SSB Law - failed cavity wall insulation claims - anyone in the same boat?

rogersnodin

Hello Investigationsjourno. 
As jcrooke notes, your coverage needs to be balanced. Whilst I am extremely sorry for the victims of SSB, ask why they could not have resolved their differences directly with the firms who did the installations, rather than launch massive legal claims. How many of them really had a problem in the first place?  As I understand, almost all these cases were thrown out by the courts or did not have sufficient merit to proceed further, and perhaps you need to reflect as to what extent, if any, they were victims of their own greed. 
Perhaps when you look into this further, you might also look at Pure Legal. Trustpilot reviews are a good start. They went under in Nov 2021 and left a similar path of destruction. For whatever reason, they have not hit the headlines in the same way as SSB, but deserve to do so. SSB seems to have copied their business model.  

jcrooke

Hopefully #Investigationsjourno. will investigate the facts here a little more and not just have a single, potentially biased narrative from the claimant’s perspective only. (not very BBC to not have a balanced view).

It is worth noting there is a high propensity of claims management companies in this area (North West) I guess for a reason. There is at least the possibility to consider that, not all claimants were genuine (a man knocking on your door telling you, your entitled to 20-100k of compensation just because you have cavity wall insulation, no win no fee, is rather tempting after all).

Others have been easily convinced their claim was genuine and believed the person at the door selling them the litigation loan (these claimants have been the product all along with this CWI claims area, like many other no win no fee claims). At the very least the claimants have been gullible to believe a door-to-door salesperson and not seek another opinion as well. At worst they have been actively involved, knowing it was untrue and aiding in concocting a claim in order to obtain compensation, hopefully its isn't often the latter.

I do not think the defendants are to blame here at all for the gullibility or dishonesty of the claimants, however it appears to be a view held by some, they should give up their claims and leave these claimants alone.  Many people will have lost jobs and businesses over this matter, and I do not see too much thought being given to those victims, who never asked to be a part of this CWI claim situation. Insurance firms will have spent millions defending these matters, pushing up the insurance costs for everyone, that also seems hardly fair.

The narrative via BBC (and other news channels and one Local MP as well) and is that the claims are all genuine and all issues in these homes, are only linked to CWI. They do not seem to have done much research into that bar taking the claimants word for it, however. But if that were indeed true you would have though there would be at least some evidence to back this up and the claims markedly more successful than they have been, we are after all here as they haven't been at all successful.  Surely a few points to consider here would be; 

1.    Why did the claimants never contact their installers nor the guarantee provider for their work prior to making the claim? They were told not to perhaps?  After all, having it fixed would take away any route to a claim?

2.    Why did the claimants need a knock at the door to know they had an issue? and then believe it was all down to CWI? Could it have been due to the person at the door offering an opportunity for a large windfall perhaps? very few if any would have registered issues with the installer or guarantee provider prior to making a claim. 

3.    If there were genuine issues en-mass, why are we here? Why have 1000s of cases been lost or discontinued? Why didn’t the claim model work if there were indeed genuine issues? Surely if it was a slam dunk win,  and easy money for the solicitors (of which dozens have gone bankrupt peddling these claims not just SSB) why have they failed so miserably?  Could it be the claims were never well founded or grossly overstated? In effect could they have been created solely for the purpose of obtaining funding for litigation? Why did all the original experts who completed (well maybe completed) the original reports drop out of cases in 2021 due to ill health or moving abroad? Why did SSB struggle to find experts to support their claim, but the defence didn’t at all (and when they did find an expert, they would not agree to the previous surveyor report)? Could it be the claim was concocted or at best significantly distorted to create a route to litigation, on the correct court track and therefore the ability to draw down litigation funding? I am not saying that this was as a fault of the claimant, but it certainly was not the fault of the defendant either.

