Making a professional negligence claim against a lawyer

Emma Slade looks at the issues involved in making a professional negligence claim against a lawyer on a no win, no fee basis. Contact our free legal helpline for guidance on your case. Call 0333 888 0403 or email us at info@proneg.co.uk

When I take on a file with a view to bringing legal proceedings for professional negligence, I usually have a pretty good idea of what I am looking for. Invariably, I will have had a chat with the client and we will have discussed what has happened and why they think there has been negligence on the part of the lawyer, surveyor, accountant or other professional.  I can then guide my investigations to identify the evidence required to support what the client is alleging.

However, my enquiries aren’t limited purely to seeking out evidence to support what the client has said, but also to see if there is any other allegation that can be made.  This is quite important as it would be negligent of me to look through the papers and tell the client they don’t have a claim based on their own allegations when it is glaringly obvious that they have a claim on another basis.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit recently, simply because I have just finished a lengthy trial involving a professional negligence claim against a lawyer on a no win, no fee basis which revolved around this issue, and am awaiting the judgment.

The basic facts:  My client had just struck a really great deal with a big commercial organisation which I will call – inspiringly – “BCO”.  BCO were keen to get the agreement in writing and get it all signed up as they, according to my client (who I will call, just as inspiringly, “Mr Client”), were as keen as he was to get the deal finalised.

It was rather a good deal from Mr Client’s point of view.  He had a patent in an item which BCO wanted.  Part of the deal was that Mr Client would give them a licence in the patent in exchange for which, he would become an employee of BCO on what one can only describe as, ‘healthy terms’.  For some reason that I cannot fathom, BCO set up the deal in two agreements – a Licence Agreement for the patent and a Contract of Employment for Mr Client’s services.  Mr Client was happy about this as he understood that if one was terminated, the other would be terminated also.  In fact, his Contract of Employment specifically said that the Licence Agreement was an ‘essential’ part of it.

Now Mr Client is not, by his own admission, one for paperwork so when he got the documents, he phoned up a recommended law firm (might as well go for the hat trick and call it “Law Firm”!) and made an appointment to see a solicitor about his Contract of Employment.  The solicitor had a look at it and said to Mr Client that she felt she ought to have a look at the Licence Agreement as well.

Having reviewed the documents, she gave Mr Client the thumbs up and he signed the documents, excited about the new project.  At least he was excited for a whole year.  Right up until the time BCO terminated the contract.  In fact, right up until the time they pointed out that there was a defect in the Licence Agreement and whilst the Licence Agreement was ‘essential’ to the Contract of Employment, the Contract of Employment was not ‘essential’ to the Licence Agreement.  More importantly, because of the way the agreements were set up, it was the Contract of Employment that held all the financial terms; the Licence Agreement was silent on the issue of money.  In short, BCO were able to get rid of Mr Client on his ‘healthy terms’ employment contract and continue to licence the patent for free!

We have argued throughout that Law Firm were negligent.  They should have noticed that the two agreements did not hinge together the way that Mr Client understood.  Law Firm countered this by saying that their instructions were only to read through and advise on the Contract of Employment, not the Licence Agreement.  They confirm this by pointing to their Client Care letter which says that is all they will do.  We counter-argued (as is the wont of lawyers) that they had expanded the retainer by asking to see the Licence Agreement and by agreeing to read it, they therefore had a duty to point out the huge problems with it.

The case is a lot more complicated than this, with many more issues and counter-issues than I can possibly get into a short article.  You can hardly have six years of litigation over such a small point without developing others.  However, what I have highlighted above is the crux of the matter.

I am not sure how it is going to turn out, but given there is so much case law that supports our position, I am pretty confident we will succeed.  At the same time though, I am sure that my opposing solicitor is probably saying the same thing, as there is case law which supports her position.  I suppose it comes down to the old joke – get five solicitors in a room; you’ll get six different opinions!

However, the case does underline the need for lawyers and their clients to look at the broader picture when undertaking any transaction to ensure that the various pieces fit together as the parties intend. Failure to do so is likely to lead rapidly to a professional negligence claim

To discuss your professional negligence claim against a lawyer call 0333 888 0403 or email us at info@proneg.co.uk

 

Making a claim for conveyancing negligence

I had an enquiry the other day about a potential professional negligence claim against a conveyancing solicitor and it reminded me of a case I dealt with a year or so ago.

