A bit of how's your father...

Congratulations night club tycoon Peter Stringfellow - a dad again at the age of 72.

 

Kids are the very best thing to have in life, no doubt about it. I also subscribe to the view that by and large you can't get enough of a good thing.

 

But I'm not inclined to have more now - and I'm 20 years younger than the colourful son of Sheffield. It doesn't seem to me a responsible thing to do.

 

A couple of years ago - when my (also younger) wife was toying with ideas of a fourth - I looked at it from the point of view that I'd be eligible for state pension by the time my child was mid-teens and at the height of awareness, fitness etc.

 

I'm giving away no secrets but plainly 'er indoors is not 40 years my junior. At 32 or thereabouts, Bella Stringfellow need have no worries about chasing toddlers in her bathchair.

 

But what about her old man? Will he - at 88 years old - be on any level with his 16 year old daughter?

Court in possession

We had a letter from a London county court this week in response to a routine request.

Anyone who has ever seen a notice of issue within the accelerated possession procedure knows that if the defendant doesn’t file a defence then you can make a simple request for the court to make a possession order. 

It’s right to say that the request should then be referred to a judge to decide whether or not to make an order without a hearing, but the procedure and entitlement is clear enough.

The main component of the letter we received is as follows:-

         ‘I write to advise you that your application was referred to the district judge on the 10 June 2013.  Once the matter has been referred to the judge there is no target time for the judge to process these matters, the judge will review these files as soon as they are able, bearing in mind that they must deal with these matters in addition to their normal court lists.  You will be notified of the outcome of this referral once we have the file back.’

The letter might just as well have read:-

          ‘Your very routine request for an order by default has been referred to one of our judges.  They’re all very busy dealing with cases that have been listed for a hearing so forget all that nonsense in the Civil Procedure Rules about dealing economically and on paper wherever possible.

The judge who will be dealing with this will be doing it in his or her spare time so it will be done when it gets done and don’t bother to pester us to tell you when your client can recover possession of his property from the tenant who isn’t paying him anything.  Just be grateful that anybody is prepared even to think about spending time to look at this.’

“No target time”?  Why not?  Isn’t this an immediate and obvious invitation to a black hole?

So where does this come from?  My bet is that it’s at the instigation of a judge or judges who are already ridiculously overworked.  The cunning observation that there is no target time is just one giveaway.

I have much sympathy and it’s understandable - but it’s not good enough.  The answer as it ever is now is to foist the problem back on the court users and tell them to lump it.

It’s another path to disillusionment with court-based resolution (unless you’re a wealthy enough litigator to afford entry to the Rolls (Royce) building. 

For all but rich litigation tourists, it’s the same policy approach.  We in Government don’t yet have time to remove the law that entitles you to pursue these remedies but we’re going to do it and so in the meantime we’ll just break every piece of the machinery we can.

Efficiency

A classic display in the post yesterday of what insurers euphemistically term “efficiency”.

Proceedings just issued in a road traffic claim. First defendant is the driver and the second defendant his insurer, directly liable under the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002. It’s a fairly common scenario.

The court sends copy of the claim form and the particulars of claim to the insurers who post them to us demanding more information before they can process it.

First is the date of the accident. Well, that will be the date that appears half way down the front page of the claim form and at paragraph 1 of the particulars of claim – immediately following the phrase “road traffic accident on..”

Next, they need their insured’s name and address.  He’s probably the chap named as first defendant who, as paragraph 3.2 of the particulars explains, was insured to drive by you.

The insured’s vehicle registration number?  Er, that’s also at paragraph 3.2, just ahead of the explanation that you’re the first defendant’s insurers...

They'd like our client’s name and address. Hmm. We are fairly obviously the claimant’s solicitors so this guy may well be the claimant whose name and address appears at the very top of the front page of the claim form?

They also want our client’s vehicle registration number.  That will be the one recited at paragraph 3.1 of the particulars of claim. 

Take note, you claimant solicitors.  If you could be anywhere near this efficient, you would be able to deal with claims at a fraction of the inflated costs that you presently command.

Animal Farm

Brace yourselves for what the Sunday Times aptly describes as the “potentially toxic announcement” next month that MPs are to take a £10,000 pay rise.

Pause while that sinks in….yes, £10,000 – each.

I’m guessing that will include all those who cheated their way to huge dollops of extra cash through the second homes scandal, many of whom don’t seem to have paid the price.

Will it include the high-profile liar, Huhne, who seems to be at large again after an indecently short period of time, complaining that he can’t afford to pay the legal costs awarded against him?

They will say of course that all the fiddling exposed by The Telegraph in 2009 was a result of poor pay and we need to address the root cause of the problem etc, etc.

