Responsibilities of a solicitor (relating to PPCs)

MothballsWallet

Hi folks,

I was Googling "uk responsibilities of a solicitor" as there are some things that pop out from what you all see here from Gs, BW, et al, and what I know of a solicitor's duties/responsibilities and I came across this report from the SRA (last updated November 2018).

Looking at the bullet points further down the page, they all jumoed out at me since, imo, Gs and BW don't seem to comply with them (and perhaps many others, including PPCs with their own legal depts).

Has anyone else read this and think people who've successfully defended with your help should be referring to this SRA paper when complaining about the actions of a PPC solicitor either to the SRA or MP?

Sorry if this adds more to your unread threads list, but I thought it could be useful - please throw (virtual) eggs at me if not.

Umkomaas

Very interesting. I’ve just skimmed it, but will have a longer read later. Here’s one very apposite extract:

Predatory litigation against third parties

Predatory litigation generally involves solicitors bringing large numbers of claims with limited investigation of their individual merits or of the underlying legal background. The idea is usually that the cost in time and money of proceedings, or the threat of public embarrassment, will lead to opponents settling cases that might have no real merit.

For example, a law firm might send letters of claim to large numbers of individuals alleging, on limited evidence, that they have breached the intellectual property of their client. The requested settlement is usually significantly lower than the potential cost of fighting the claim, which encourages people to settle the claim before it goes to court and without first seeking their own legal advice.

In some of these cases, there is little evidence that there was an intention to bring the case to court. It is possible that a court would not make an award for the claim if it did proceed. Although the opponents could fight the case in court, the cost of reaching that stage, and the fear of costs, often encourages settlement. There is often a large asymmetry of knowledge and legal understanding, for example between the defendant and the solicitor, which favours the solicitor's client.

[Deleted User]

Not sure that's enough to get this across the line.

1. The parking companies DO take cases to court
2. Before any correspondence is sent by Gladstones et al, copies of signs and photos do exist and are in evidence
3. In a large number of cases early correspondence has been ignored (there is no clear defendant position)

I'd possibly agree that some of the correspondence is misleading/could be improved, but I'd be surprised if the SRA slap them down for this.

MothballsWallet

Johnersh wrote: »

Not sure that's enough to get this across the line.

1. The parking companies DO take cases to court
2. Before any correspondence is sent by Gladstones et al, copies of signs and photos do exist and are in evidence
3. In a large number of cases early correspondence has been ignored (there is no clear defendant position)

I'd possibly agree that some of the correspondence is misleading/could be improved, but I'd be surprised if the SRA slap them down for this.

There are also points about abuse of the system, misleading the court and excessive or aggressive litigation.

I just thought it might be something useful to throw at them, especially after the SRA sending out a memorandum to solicitors about the standards they're meant to work to (from what I understand of the summary, their memorandum was more a gentle reminder than a command).

beamerguy

I wonder how many of these we have seen many times on here

Our paper looks at improper or abusive litigation, which includes:

**predatory litigation
**predatory litigation involving clients
**abuse of the process
**taking unfair advantage
**misleading the court
**excessive or aggressive litigation
**conducting knowingly unwinnable cases.

And the SRA say .....
Those who cross the line into misleading the courts or abusing the litigation process should have no doubt that such conduct can attract serious consequences.

[Deleted User]

I need to go away and look at it in detail. It's also different here, where there is no significant risk of adverse costs unlike litigation outside the small claims track.

D_P_Dance

The SRA do seem to be rather hot on punishing financial misconduct, but a bit more lax in cases where you and I would think that they are taking the !!!!.

MothballsWallet

Johnersh wrote: »

I need to go away and look at it in detail. It's also different here, where there is no significant risk of adverse costs unlike litigation outside the small claims track.

I haven't had the chance to go through it in detail myself, tbh.

I also remember reading (I think it was somewhere on here) that a solicitor's first duty is to the court, but can't remember if that applies just to criminal cases or to all cases.

[Deleted User]

I also remember reading (I think it was somewhere on here) that a solicitor's first duty is to the court,

That's ALWAYS and all courts.

Snakes_Belly

D_P_Dance wrote: »

The SRA do seem to be rather hot on punishing financial misconduct, but a bit more lax in cases where you and I would think that they are taking the !!!!.

The collection agents that the PPC's use would be crossing the line if they were regulated. My understanding is that if they were regulated under the FCA they would not be able to chase disputed claims and would have to refer the claim back to the PPC.

They are also not supposed to use multiple collection agents as it amounts to harassment.

IMHO all these companies like DRP should be regulated or go out of business. Preferably the latter.

I hope that the new Code of Practice requires that all debt collection agents used by PPC's must be regulated by the FCA.

Computersaysno

SRA - chocolate fireguard/teapot.....