can be justified is a question of public policy, the courts keep the legal position under review as public policy changes."

 

"If the Champerty is not justifiable " So some champerty is justifiable?

 

Like I say, I doubt anyone on here is an expert at this, the difference is that I don't pretend to be an expert on it. When I don't know something I will hold up my hands and admit it, but I will then go away and find out about it. The problem with people like Meagain is that they are know it all's and wade in here bandying the term around when they only have a superficial knowledge of the subject themselves.

[barracad]

As an aside, if this kind of action is champertous please explain Claimsdirect and the endowment misselling companies.

 

The champertous part, in my opinion, is taking a cut of the winnings. Companies like Claims Direct who work using a CFA basis handle the claim and then claim their costs from the other side, so the person gets 100% of the value of their claim - they wouldn't take an amount out of the "winnings" as you are doing. This is why these companies won't touch personal injury claims under £1,000 - not because they are low value, but because a claim under £1,000 would be handled in Small Claims so they wouldn't be able to claim costs.

[Mindzai]

"If the Champerty is not justifiable " So some champerty is justifiable?

 

Like I say, I doubt anyone on here is an expert at this, the difference is that I don't pretend to be an expert on it. When I don't know something I will hold up my hands and admit it, but I will then go away and find out about it. The problem with people like Meagain is that they are know it all's and wade in here bandying the term around when they only have a superficial knowledge of the subject themselves.

 

But they're not charging extortionate fees for a 'service' where they should be expected to know these things.

[podgydad]

But they're not charging extortionate fees for a 'service' where they should be expected to know these things.

 

I've already stated that I don't think it applies.

 

Is an estate agent charging extortionate fees when he charges a percentage? After all, they don't do much do they?

 

As I've stated several times, our clients are delighted with our service. I wouldn't have a problem paying someone on a percentage basis if I couldn't be bothered doing it myself, regardless of what that amount was at the end of the claim. As long as I got back what I wanted at the end of it. If I wanted £5k of charges back and I got £6k back, I really don't care what the other guy gets.

[barracad]

Also, when you speak to your solicitor in more detail about champerty, you may want to ask him about The Compensation (Regulated Claims Management Service) Order 2006

[tamadus]

A few years ago it was decided that the LSC (Legal Aid) would not fund personal injury claims and that solicitors could undertake this work on a contingency basis - hence ClaimsDirect. This seems to be the only area where champerty is allowed.

 

Yep and look where it got the people behind claims direct.

[podgydad]

Also, when you speak to your solicitor in more detail about champerty, you may want to ask him about The Compensation (Regulated Claims Management Service) Order 2006

 

Keep up, we've already discussed that ;-)

[Guest ian cognito]

I think this is one you're not gonna be claiming your 20% on and you should go back to your earlier post that said you were giving up.

[barracad]

Keep up, we've already discussed that ;-)

 

I have no intention of reading through the whole of this thread. I was merely offering you some helpful advice. Take it or leave it.

[podgydad]

I think this is one you're not gonna be claiming your 20% on and you should go back to your earlier post that said you were giving up.

 

Thats one of my faults Jan, I tend to enjoy a good argument. I can't let things lie.

 

However I'm not actually trying to win the argument here, I know I'm not going to do that. Its just good to exchange opinions with people though, to consider others points of view, it tends to give you broader more balanced opinions. I appreciate Champerty being brought to my attention, I of course would not want to do anything illegal and will take professional advice on the matter.

[zootscoot]

No but I'm not a lawyer so I don't want to speak out of ignorance on the issue. However Champerty is nowhere near as clear cut as you make out, its a very complicated area of law. I am awaiting a call back from my solicitor on the matter

 

Shouldn't you have taken this advice before starting your business?

[podgydad]

I have no intention of reading through the whole of this thread. I was merely offering you some helpful advice. Take it or leave it.

 

Cheers, appreciated.

[podgydad]

Shouldn't you have taken this advice before starting your business?

 

I thought I'd already said that I had and it wasn't flagged as an issue.

[PhantomReclaimer]

....should soon put pay to the self-styled businessmen so keen to assist us!

 

Unless they are authorised to do so under the act.

 

Thi looks like just another toothless system of regulation on the way if you ask me.

 

P.

[Isiris]

Just looked at the act myself and it does look like alot of if buts and maybes.

 

I do however, see no problem with people charging for this service if there is a market place for it

[podgydad]

Well after speaking to my solicitor I not worried about Champerty at all. Its more about malicious litigation that is not in the public good. Just out of interest and for a second opinion I also asked a friend who has recently finished studying law about it, had never even heard of it and had to dig through his law books to find out anything about it. He also had a word with several colleagues who also thought it didn't apply at all in this case. The key phrase is 'in the public good'.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Well after speaking to my solicitor I not worried about Champerty at all.

 

The Oxford Dictionary of Law days;

 

Maintenance and Champerty. The promotion or support of litigation by a third party who has no legitimate interest in the proceedinsgs (Maintenance) and the support of litigation by a a third party in return for a share of the proceeds (Champerty, an aggravated form of maintenance). The old crimes and torts of maintenance and champerty were abolished by statute in 1967 but a champertous agreement may still be treated as contrary to public policy and so unlawful. An agreement by a lawyer to receive payment in the form of a share of the clients damages (if successful) is regarded as champertous in England, but a modified form of "no win, no fee" agreement was legalized by the Courts and Legal Sevices Act 1990, although it is authorized only for certain categories of cases.

 

P.