Latest news with #Solicitors
Irish Times
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on personal injuries claims: going to court is rarely worth it
The message about the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) is clearly not getting through to the public in general and insurance customers in particular. Established in 2004 to provide a lower cost route for settling personal injury insurance claims, nearly all cases must now be submitted to the board. Overall, it resolves one in two claims. The other fifty per cent of claims – where either side rejects the IRB settlement proposal – are resolved by litigation, which usually takes the form of an out of court settlement. The enduring popularity of the legal route for resolving motor insurance injury claims is hard to fathom, given that court awards and IRB awards are based on the same guidelines and the average value of awards made across both channels is the same. However, the litigation route takes three years longer and legal costs are on average 24 times higher. It is hard to see how the continued use of the litigation channel benefits the injured party. Why wait three years for the same result? The higher fees that are incurred – for little apparent benefit to the client in most cases – may be paid by the insurance company, but the wider pool of insurance customers ultimately foot the bill in the form of higher premiums. The presumption is that the bulk of IRB settlements are rejected by a claimant on the advice that they may do better by going down the litigation route. READ MORE The Solicitor's Guide to Professional Conduct places no specific requirement on solicitors to talk through the pros and cons of rejecting an IRB settlement and going down the litigation route with their clients. There are general guidelines about client relationships which if adhered to in the spirit intended should suffice. It perhaps asks too much of any profession to expect its members to turn down work. The time may have come when a different approach is needed to ensure that claimants are fully aware that, in the round, the benefits of rejecting an IRB settlement and taking your insurer to court are at best marginal.
BBC News
13-05-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Gordon on Compensation Scams
Click here, external to look for law firms registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and click here, external to check financial firms authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority
BBC News
28-01-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Parents take council to court in SEN funding row
Parents from Devon are taking Devon County Council to the High Court in a row over special educational needs (SEN) services and millions of pounds of was one of the councils that agreed a deal in March to get about £95m from the government to try to resolve a massive deficit due to overspending on SEN sets of unnamed parents from Devon are now arguing the deal involved the council agreeing to make cuts to SEN services without any consultation with families or examining the long-term implications for agreeing the deal, Devon County Council has repeatedly overspent on SEN services - by £15m in the first six months, with the figure continuing to increase. Devon County Council has been contacted with a request for comment. The number of children in Devon with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) - a legal document that outlines a child's special educational needs - more than doubled in six years from just over 3,700 in January 2017 to 8,400 in January Solicitors are representing the families from Devon and a family from Bristol in the Judicial Review being heard at Bristol High legal firm said it was a "pivotal" case which marked a "critical moment for SEN families across the UK".Beverley Watkins, managing partner, said: "This case is about ensuring that the voices of parents and children with SEN are heard."Decisions that impact such critical areas of support must be made transparently and with a full understanding of their consequences."The Judicial Review is due to last two to three days and a judgement could be handed down at the end of the hearing or at a later date.