Mr Adeyemo* purchased a buy-to-let flat in Manchester. Well, it wasn’t actually in Manchester but we will say it was there for argument’s sake! Anyway, back to the story: he purchased a flat in Manchester. It was a flat in an old house that had been converted and he bought the downstairs flat with the benefit of a mortgage. He instructed solicitors to deal with the conveyancing and it all went through swimmingly.

The area where the flat was in was pretty popular and within days of purchasing the property, Mr Adeyemo had found some tenants. Their rent was sufficient to pay the mortgage and give him some additional income.

About a year or so later, his tenants handed him a letter that they had received addressed to him from the local council. It appeared the house had been converted into two flats without planning permission and the Council wanted it converted back to a single property, else Mr A would start facing some stiff penalties.

Mr Adeyemo ignored the correspondence for as long as he could but the Council started to get a bit insistent that the problem be remedied. They had written first to the occupier of the upstairs flat and then the mortgage companies who in turn, wrote to Mr Adeyemo. He could no longer ignore it.

I got his conveyancing solicitors file and went through it. Firstly, I noticed that the Estate Agents details advertised the property as being newly converted into flats. This should have set the solicitors’ alarm bells ringing, but they clearly missed it. They also missed that the Seller had confirmed in his documents that work had been carried out at the property to convert it into two flats. And they also missed the fact that the documents from the Council showed that no planning permission had been applied for on the property. In short, the solicitors had been negligent.

Unfortunately, the matter started to become very messy. There were two flats owned by two different owners both mortgaged with two different mortgage companies with two sets of negligent solicitors who each had their own insurers. And yes, the solicitor for the owner of the upstairs flat had also made the same mistake as Mr Adeyemo’s solicitors!

It took a long time to sort out this muddle. We had to get the insurance companies talking to each other first of all to see how they wanted to deal with it but clearly neither wanted to take responsibility. Then we had to get them to talk to the mortgage companies to see how they wanted to be recompensed before we could start talking about recompensing Mr Adeyamo.

Ultimately, I managed to settle the matter. Mr Adeyemo had to serve notice on his tenants to vacate the premises. Once they had, the insurance company bought the flat back from him and paid off his mortgage. I did try to argue for some compensation for Mr Adeyemo on the basis that the property had been an investment flat with a view to providing him with some additional income but they pointed out that Mr A could easily purchase a new investment property and reap his reward that way so that is what he agreed to.

All in all, it was an interesting negligence case although at times, whilst trying to get the insurance companies talking to the mortgage companies, it seemed like a Gordian knot. Fortunately, we managed to cut it.

*not my client’s real name, naturally.

For guidance on makng a conveyancing negligence claim  contact our free legal helpline.

In this edition of her blog, solicitors negligence specialist Emma Slade looks at a new commercial conveyancing negligence case that has landed on her desk.

My client (who I shall call Mr Cook) is a property developer and when a small property came on the market, he took some interest in it.  It was an old house which had seen better days but which had received planning permission to convert into offices.  The details from the Estate Agent pointed out that the property had a very large rear garden which would be suitable for the parking of 6 cars.  The sale would be of the leasehold only.

Mr Cook had had dealings with his firm of solicitors for a number of years and they had dealt with virtually all his property purchases.  He asked them to oversee the purchase of this property.

The solicitor called for a copy of the Land Registry Office Copy Entries for the property.  For those not in the know, OCE’s are an official document prepared by the Land Registry that contains all the relevant legal details about the property – title owners, title, extent of property, covenants, charges etc.

The OCEs arrived and it confirmed that the title to be purchased was a lease currently held in the name of the vendor who I shall call Mrs Aiken.  The OCEs were also obtained for the freehold which showed that the freeholder was a Mr Aiken – Mrs Aiken’s husband.  Mr Cook was very interested in the opportunity and so discussions were held with Mr & Mrs Aiken where it was agreed that both the lease and the freehold would be sold to Mr Cook.

The transaction went through but as soon as the details of the purchase were sent to the Land Registry for noting on the register, the Land Registry wrote back and asked what Mr Cook was going to do about the headlease.