You should read several troubling judgements Jagger Vs AXA being perhaps the most recent about the conduct of SSB and the “experts” they used there are however many others as well. You may then change you mind about how genuine all these claims were in the main. I am not saying the claimants should have known better, they put their faith in who they thought were experts without adequate scepticism. But the narrative around these cost judgements in that they are a shock is likely not true for many. For many of these matters hitting the news now, these court orders, were granted well before SSB went into administration and had been based on agreed costs from 12 months or more earlier, which SSB failed to pay. The defendants have been waiting a long time to get their money back and have simply had to resort to the legal routes available as the only ones left to them, as SSB and claimants have largely ignored letters from solicitors and the courts when sent.

While the plight of these claimants is sad and I sympathise with them, its hardly the fault of defendants who have collectively had to spend tens if not hundreds of millions defending claims which likely never should have been brought in most cases.  Most can only get a proportion of these costs back.

The claimants were at the least, via their naivety or greed the authors of their own misfortune, as they chose to launch litigation in the first place. The installers and insurance firms being sued had no such luxury of choice to be involved in these matters and spent a fortune defending matters, which given their huge lack of success clearly were not well founded in most cases.

For me you are looking at the wrong story here, as tragic as the picture is for these claimants now, many should be able to look for compensation to pay off these debts via the PI of SSB in a professional negligence claim (hopefully). The important bit is how this was ever allowed to happen in the first place. Questions perhaps should be:

1.    How did a firm with no actual assets be allowed to build up debt up of over £200m in only a few years in a supposedly a regulated environment? The SRA had already warned in 2020 they were concerned about the way these CWI cases came about and were being conducted by litigant firms. How did the SRA deem SSB were all ok 6 months prior to its collapse? (remarkably similar to the Axiom Ince fallout on this point), Surely there has been a failure to adequately regulate here, and investigate the business model of these firms and provide protection to claimants? Maybe the remit of the SRA isn't wide enough? 

2.    How has this type of litigation been allowed to be so unregulated while other areas have been tightened up to a great extent? An unlevel playing field (no doubt unintended) has been created by the MOJ, with focus by certain firms, on matters outside of those now more tightly (we hope) regulated by the FCA. It has clearly allowed unscrupulous operators exploit areas of law which are not adequately regulated, to generate, mass scale litigation on an area of law, which was never tested or had success. The SRA were (or should have been) aware of mass failures among firms in the CWI claim sector from as early as 2018 (indeed many of those claims ended up with SSB from previously failed firms). Again, surely a failure by the MOJ  and the FCA to regulate problem areas and leading to these sorts of collapses and following repercussions. Many in the insulation industry had asked government to adequately regulate this market as early as 2018, but they did not take any of these views on board (and no doubt they had a vested interest as well)  and here we are today with this mess as a result, but it was clear to many these claims would end badly as long as 6 years ago.

3.    Why were claimants allowed to start litigation prior to other options being considered such as speaking to the installer, guarantee provider or ADR? Surely the rules need to change to explore every other option prior to embarking on expensive and ruinous litigation. 

4.    Where has all the money gone £160m (approx. of loans) is a lot to disappear? What was the conduct of Directors here why did they keep moving with an area they knew full well they had no prospect of success?  Hopefully, the administrators will into these matters, but given SSB could not pay experts, fund court costs correctly, nor even pay their rent, or make settlements on discontinued matters, does make you question perhaps where that money has landed?

5.    What about the lead generation firms (I can tell you a number of names for these) why are they not under investigation for miss-selling and perhaps far worse.

6.    Why are the SFO not crawling all over this matter (hopefully they are) it is another Post Office level scandal here (but not the same morally,  as the claimants here had a choice the post office victims did not) , and while SSB and their, lead generation firms have no doubt caused this issue, why was it even a possibility it could happen in the first place?  The failure to regulate correctly by SRA and Government policies in relation to litigation, are the key reason why this problem has even happened in the first instance. Its key that this is reviewed and reformed quickly so similar issues do not continue to happen on this or other areas of litigation. The impacts are too great on defendants and claimants alike. 

