Types Of Cases
Our aim is to provide access to Justice for all our clients by investigating claims, obtaining expert reports and conducting litigation to achieve effective results.
We will pursue claims on behalf of individuals and corporate clients against professional advisors. Whether it be Solicitors, Accountants, Surveyors, Financial Institutions, or any professional institution.
Before reading any further, please click here if you have recently lost a case. In 70% of the time we can help you and even if we cannot stop it altogether there is a good chance we can ease the pain.
Our Recommendation
If you have had any dealing at all with Solicitors, Surveyors, Financial Advisers, Insurance Brokers etc. then let us look at their file for you.
You would be amazed at how many errors there are in your file and how many times when searching through a file for a potential claim that has been identified by the client we not only find negligence of that which you have told us about but also other problems.
Some of these errors are just unfortunate and they do not impact on what has been done for you. Some, if realised early enough can prevent loss, some may need remedial action to prevent further loss. Like all things the earlier a problem is identified the better the chance you have to correct it.
Solicitors
In a Personal Injury the solicitor missed the limitation period.
The Law imposes time limits when claims can be brought. In personal injury cases it is 3 years beginning with the date of the incident (limitation is a complex area ALWAYS check with a solicitor about limitation when you first see them).
Mrs A suffered a back injury as a result of a car accident. She instructed Personal Injury Solicitors to act in the claim for injury.
The defendants insurers accepted they were at fault and accepted that Mrs A should receive compensation. The Solicitors failed to settle the claim and failed to issue proceedings within the three year time limit from the date of the accident.
Mrs A lost the chance to pursue the claim.
A claim was made against the former solicitors for the compensation she would have got if they had protected her position by issuing proceedings.
Solicitors failed to include part of a claim.
Mr B was involved in an accident and was injured. The defendants insurers accepted they were at fault and accepted that Mr B should receive compensation.
The solicitors claimed for several parts of the claim and Mr B received compensation.
Upon investigation of file it showed that the solicitors had failed to claim for 2 important heads of damages:
Loss of Mobility in the job market (Mr B, if he lost his present job could not do several jobs that he could have done if it had not been for the accident (in that case he was unable to do heavy manual work and so there were several jobs he just could not do). Mr B received damages against his former solicitors for the loss of a chance of being compensated for that part of his claim.
Loss of Services (Mr B could not do several tasks that he would normally have done, eg. decorating and gardening. These tasks were done for him by friends and relations. They did this out of love and affection. Even though Mr B had no intention of paying them for that which they had done, he could still have claimed compensation for that gratuitous help) Mr B received damages against his former solicitors for the loss of a chance of being compensated for that part of his claim.
Find out if you have a claim »
The solicitor failed to protect the client against losing.
Mr C instructed solicitors in a contract dispute. They said they would deal with his case, which looked like a winner on a no win no fee basis.
Mr C thought if he lost he did not have to pay anyone anything. How wrong he was.
The solicitors failed to explain that in any case there are 3 elements of costs:
The clients own solicitors costs (those were covered and he did not have to pay those).
The disbursements (the fees for all work not done by the solicitor, experts fees, court fees, etc.).
The defendants costs (both solicitors costs and disbursements).
When he lost, Mr C was still responsible for Disbursements and the other sides costs. Mr C should have been advised to take out insurance to cover him for the disbursements and opponents costs if he lost.
Mr C was able to sue the solicitors for the loss of a chance in obtaining insurance as he was able to establish he could have got cover with an insurer who would have paid him out in full both for the actual cost of the insurance policy he would have bought and the disbursements and opponents costs. Eventually he achieved what he should have done in the first place. No Win, no risk litigation. The former solicitors insurers paid the costs and disbursements Mr. C was originally told he owed.
Also, when we looked at the former solicitors file, Mr. C got a bonus since unbeknown to Mr C and us before we reviewed the former solicitors file, during the litigation the former solicitors had failed to advance an obvious argument that would have helped his case and he probably would have won. He was also compensated for the loss of a chance of winning if that argument had been put forward).
The solicitor bought the wrong flat for a buy to let client.