“What headlease?” wrote back his solicitors.  “Mr Cook has bought it.”

“No,” said the LR, “he has bought the underlease which is for the house only.  It doesn’t include the garden” (or words to that effect).

On further inspection, it turned out that Mr Aiken had owned the freehold of the house.  His neighbours – a dentist’s surgery – had thought the garden would be of considerable use to their business.  Not wishing to part with it, a complicated scheme was set up whereby Mr Aiken gave a lease (the headlease) of the entire property to the dentist’s surgery who in turn gave a lease back (the underlease) of the house to Mrs Aiken.

Why not lease back to Mr Aiken you may ask or even just lease the garden?  Simple.  In certain circumstances, a lessee may ‘enfranchise’ his lease, ie buy out the freeholder which would expunge any intervening leases.  However, he cannot do that if the freeholder and the lessee are one and the same.  By doing it this way, at any stage, Mrs Aiken could have enfranchised her lease, chopping the dentist’s surgery out of the picture.  A complicated transaction but it prevented the dentist’s surgery from enfranchising themselves and it therefore kept the property in the Aiken family.

The Aiken’s had been a bit disingenuous therefore when they sold the property to Mr Cook as they would have known of the headlease but at the same time, Mr Cook’s solicitors should have spotted this.  On the OCE’s, it clearly made reference to the headlease – the solicitors simply hadn’t checked the details against the underlease, just presumed they were one and the same.

Mr Cook was at a loss as to what to do.  Because of restrictions in the lease, he could not raze and develop the house as he had wanted. He didn’t have the garden so would not have the planned-for parking area even if he could have rebuilt. Unlike Mr & Mrs Aiken, as he held both the underlease and the freehold, he could not enfranchise to get rid of the intervening lease.

To mitigate his loss and to get rid of this pup, he negotiated with the dentist’s surgery and he sold the property to them. They are now developing it. However, Mr Cook had to sell the property at a lower price than what he bought it for; the dentists knew of Mr Cook’s difficulties.

And so we are now bringing a commercial conveyancing negligence claim against the solicitor for missing a critical title number and not checking the details properly.  Needless to say, Mr Cook no longer uses them to deal with his other property purchases!

For further guidance on making a commercial conveyancing negligence claim the contact our free legal helpline on 0333 888 0403 or send an email to us at info@proneg.co.uk

 

Professional negligence solicitor Emma Slade looks at vets negligence claims.

I am an animal lover.  I have chickens, ducks and a lame goose in the garden; and an asthmatic cat indoors.  I also volunteer with the British Hen Welfare Trust, initially rescuing battery hens but now rescuing hens at the end of their commercial life and re-homing them.  Some of them I even sneak back home with me!  I therefore find it very upsetting when I get calls from another animal lover whose pet has died at the hands of their vet as invariably, there is so little I can do and I really feel for them.

Unfortunately, it all comes down to the value of the claim. When it comes to a  professional negligence claim, the court will generally only award compensation for your financial loss. Sometimes this might be some of the vet’s fees but also it is the value of the animal itself.  If you got Muffy from the Cat Protection League, or Tonto is a ‘Heinz 57’ dog, their financial value is going to be very limited.

The caller is also usually extremely upset by the loss of their pet. Losing a companion animal can be very distressing but unfortunately the courts decided a number of years ago that for reasons of policy, “a contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party.”  (If it is any consolation, if you lost a human loved one, the statutory bereavement award is capped at just £11,800 – not much I know).

So, invariably, vet negligence claims tend to be worth less than £10,000 which means it will be allocated to the Small Claims Court. The cost consequence of a Small Claim is that regardless of whether you win or lose, you will not be able to recover your legal costs, except in exceptional circumstances.  Given that the cost of a medical report into the death of Muffy or Tonto can run in to many hundreds of pounds and the solicitors bill will be much more, you will appreciate that for most people it is simply not cost effective to sue.

But, while it is relatively rare for vets negligence claims to go to court, the claimant’s loss is sometimes significant enough to justify court proceedings.

One case I dealt with involved a pedigree breeding dog. Not only had this bitch done extremely well at Crufts, she had a long and revered pedigree and her pups were well sought after – there was a waiting list if memory serves correct with each pup being sold for many hundreds of pounds. During a routine internal examination, the vet made an error resulting in the dog having to be spayed.  Because of her previous breeding history, I was able to sue the Vet for the loss of future earnings that the Owner would have received during the dog’s life.  At least the dog had survived in this instance.