7. What has been the role of litigation funders here in propagating these claims? Many are based overseas outside of UK regulation. Have they forced this issue to this stage to avoid writing off investments keeping these claims alive longer than should have been the case, ultimately leading to the situation we have now?  If you dig through a few firms in this space, indeed some funders have moved claims to new legal practices to keep them in motion rather than just try and bring matters to a close. Several funders also, appear to have gone bust as well who have funded these matters. VFS being a more recent one who moved claims to SSB when a previous law firm went pop... maybe some of the SSB funders did similar?

Hopefully, you will dig a bit deeper and speak to a few more people across the whole of this sorry tale and maybe ask a few wider questions. There is likely far more to this all than meets the eye, and while the impacts on the claimants lives are indeed shocking and sad, they are not the only victims here, and the wider story maybe one which is much bigger in scope. 

mi2terepg

Worth noting many did contact installers and ciga. Many installers dissolved their companies so could not be contacted. Many were paying out to fix. The elderly I feel for who were told it's a claim out of a pot not taking installers to court etc. The mis selling is biblical on this and the fraud by solicitors, surveyors, loan companies etc tantamounts to crime of the decade. The public are innocent they had zero control over the criminal organised cmc's and we're lied too. It needs sorting because it means our justice system is totally broken unless your wealthy! 

jcrooke

mi2terepg said:

Worth noting many did contact installers and ciga. Many installers dissolved their companies so could not be contacted. Many were paying out to fix. The elderly I feel for who were told it's a claim out of a pot not taking installers to court etc. The mis selling is biblical on this and the fraud by solicitors, surveyors, loan companies etc tantamounts to crime of the decade. The public are innocent they had zero control over the criminal organised cmc's and we're lied too. It needs sorting because it means our justice system is totally broken unless your wealthy! 

I take your point that there have been many stories told to the claimants to get them to sign on the dotted line, perhaps it was a claim against insurance companies so no harm to anyone else? (Which does still cost us all in increased premiums of course) It would only take months to get a settlement etc etc.  There certainly seems to be a case to answer for with the CMC companies and SSB in how they have conducted these matters and there are many worrying aspects to their conduct, let’s hope that happens. I do feel a degree of sympathy for the claimants of course, no doubt some were more in the know on this than others that there wasn't an actual case to answer. However they did all,  did have a choice in this matter, those they  chose to sue (it would appear in most cases unfairly and unsuccessfully) defendants and insurance firms had no such choice.

I would also imagine some  claimants did, as you say try to contract installers and CIGA, but in my experience the vast majority didn't, this quickly became a mass scale lead generation farming exercise moving from door to door in homes in the NW and to a lesser scale in the NE and Wales,  and became about  creating litigation funding sales,  rather than actually trying to resolve and fix matters where they had gone wrong. I am sure many with genuine claims will have lost out because of this.

I suspect customers didn’t in the main contact CIGA or the installers, as they were told not to by the CMCs, or it would in effect mean there was no case to sue for if the issues were fixed. (Similar things are happening with housing disrepair claims against housing providers at present.) The fact that almost all cases have been lost or discontinued as there was no realistic prospect of success, also tells the story of the validity of these claims. The narrative is around these homes have damp and it was all due to CWI, this clearly isn’t the case for most of these issues being reported, or they claims would have been successful. 

This process of almost  continual loss on these claims, has been happening on for many years SSB started mass discontinuances in early 2022 as it was clear they were not able to prove their cases on the claims they had started, as they were not well founded in the main. SSB had huge issues in finding experts who would argue their pleaded position. The insurance firms had no such issues and their experts in the vast majority of cases found there was no case to answer (they also needed to be fairly balanced as if there were issues then it would be in the insurance companies interest to settle rather than have the expense of a trial), or with minimal issues not linked to damp, and the remediation costs were always inflated by a significant factor. i.e. a £208k claim for a £250 remediation cost to an issue causing no actual damage. Clearly there has been poor practice by these CMC firms who have produced these reports, but SSB and others before them, were well aware of these issues yet kept using the same firms and launching more litigation even up to the end of summer 2023 when they were aware it would seem their goose was cooked. Clearly those with genuine issues, and of course   there will be some with valid claims,  have been lost in the mix of the 99% of claims which were concocted to allow litigation to commence and SSB to draw down funds and the CMC to be paid by them.

