DATA FARMING is BIG Business ££££££ RECLAIM CHARGES AND UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS

[Amethyst]

PLEASE be careful with your information. DO NOT enter your personal loan / mortgage / bank / PPI / credit card information into ANY website offering reclaim/unenforceable agreement services.

Many of these companies are simply lead generators who then sell on your information for up to £400 a time.

[Amethyst]

Re: DATA FARMING is BIG Business ££££££ RECLAIM CHARGES AND UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT

Report DCA ( MoJ) APR 2007 http://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/_...ril%202007.pdf


The role of solicitors
23. The market for personal injury claims cannot be analysed without an understanding
of the role of solicitors. Solicitors are subject to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s
Practice Rules. These prevent a solicitor from taking on cases which have been
acquired in a way that a solicitor could not himself use (for example by cold calling)
and require the disclosure of referral fees. The key rule (2(A)) is set out below –
(1) A solicitor must not make any payment to a third party in relation to the
introduction of clients to the solicitor, except as permitted below.
(2) Solicitors may enter into agreements under this section for referrals of clients
with introducers who undertake in such agreements to comply with the terms
of this code.
(3) A solicitor may make a payment to a third party introducer only where
immediately upon receiving the referral and before accepting instructions to
act the solicitor provides the client with all relevant information concerning the
referral and, in particular, the amount of any payment.
(4) The solicitor must also be satisfied that the introducer:
(a) has provided the client with all information relevant to the client
concerning the referral before the referral took place and, in particular,
the amount of any payment;
(b) has not acquired the client as a consequence of marketing or publicity
or other activities which, if done by a solicitor, would be in breach of
any of the Solicitors' Practice Rules and in particular by “cold calling”;
and
(c) does not, under the arrangement, influence or constrain the solicitor’s
professional judgement in relation to the advice given to the client.
(5) If the solicitor has reason to believe that the introducer is breaching terms of
the agreement required by this section the solicitor must take all reasonable
steps to procure that the breach is remedied. If the introducer persists in
13
breaches the solicitor must terminate the agreement in respect of future
referrals.
24. It is clear that there has been significant non-compliance with these rules. A report
to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in September 2006 indicated the extent of the
non-compliance –
“Between February and May 2006, staff in the Practice Standards Unit
(PSU), supported on occasions by staff in the Professional Ethics Unit
(PEU), carried out 135 visits to firms responding to a question on the
practising certificate renewal return, confirming that they had referral fee
arrangements in place. ………….. The purpose of the visits was to
monitor compliance with the I&R Code generally – PSU were not in a
position to examine the quality of advice and/or the extent to which this
might have been compromised by the presence of a referral arrangement.
The visits identified 632 introducers. Eighty-five of those introducers were
encountered on more than one occasion, either at regional or national
level. This suggests that the majority of arrangements are local.
The visits revealed significant evidence of breaches, i.e. there was
evidence of non-compliance with the I&R Code and other practice rules.
It is difficult to establish without further investigation the reason for the
breaches (e.g. were these deliberate or inadvertent?), and what effect
they had on clients’ interests in every case. Common breaches included
(percentage of firms systematically in breach shown in brackets):
· Complete lack of disclosure of the referral fee arrangement (34%);
· Inadequate disclosure (17%);
· Failure to obtain an undertaking from the introducer to comply with
the I&R Code (47%);
· Failure of solicitors to ensure that introducers are complying with the
I&R Code (61%).
Other breaches included:
· Introducer tying the solicitor to one third party service provider;
· Introducer having veto over appointment of solicitor’s staff;
· Solicitor agreeing to deduct money held for client and pass to
introducer, when this might not be in the client’s best interests;
· Solicitor giving introducer unlimited access to clients’ files;
· Introducers requiring that the solicitor instructs them to do “agency
work” - this might include the taking of initial statements or advising
the client on funding. Sometimes this work is of questionable value;
· Loans provided by the introducer to the client which were not
necessarily in the client’s best interests;
· Requirement to use a client care letter prepared by introducer;
· Requirement on solicitor not to discuss costs (in particular any
charges being made by the introducer) with the client;
14
· Requirement on solicitor not to make contact with the client during
the early stages of the client’s matter (this being the introducer’s
role);
· Pressure from introducers on solicitors to understate the true cost of
the transaction;
· Pressure from introducers on clients to use particular firms of
solicitors;
· Referral fees paid to interpreters in immigration work (which is
usually publicly funded work and, therefore, prohibited).”
25. It is therefore not possible to assume that because a case goes to a solicitor that the
Practice Rules have been complied with. There are a number of law firms whose
business model is to buy referrals from claims farmers. In some cases the market
power of the relevant parties is such that the claims farmers can dictate terms, which
may include the solicitor not being permitted to reject a case and being required to
manage cases in certain ways. This may be contrary to the Solicitors Practice Rules
but nevertheless goes on to some extent. If a solicitor has paid say £600 for a case
then he has an incentive to run that case as this is the only way that he can recover
the referral fee, even if running the case is not in the interests of the client.