Another case I dealt with was in respect of a purebred horse.  If you are a bit squeamish or have a delicate tum, you might want to skip this part!

The Owners brought their mare to breeding stables to be live covered by a stallion. I think I have said in a previous blog entry that I learn a lot of things doing this job and this one was no exception. There is a lot more to covering a mare than you would imagine including a lot of human involvement. My understanding is that a handler actually assists with the act of coitus by guiding the stallion in the act of penetration. In this particular instance, the handler erroneously allowed penetration to occur in the rectum causing the rectal wall to split. This was not detected and by the time the mare showed signs of ill health, faeces had been entering the mare’s bloodstream for a long period of time causing considerable infection and later, death.  It was only on autopsy that the error was discovered. The value of the mare was quite considerable as were all the vet’s fees incurred by the Owner in trying to treat the mare.  I was successful in that vets negligence claim but again, only because of the value of the animal.

We can assist with vets negligence claims and where the value of the claim comfortably exceeds the small claims court limit and are sometimes able to offer No Win, No Fee funding.

Cyber fraud is a growing problem in the legal sector, with the press regularly reporting on the success that scammers have enjoyed at the expense of unwary firms of solicitors.

The estimated loss of client funds in 2016 alone ran into many millions, with three quarters of cyber-crime reports relating to Friday afternoon frauds – the traditional day for property transactions to be completed in a solicitor’s office.

One increasingly common problem is people selling property they don’t actually own to unwary purchasers

Solicitors and their insurers and regulators are understandably concerned, especially as firms can be held legally responsible for their client’s losses.

A solicitor is under a duty of care to keep a careful eye open for unusual features that might cause alarm bells to ring.

Potential red flags include unoccupied properties with a high value, transactions where the seller’s address is not the same as the property being sold, situations where the seller is in a rush to speed the transaction through, sellers with limited knowledge of the property they are selling or who do not hold key documents.

Very high standards of care are expected from solicitors and clients who lose out in these frauds can usually expect to receive the benefit of any doubt.

Solicitors who unwittingly act for the fraudsters who are selling property are also in danger of facing liability, though in general they don’t owe a duty of care to a buyer or the buyer’s solicitor.

Another type of cyber fraud is where criminals intercept emails between the solicitor and their client and ‘arrange’ for monies intended for a property transaction to be diverted to their account.

Again solicitors are expected to be vigilant and on the look out for signs of the fraud. Suspicion might be aroused for instance where:

1. a solicitor is asked to pay money to a third party,

2. an ‘odd’ email address is given,

3. the solicitor is notified at the last minute of a change to the payee’s bank account.

A solicitor who isn’t alive to these issues and fails to detect signs of fraud could well find themselves facing a claim against them.

If you have suffered loss arising from fraud and think your solicitor is responsible then call our free helpline for initial guidance on the options open to you. Call 0333 888 0403 or email us at info@proneg.co.uk

Professional negligence solicitor Emma Slade looks at legal costs in a professional negligence case and the costs issues arising in a recent claim involving a negligent architect.

Very few people relish the thought of engaging in litigation, unless they have very deep pockets. Just thinking of the potential costs liability can lead many to suffer sleepless nights. The usual costs rule is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party. However, in so doing, the court “will have regard to all the circumstances including… the conduct of all the parties” . The rule goes on to give examples of the sort of conduct it has in mind, but it is not an exhaustive list. So it will be interesting to be a fly on the wall during the costs arguments following the recent court decision in Riva Properties Ltd & Others –v- Foster & Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC).

I have dealt with the main legal issues that arose from the judgment elsewhere on this website. But the costs issues were particularly interesting and it is very clear that the presiding judge, HHJ Fraser, was not impressed by the attitude of the Defendants towards the Claimant’s representative, John Dhanoa, right from the beginning of their collaboration and all the way through the litigation.