Mrs D looked at and agreed to buy a ground floor flat, valued at £325,000. The solicitor actually bought for her a first floor flat in the same development worth £165,000, and Mrs D paid £325,000 for this flat.
The building society, who had provided a mortgage based on a valuation of the ground floor flat advanced to Mrs D a mortgage of 80% of £260,000. We are presently acting for Mrs D to recover £160,000 (being £325,000 - £165,000) from the solicitor.
Claims against Surveyors
A Surveyor fails to identify a defect in a property.
Mr E engaged a surveyor to conduct a full structural survey on a house he wanted to buy
The survey revealed no problems. Mr E bought the house. Later Mr E realised there was a problem with a wall. A builder recommended further investigation.
Another surveyor advised that there were severe problems with the wall that were present at the time of purchase. Mr E paid for remedial work. He advanced a case saying that if he had received notice of this defect he could have bought the house at a cheaper price.
Mr E claimed for the loss of a chance.
Find out if you have a claim »
Surveyors negligence in the buy to let market by overvaluing properties and solicitors negligence in failing to advise a client about a secret profit for the agent and unsuitability of a mortgage product.
Mr F wanted to join the property boom in 2006.
He contacted an agent Mr V who said he could locate suitable properties. Mr V said he had located a property (the property) at a price of £250,000 and that he had found a tenant at a rate of £1000 per month AND that he would guarantee that rate for 1 year so that Mr F could afford his mortgage).
Mr V was paid £6000 for locating the property.
Mr V said to Mr F he could get a discount on the property of £50,000 so that the £200,000 mortgage he got would be all he would have to pay apart from V's £6000.
Mr V recommended a surveyor - Mr W
Mr V recommended a financial adviser - Mr X (he organised a self certification mortgage)
Mr X recommended a Financial institution for the Mortgage - The Y Bank
Mr V recommended a solicitor - Mr Z
Unbeknown to Mr F (but known to Mr V) the property was available at a price of £120,000. Mr W surveyed the property and valued it at £250,000 (evidence has been obtained that in 2006 the property was worth £120,000).
Mr X advised Mr V to take out what the Financial trade called a HONEY TRAP mortgage (a great rate for 2 years but with penalties for early repayment and then escalating to a rate that Mr F would find difficulty paying).
The Y Bank were happy to provide the Honey Trap mortgage and with Mr V's assistance sold Mr F a PPI policy (personal protection insurance) so they could get a commission and advanced Mr F 80%. The solicitor, Mr Z failed to tell Mr F that there was a sale and sub sale on the property and failed to tell Y Bank about the discount.
In a world of escalating prices everyone was happy.
Then came the credit crunch. The property is now untenanted, the value is £100,000 and Mr F can not afford the mortgage.
Mr F has actions against; the solicitor (Mr Z), the agent (Mr V), the surveyor (Mr W), the financial adviser (Mr X) and the Y Bank.
Claims Against Insurance Brokers
Arranging Insurance which does not meet your requirements.
Mr G wanted insurance for a motor boat whilst it was laid up for repair. The policy arranged by the broker “B” did not cover the boat whilst anyone was on board. Work was being done on the boat. An explosion occurred and someone was injured. He sued Mr G.
Mr G's insurers said the policy did not cover the claim. The brokers were sued for selling an inappropriate policy.
Have you had an Insurance Claim refused? If so, let us look at it.
You may not pay a fee to the broker for your Insurance, but the broker draws a commission. There will however be a contract between you and the broker and there is an implied term that the broker will exercise that the broker will exercise reasonable skill and care. The broker owes a duty of care to you the client and may be liable in a claim for negligence for breach of the duty of care and breach of duty.
Usually you only become aware that your broker has done something wrong when you make a claim and the insurer refuses to deal with it, or they deal with it and refuse it.
The insurers use many and varied reasons for failing to pay you.
Simply if you have made a claim to an insurer and they have refused it, let us have a look at it. We shall drill down on the reasons why they have refused your claim and whose fault it was.
Send us details of your claim and the reasons why it has been refused and let us investigate if it was right for the insurers to reject your claim and if it was whether someone was to blame for you being in that position.