I’m not clear what account this takes of the fact that these public servants went into the job knowing what the terms were and have suffered no more injustice than that they’ve not had a rise for a number of years.

Hey – welcome to the party, guys.

It’s not as if you’ve seen a part of your business rendered completely unviable by an arbitrary decision to slash by 60% the amount you can get paid for doing the same job, with no cogent explanation other than that we need to keep insurers happy.

To a large extent the consequences of that will not be continued pay freeze, or even pay cuts – but unemployment.

Meanwhile, we’re closing down the NHS, we’re wiping civil legal aid, we’re savaging the criminal justice system, we’re shutting courts up and down the country  – all because we can’t afford it.

But those inflicting the pain get more, substantially more?

One senior MP has expressed concern that they’ll be accused of having their snouts in the trough (you reckon?) but that “voters may not like it but if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys”.

I agree. See, for example Peanuts and Cleaning bills

But why is it OK for innocent accident victims to make do with cheap, shoddy service? Why must ordinary folk take their life in their hands, literally, every time they go to hospital? Why must those threatened with loss of liberty trust to a fixed-price truck driver for representation before the law?

While those in government scoop the benefit of the savings, so they can pay privately for their essential services and keep all their insurer and banker chums sweet, and a chair at the boardroom table warm for when they finally slip away from this exciting and rather insulated public life.

We’re all in this together, are we? Read Five grand (twice). Check Osbo’s shopping list.

I don’t buy it. Seems to me some animals are a lot more equal than others.

Dances with wolves

I was almost squirming with embarrassment as I read a press report this afternoon under the heading Midlands ABS issues ‘join us’ plea to insurers.

For those who don’t immediately recognize the terminology an ABS is an alternative business structure, approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, that allows lawyers to share ownership and profits with non-lawyers. Traditionally we weren't allowed to and…no, that’s another story.

Liability insurers have got excited about them because it’s seen as a way to team up with a law firm and perpetuate the relationships that were fuelled by referral fees prior to 31 March this year when the ban on bungs came into force. Many are saying it will just carry on but behind closed doors.

Shakespeares, a near-700 strong Midlands law firm with a decent reputation, has been granted ABS status. Having had the op, it’s apparently keen to get into bed with an insurer – any insurer, by the sound of it!

They’re said to be “ABS-ready and looking to team up with any insurance firm wanting to enter the legal market”.

It brings to mind instantly all those devil-worship books and films where the hapless disciple moves heaven and earth (literally, sometimes) to summon up a massively powerful and treacherous beast that slaps the dismayed devotee around for a while before devouring them.

Partner Craig Wallace is reported to have said that he’s “sure that for insurers in particular, an ABS will bring opportunities to drive efficiencies, improve processes and life-cycles and therefore reduce costs.”  

Exactly.

They say if you run with wolves, you’ll get bitten.

Eaten, more like.

Horses for courses..

So, the Co-op is opening a law school now – a “learning academy”.

This educational bombshell follows hot on the heels of the news that its banking group has been downgraded to (quote) “junk status”. Who would blame the chief executive for making a sharp exit?

Three weeks ago we saw the dramatic abandonment of plans to acquire hundreds of high street outlets from Lloyds. The Co-op blamed the failure of that deal on the continuing parlous state of the economy.

Like it was about to change? Do they truly think the Bank of England and the City enjoy telling the world that we’re in the mire long term? Or that an increasingly unpopular and feckless administration would not seize any opportunity to announce that its inept strategy is about to come good?

I don’t suppose it has anything to do with Failing Grayling’s demolition of what might have been a model that an established and historically trusted name could exploit to reasonable advantage, and profit ?

Liability insurers persuaded the Government that without referral fees of £700 or £800 lawyers didn’t need to be paid more than £500 to run “low value” cases. We all know that’s a fallacy for two reasons.

One is that £500 isn’t enough, arguably in any but a small minority of cases but certainly on average, to do a decent job. It’ll buy you a horse-burger.

The other is that there are marketing expenses even for those that sell pure beef quarter-pounders of legal service. Admittedly those costs will be far less than the outlay of the ‘lawyers’ at the bottom of the food chain who buy in all their cases because they couldn’t ever win a job on reputation or recommendation.

It was ripe for a successful retailer with a trusted brand that could cut the middle ground, be a bit but not much cheaper than the slickest good guys and almost always outperform on the marketing and customer service.

Is the truth in fact that this consummately savvy shopkeeper has concluded that it can no longer dish up a decent product at the prices set by the Cameron- ABI cartel?