According to the judgment, the Claimant had previously been involved in some building development but nowhere near the scale of projects that the Defendants – who are world-renowned architects – were used to. Rather than dealing with Mr Dhanoa as a valued client, it would appear that two of the main architects involved were quite condescending towards him, making (to my mind) unnecessary reference to Mr Dhanoa’s “semi-detached property in Hayes” and that he “used the hackneyed phrase ‘world class architects’” to describe Fosters. (That particular comment was the subject of mild judicial rebuke.) Later in the judgment, HHJ Fraser commented that the two architects “seemed to see Mr Dhanoa as somewhat beneath them as a client” and that they viewed him “with a degree of superiority; he was not the sort of client for whom Fosters was used to acting…[and] not the sort of client that Fosters really wanted” .

It doesn’t end there. The judgment notes that they ignored their client’s wishes about instructing a certain expert, were dismissive of his own choice, were autocratically dismissive of Mr Dhanoa’s proposed designs and unilaterally amended their client’s brief, all whilst ignoring the expressed budget.

Obviously all of that is partly why the claim was brought, but their conduct during the proceedings has also been commented on. The judge found that the two senior architects who were involved – Brooker and Stewart – gave written evidence that was “entirely self-serving” and even inaccurate when considered against contemporaneous documents, seemingly having “been drafted regardless of the facts ” and even twisting them . The Defendants were also disparaging of Mr Dhanoa with opening submissions accusing him of “playing with other people’s money, trying to bluff his way through Court as if civil litigation were some game of high stakes poker. At trial, F+P will expose Mr Dhanoa’s claim for the bluff that it is.”

Importantly, throughout the entire litigation, Fosters had denied that there had ever been a budget for the project or that it was a responsibility of theirs to ask the Client about a budget. HHJ Fraser went through the evidence quite carefully and concluded “In the presence of such clear contemporaneous communications that refer to the budget figure for the project, I simply cannot accept the position advanced by Fosters in these proceedings that no budget was indicated to Fosters by Mr Dhanoa in 2007”.

The judge specifically noted that when “Mr Stewart was questioned about this matter [he] finally accepted that [a budget had been discussed]… This means that the entire defence Fosters adopted on this point was simply factually wrong.” There is more in that vein. Needless to say, judgment was found against Fosters, although the issue of costs has yet to be decided.

It undoubtedly follows that Fosters will have to pay the Claimant’s costs, but how much of them will they have to pay? Usually, a losing party will pay in the region of 70% of the winner’s costs, but with obvious conduct issues like those detailed above, I suspect that they will probably be paying a much higher proportion of the costs. These days, parties are actively encouraged to avoid litigation, to mediate, to – in effect – play nicely. All the while with the threat of a nasty costs order hanging over their head if they don’t.

Just reading through the judgment, it would appear that the Defendants were hostile to the Claimant, were condescending and made many disparaging remarks. The whole premise of their defence failed when they admitted under cross examination that a budget had been mentioned. And importantly, their evidence was at considerable odds with even the written contemporaneous documents of the time. The real sting in the tail though is that the Claimant’s claim was funded by way of a pre-Jackson Conditional Fee Agreement, so Fosters will have to pay the success fee as well.

It is worth reading the judgment if anything to consider the Defendants “rather grubby behaviour” . Even more importantly, it will be worthwhile keeping an eye out for any subsequent costs decisions as it could be an interesting read. Unfortunately, their behaviour is probably going to cost them a pretty penny as well as some adverse publicity albeit that they are “undertaking a review … to see what lessons or actions should be taken from this case.” The moral of the story though is simple: play nicely children!

For further details of costs in a professional negligence case and the availability of No Win, No Fee funding give us a call on 0333 888 0403 or email us direct.

It has been a couple of months since the Grenfell Tower disaster and with the Public Inquiry just around the corner, there are still more questions than answers. At this stage, it is believed that the fire started accidentally in a fridge-freezer on the fourth floor but swiftly spread through the 24-storey public housing tower block, killing at least 80 people, though the final death toll is unlikely to be known for a couple of years.

From various news reports, it is understood that the reason for the rapid spread of the fire is probably due to the new cladding and insulation plates which had been installed over a period of four years by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea as a retrofit for the property. In layman’s terms, a layer of insulating material was affixed to the building which was then covered with an aluminium-polyethylene cladding with an air cavity between. The problem with this arrangement is that, according to safety experts, the insulation plates should only be used with non-combustible cladding yet in this instance, both the insulation used and the cladding were flammable. Added to that, the gap between the insulation and the cladding acted like a chimney to spread the fire.

