RTA - Need some advice

spursman124

Hello All,

Thanks for your replies. Over the last few weeks, I;ve been speaking to two local firms, gathering information about what they do, charges and providing them with the info regarding my RTA. I've decided to go with one of two but I can't seem to decide which and there is, for some reason, massive differences in what they believe I am entitled to, and as a result, their fees.

Local Firm 1 is a member of APIL, seems to be very good at dealing with RTAs, has some positive online reviews. I went to meet them, explained what happened and showed them the details of my accident reports etc. Their fees were "upto" 25% of the sum received, but guaranteed it will not go above that percentage. The gave me a conservative estimate of what they believed I would be entitled to reason being my injuries weren't clearly described in this book the solicitor showed me as to what the judges use in RTAs.

Local Firm 2 isn't a member of APIL, but has been recommended by someone I know who has come across them. I spoke at length to the solicitor over the phone who gave me some good advice and explained the process to me. I haven't yet met the solicitor in person so their estimate of what I was entitled to was a little higher then Local Firm 1 and as a result, the solicitor suggested the threshold of winnings meant that they would reclaim their costs against the 3rd party, and not take any of my winnings. Again, the solicitor was also referencing this book I mentioned above.

That leaves me a little baffled to be honest. I was dead set on Local Firm 1 before I spoke to Local Firm 2 again yesterday. Why are their estimations and fees miles apart? I thought this had been standardized reading previous posts. Surely what they charge as a fee should be the same or near but they are miles apart.

Do you guys think there has been some misunderstanding or is there something I should clarify or be asking the firms? Or is this a no brainer?

Is there anything else I should be finding out here? Please advise.

InsideInsurance

25% is the legal maximum and so they couldnt go above that even if they wanted to.

What a solicitor can claim from the TP/ their insurer is dependent on which "track" of the court it goes through. This is predominately driven by the amount of money being claimed however unusually complex cases can be heard in a higher track than the damages suggest and straight forward cases that just happen to be a bit above the normal limit can be seen in a lower track.

The higher the track the higher the fees the solicitor can claim from the other side and so the less they need to tap you up for money.

Small Track (aka small claims) up to £1,000 (injury or £10,000 for non-injury)
Fast Track - up to £25,000
Multi Track - greater than £25,000

I personally rate personal recommendations from people I trust higher than whatever I read online but ultimately you need to work with these people and so its as much down to that as anything else

spursman124

Hi Thanks.

Ok, well the recommendation that came for Local Firm 2 was not from someone who has actually used them so i don't think it is enough of the a recommendation to sway me.

In terms of the tracks, both have suggested fast tracks. Local Firm one have suggested near the 20k mark, whereas Local Firm 2 have suggested near to the 25k mark. Based on this information, why is there such a difference in their fees?

And as the recommendation is not significant enough to sway my decision, I'm left totally confused! I might have to resort to tossing a coin! lol

Also, if one firm suggests I can get 30k, and I sign the paper work and instruct them as no cost to me (IE their fees form 3rd party), but they end up getting 20k, what happens?

OnanTheBarbarian

Go with your gut instinct, until medical evidence exists and has been properly reviewed, together with the degree of contributory negligence against you (which will then reduce the value of the claim by the relevant %), the lawyers can only offer guidance and best guestimate on the likely value and outcome of your claim.

At this rate, your claim will be statute barred before you instruct a solicitor

InsideInsurance

spursman124 wrote: »

Also, if one firm suggests I can get 30k, and I sign the paper work and instruct them as no cost to me (IE their fees form 3rd party), but they end up getting 20k, what happens?

If the paperwork simply says no fees then its no fees, they cannot rewrite the rules unless you have lied to them or such.

More likely the paperwork would cover the "what if" scenarios and explain, in legalese, what happens if your claim ends up being a different value/ allocated to a different track than anticipated etc

spursman124

Onan - Haha.... :-) Actually my accident is only 2 months old so I have another 2 years and 10 months of asking you questions! :-)

Ok, instinct it is. However, my question still really hasn't been asnwered clearly...how can one firm say no fees, and the other have 25% fees? I've told them the same info, and they've roughly said the same amount of compensation. Weird isn't it?

InsideInsurance

spursman124 wrote: »

how can one firm say no fees, and the other have 25% fees?

Can you think of any product or service at all where everyone sells it at the identical price?

Solicitors are ultimately companies and companies can have different strategies, costs, approaches, level of profitability etc.

At the same time cost is not always a direct comparison to quality, you can find a big part of the price you pay goes into advertising or PR etc rather than bums on seats etc. Hence the "you pay for the label" type comments with certain brands.

As two possible explanations, of many, the one with no fees may get all its work directly in and so isnt paying referral fees to anyone so can exist on the fast track allowed fees. Alternatively it could be 99% paralegals handling cases with 800+ cases per handler and they'll roll over at the first offer etc and thus their operating costs are tiny.

As an outsider there is no way of knowing for absolute sure whats driving their business strategy but ask the questions that are relevant to you and make sure your happy with the answer

silien2007

spursman124 wrote: »

how can one firm say no fees, and the other have 25% fees?

I think you may be dealing with a tricky wordsmith here. Although they say "no fees" what they actually mean is there are no fees outside of the percentage they would take (if you win). The other solicitors are being more open and up front saying the "fees" will be 25%. If in doubt i would speak to 3 or more solicitors to get a feel for how you want to approach this. As mentioned above...these guys are running a business, and as with all businesses they will do everything in their power to make maximum profits. Check out legallyadvised.co.uk/no-win-no-fee/ for an independent overview of "no win no fee" claims and the pros and cons. Good luck