Big focus is now on family services, so that we shan’t even realise that this is a quiet withdrawal from the wrecked personal injury market.

Not much being said either about employment where it will be difficult for a large organization to resolve upon a consistent policy to support – or not – meritorious claims for ordinary folk who don’t have £££ to pay the tribunal service to access justice.

Losing popular support after many years march on legal services for the masses? Remember what was and has always been the precursor to “Tesco Law”.

I don’t see Terry Leahy laying out plans for Law Express, but then he’s already demonstrated the problems of flogging a dead horse.

The Co-op has always provided, in my perception, value for money and commanded a credible slice of the markets in which it was competent to compete. Its retreat from legal services that will no longer pay when sold as a bulk commodity is commensurate with those values.

Good with food.

Horses for courses?

Cleaning bills

I was thrilled of course to read the announcement from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) earlier this week that costs of intervention will be met from the Compensation Fund. 

This debate has surfaced following high profile failures of large legal firms like Cobbetts, Atteys and Blakemores at the start of this year. Insolvencies are linked to the increasingly tough climate generally and within legal services. The ridiculous and conniving assault by government and insurers on personal injury costs is but one element of it. 

For anyone who does not immediately recognise the problem, it is this. When any legal firm goes bust, there is a huge clean-up operation to be undertaken. Out in the real world, commercial transactions and personal lives continue. Even litigation matters continue with an almost independent existence, notwithstanding the pig’s ear of a court service that we now seem to have. 

Somebody’s got to identify those matters and deal with them. Clients and third parties have to be contacted and the situation explained. Many won’t even know what has happened. 

Old files need to be dealt with, deeds and wills moved elsewhere whilst the infrastructure of premises, staff etc is collapsing. 

Somebody has to be paid to do it. There are big legal firms with the experience and the resources who will be wheeled in and make it alright – but they need to be paid. 

It’s not cheap. The costs may run into millions of pounds. I’ve seen one estimate of £6,000,000 for the intervention that would have happened if Cobbetts had not been rescued by DWF, the firm that had previously courted a merger. 

So, where is the money coming from to pay for the emergency services? 

Answer - me and thousands of other solicitors who (hopefully) have been cautious and prudent in the way that they run their business. 

At first the SRA were contemplating a direct levy on the rest of the profession but now it is going to come out of the Compensation Fund, to which we all contribute every year as part of the price for a practising certificate – our licence to trade as a solicitor. 

I already paid a disproportionate contribution last year. As the sole solicitor owner of a business, I get to pay the same level of contribution as is levied on Slaughter and May, Irwin Mitchell and thousands of others who are very much bigger. That was enough of a kick in the nuts already (Regulation issue). 

Now it seems that the contribution is going to be loaded still further with the cost of other failed firms. I express no view on those named or generally that have gone before. Misfortunes can happen. 

In the main, though, it may be said that failures come as a result of poor management and unacceptable risk taking. Certainly that is view that the SRA have said they are going to be taking in future when rating the stability of practices. 

I confess that I feel resentful about having to pay for the costs of cleaning up the mess left by people who chanced it too far to complete with me amongst others, probably on price more than anything. Their aim, if not achievement, is to take the business, trouser the profits and then send me and others the bill when eventually it falls over the edge. 

Let’s take as an example of the sort people I expect to be adding to this burden - a firm from which we have recently taken over a road traffic injury claim. I’ll be no more specific than to say that they are hundreds of miles away from here (Panel Beater). 

Our client lives half a mile down the road from my office. He was of course steered away to this firm by his legal expenses insurers to whom he had paid a premium for dealing with claims arising out of an accident such as happened in early 2010. 

In return those insurers dumped the administration of the claim on the “expert” panel lawyers who were appointed, and trousered £825 for the claim which they all thought at the time would be worth £1,350 in fees. 

Does it show that these people blew more than 60% of the revenue from the case just to acquire it? You bet. It's apparent from looking at the file that with the Peanuts left they can only afford to employ staff who:- 

• Think that specific instructions to invite an offer from defendants insurers equates to making a liquidated offer that isn’t discussed with or even notified to the client; 
• Can’t find a prognosis in a medical report that says the claimant's condition has plateaued and he will see no improvement or deterioration in the future; 
• Generally seem to have trouble with reading and writing, let alone comprehension. 

This is dumbing the legal process down almost beyond the stage of mere grunting. It's shameful. 

I don’t want to pay to clean up the failures of these people. They simply shouldn’t be here. They’re purely a product of insurers’ “efficiency”. 

The SRA needs to act now, within the budget it should have for proper regulation of the profession and which it has been working on for many months. It needs to take effective action to close the cowboys down now, and make them clean up their own mess behind them.