Obviously, I am not privy to all the information that the parties involved have access to nor indeed that which will be available to the Public Inquiry, so can only go on what is being reported in the news. This suggests post-disaster testing showed that both the cladding and the insulation plates failed fire safety tests. It is also understood that the Local Authority Building Control had stated in 2014 that the insulation that was used should only be used with fibre cement panels on tall buildings . Further, there is evidence to suggest that there had been intense pressure on the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea to save money and as such, they chose a cheaper cladding as opposed to the more expensive non-combustible alternatives. Yes despite all of this, the cladding on Grenfell Tower was passed as suitable by a council officer.

I cannot say who is at fault – greater minds than my own will need to determine that – but looking at basic principles, one wonders how this passed inspection. The standard test in any claim for negligence is the Bolam test: has the professional acted to a standard that his peers would consider reasonable? Did he act like any other reasonable professional with similar qualifications and experience? In the Grenfell matter – as with any surveying job – would another Council Officer with the same experience have concluded that the cladding was safe given the information that was available to him? This also begs the other question of whether the Council Officer in question had access to the relevant information or had the appropriate knowledge? Did he know (or should he have known) about the previous enquiries? Should he have made it his job to make enquiries about the cladding and insulation plates? If he was holding himself out as being suitably qualified to make the decision, then I would suggest that he, like any other surveyor put in this position, should have known of the other reports.

A surveyor’s report in any house purchase is, to my mind, critical. It is there to give you peace of mind, so that if there is a problem with the property, it can be identified and either rectified prior to purchase, a reduction in the house price negotiated or allow you to walk away. You expect to be able to rely upon the professional’s judgment. If that judgment is flawed and the error should have been noted, then there should be recompense.

There can probably never be sufficient recompense for those victims of the Grenfell Tower fire nor for their families and friends and there will always be more questions than answers. One thing that I hope will come out of it is a need for professionals to be more aware of their responsibilities and, where there has been a breach of that responsibility, for there to be some sort of redress.

If you feel that you have been let down by a surveyor who should possibly have known better or indeed, by any expert, then please contact Emma Slade on 0333 888 0403 or email us at info@proneg.co.uk for s free initial assessment of your case.

When a solicitor has made a mistake, the question on everyone’s lips is usually ‘can I make a negligence claim against them?’

For a free consultation about making a professional negligence claim against a solicitor on a no win no fee basis call us on 0333 888 0403 or email info@proneg.co.uk

People are often surprised to find out that even when a solicitor has made a mistake it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are entitled to make a compensation claim. In order to have grounds to make a professional negligence claim a number of requirements must be met.

The first thing you need to establish if you feel you have been let down by a lawyer is that they have breached their ‘duty of care’.

Solicitors will be judged by the standard of the ‘reasonably competent solicitor’ in whatever area of law they practice in. So, the conduct of a solicitor who specialises in property conveyancing, for instance, will be considered in terms of what can be reasonably expected of a specialist conveyancing solicitor.

Once it has been established that the solicitor’s mistake amounts to a breach of duty, or negligent act, the next hurdle to overcome is establishing that financial loss has been suffered. If the lawyer’s error did not result in you suffering loss, then a claim cannot be pursued.

For instance, if a conveyancing lawyer fails to give you correct advice in relation to the purchase of a property (such as the effect of a restrictive covenant for example) but you decide not to proceed with the transaction for unrelated reasons, then even if the error was clear-cut, the fact that the purchase did not proceed means that no loss has been suffered.

If loss can be established, a successful claimant must go on to show that it arose directly as a result of the negligence and not some other cause. If the loss would have arisen even if the lawyer’s mistake had not occurred then the claim is unlikely to succeed. This element is known as ‘causation’. A classic example would be someone who has been let down by a solicitor in a litigation case which they would have lost anyway, even if the mistake had not occured. For instance, if a claim were to become statute barred because of undue delay by the solicitor – a clear mistake – but the claim itself had no realistic prospects of succeeding, then the professional negligence action will be likely to fail on causation.

