Personal Injury – together with “No Win, No Fee”, “Ambulance Chasing Lawyers”, and “tripping up kerbs” is a common phrase in today’s society. And we at The Injury Lawyers are of course fully aware that our work is often misunderstood and joked about!
So, I thought I’d do a little article on the way it works – let’s face it, the press love a good “head shaker” story. In fact, the inspiration for my blog today comes from a story in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313432/David-Cameron-plans-tear-mad-health-safety-regulations.html) this week about the PM’s promise to tear up health and safety regulations that have become a “music hall joke.”
According to the report, Cameron will “declare war on the mushrooming compensation culture”, with regulations on police, schools, and ambulance workers being lifted to encourage more common sense decisions, without the threat of a claim being made against them.
The report names but a few examples that this cull is aiming to prevent – reduced risk assessments for teachers taking pupils on outings, and making it difficult for “killjoy councils” to ban firework displays and street parties. “Low risk workplaces”, such as offices, may no longer be faced with the same red tape rules that high risk factories have in place, with the source calling this a “drastic reform.”
It all seems like commons sense right? Cut the red tape and make our lives easier? The report states there are too many forms and too many risks to assess in today’s society, and the feel of it is dragging us all down. But to make some sense out of the PM’s war declaration on health and safety, the rules and regulations are in place for a very good reason – to stop people from coming to harm. To me, taking the blame away from those at blame seems a bit nonsensical… I am sure the PM has good intentions at heart – let’s face it, with the amount of cuts the government are looking at making, he needs to do something to show he is on the side of the people!
It certainly seems true that more education is needed to ensure sensible rules and regulations are followed. Perhaps some red tape can be cut – but risks must be assessed, and forms must be completed to ensure the safety or others are maintained. Nobody wants anyone to come to harm.
To make a successful claim for compensation, you must have been injured through the fault of someone else. You could not just claim for any old injury – another company, or a person, must have been responsible for your injures. That’s how it works – You claim from the person or company at fault that has caused you suffering and loss. That’s why the rules and regulations are there – to ensure no one falls short and ends up injuring someone.
The report also goes on to say that the war will affect personal injury law firms such as us. To quote from the source, there will likely be a “crackdown on lawyers ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements, which encourage lawyers to take on speculative lawsuits because they can demand huge costs from defendants like the NHS if they win.” This is a bold statement – the idea of the No Win, No Fee is so that every claimant has the ability and right to make a claim. Most ethical lawyers like ourselves will only take on a claim if we think it is going to win. The idea that we compensate for such a loss by claiming huge amounts of fees from defendants like the NHS is nonsensical – not just because it’s a daft statement, but it makes no business sense. Why would anyone knowingly waste money and recover it back from someone else?
But to answer the question more directly – can we claim back huge amounts of fees from defendants like the NHS? Well, lawyers only get paid for the work they do. That’s how the costs system is structured. We couldn’t just claim a huge fee for no reason – solicitors’ fees are generally based on an hourly rate, plus any disbursements (money a solicitor pays out for a case that is relevant for its success). We only get paid for the work we do.
After all, we are here to help victims who have suffered injuries and loss through the fault of someone else. If you were injured in an accident that wasn’t your fault, wouldn’t you want justice and compensation?
The idea of charging clients for a claim defeats the object of making a claim. If a victim was to pursue a claim, only to have a proportion of it taken away in legal fees, then they wouldn’t have been fully compensated for their suffering and loss. They would have lost out through the fault of someone else.
It’s certainly an interesting topic for debate. Let us know your thoughts and feelings on the subject of compensation in today’s society.