It’s also worth considering the value of the claim. If the loss suffered as a result of a solicitor’s mistake is under £10,000 then it will be classified as a ‘small claim’ (as at February 2025). This means that even if the case is successful in the small claims court you are unlikely to recover your legal costs. It is therefore rarely economic to employ the services of a solicitor in a small claim as the legal costs can quickly outweigh the value of the claim. People can end up losing most, if not all, of what they win in legal fees or even find themselves out of pocket. The likely costs and benefits of a claim therefore need to be carefully weighed up before being pursued. If you decide to appoint us to represent you then we will discuss your funding options with you right at the start.

How we can help you claim compensation if your lawyer has made an error

The key thing to remember about claims against solicitors is that they usually turn on the individual facts of each case. This makes it important to seek guidance from a specialist lawyer. We operate a free professional negligence consultation service. You can call or email us and one of our specialist solicitors will assess your case; free of charge and without obligation. They will also consider your funding options, including no win, no fee.

So, if your solicitor has made a mistake resulting in substantial loss, and you want to know if you have a valid legal claim then contact us for a free consultation on 0333 888 0403 or by emailing info@proneg.co.uk

Spanish Mortgage ‘Floor Clause’ Claims: Are you entitled to compensation?

Court ruling allows Brits with Spanish property to claim compensation

In December 2016 the European Court of Justice ruled that mortgages containing a ‘floor clause’ are unlawful. This has opened the door for thousands of British people with property in Spain to claim compensation.

What is a ‘floor clause’?

A ‘floor clause’ (known is Spain as a ‘clausula suelo’) is a clause contained in a tracker mortgage agreement. It requires the borrower to pay a minimum interest rate – even if the interest rate being tracked (such as the Euribor rate) is lower.

These floor clauses have resulted in people paying much more interest than they should have.

What can I claim?

If you have one of these mortgages you may be entitled to re-claim the interest you have been wrongly charged. On a mortgage of  €150,000 this could amount to €200 or more per month.

How long will it take?

Once a claim has been filed the Scheme specifies that the bank has 3 months to pay the compensation due. If the bank does not respond or fails to make a satisfactory offer within the 3 month period court action can be commenced.

 

 

Emma Slade, a specialist professional negligence solicitor, looks at No Win – No Fee, CFAs and Legal Expenses Insurance in the context of solicitor’s negligence claims

Whenever a client becomes embroiled in any sort of litigation or lengthy legal dispute, their main concern is – quite understandably – “how much is it going to cost me?” This is never an easy question for a lawyer to answer, but regardless of what the answer is, there is a duty upon a solicitor to give consideration to the most suitable method of funding available to the client.

The Solicitor’s Code of Conduct gives guidance on how a solicitor should deal with his client and legal fees is one of the first issues it addresses. Paraphrasing the Code, it says:

• Any fee arrangement entered into with a client needs to be suitable for the client’s needs and take into account the client’s best interests

• A discussion needs to be had on whether the likely outcome of the work would justify the anticipated expense, especially taking into account the potential risk of being liable for another party’s legal fees

• Consideration must be given as to whether there are alternative methods of funding the case (eg public funding, legal expenses insurance, conditional fee agreements)

• The lawyer must give the client the best information available  – both at the outset of the retainer and throughout the course of the case – concerning the likely overall cost of the matter

It is the last point which can cause some solicitors to become unstuck as many fail to realise (or forget) that there is an ongoing duty to review the issue of costs with their clients.

Most solicitors have a system whereby they will regularly update their clients on the level of costs incurred, but many overlook the fact that the review should consider not only the legal costs incurred to date but also the method of funding and in particular whether the current method of funding continues to be the one that is most suitable for the client.

Some examples of how funding options might develop over time would include:

• A case becomes suitable for No Win – No Fee (CFA funding) – and even if the solicitor is not be prepared to deal with the case on a No Win, No Fee basis they should advise the Client that other solicitors may be willing to do so

• ‘After the Event’ legal expenses insurance (LEI) may become required or the indemnity level of an existing LEI policy may need to be ‘topped up’.

• There is a change in the law which alters funding arrangements

If you feel that you have a claim for professional negligence against your solicitor in relation to a No Win – No Fee claim, please call Emma Slade on 0333 888 0403 for a free case assessment. Alternatively, you can contact us by e-mail at info@proneg.co.uk