The scale is clearly huge (1400 is likely an underestimate), the scary part is how it was allowed to happen in the first place, failure by the SRA to correctly regulate (or not having the ability to regulate) and legal reforms by the MOJ are clearly also a major part of why this is such a huge issue.  Hopefully the claimants here can get some support and help, and the rules be changed to avoid a repeat of this fiasco on the next claims bandwagon. I think a huge warning here for the public is to be very circumspect when it comes to no win no fee as clearly that isn't always the case.

kobayashi135

To the comments above ^ asking for balanced view... CIGA can be extracted for sum value of works, BUFCA ( Hard to treat cannot) technitherm Isothane sets like plastic and if installed incorrectly It has to be chiseled out by dropping the outer leafs, that's £75k on an end terrace 7 years ago... CIGA is beaded type and can be extracted but you still can't claim for subsequent damage that's why nearly everyone has pursued CWI cases instead of the 'thousand pound value BUFCA / CIGA certificate' In some instances we were decorating for a few years after then realised our house was damp and paint not drying etc.. mould / damp spots.The bigger picture is this was all de-regulated government backed scheme that didn't require a qualified surveyor, we had 'Insulate Britain's gluing themselves to roads to further promote 'insulate your home' 2021, the whole thing based upon climate change which is another big scam. The general public was conned into this and we want our houses fixing / compensating / charges / bailiffs etc removed on our properties. 

jcrooke

kobayashi135 said:

To the comments above ^ asking for balanced view... CIGA can be extracted for sum value of works, BUFCA ( Hard to treat cannot) technitherm Isothane sets like plastic and if installed incorrectly It has to be chiseled out by dropping the outer leafs, that's £75k on an end terrace 7 years ago... CIGA is beaded type and can be extracted but you still can't claim for subsequent damage that's why nearly everyone has pursued CWI cases instead of the 'thousand pound value BUFCA / CIGA certificate' In some instances we were decorating for a few years after then realised our house was damp and paint not drying etc.. mould / damp spots.The bigger picture is this was all de-regulated government backed scheme that didn't require a qualified surveyor, we had 'Insulate Britain's gluing themselves to roads to further promote 'insulate your home' 2021, the whole thing based upon climate change which is another big scam. The general public was conned into this and we want our houses fixing / compensating / charges / bailiffs etc removed on our properties. 

Again, balance is needed with your comments, as there is not much in them which is accurate. I assume as you are talking about guarantee providers, about specific materials, and scheme funding names you maybe have played a role in generating these claims perhaps? Leading to the situation we have today, maybe these were the target bits of information you were given by your CMC or sales agent if you were not a lead generator? As is becoming clear the claims made by the CMCs and sales agents were clearly incorrect and, in many cases, fabricated, hence us being where we are today and so few CWI cases being won? There simply is no evidence to support these claims, a Ruling by HHJ Staffman back in January 2021 was clear on the merits of this CWI litigation and the troubling evidence from sol called experts.

The work you suggest as needed on Isothane installs if frankly incorrect and has already been disproved at court multiple times as have indeed your suggested remediation costs and methods. It is due to the creation of largely false litigation as to why this is such a mess. This has been propagated in the main by the CMC firms, there sales agents and the claims solicitors. I do hope all get suitably investigated over this, but alas I would not bet on it.

The sums you quote were those banded around by certain CMCs and claim Solicitors and are a gross exaggeration of the true costs even if works were needed.

Almost all matters were lost on CWI claims remember (or discontinued as they had no realistic chance of success at court after a multitude of losses) many successful claims settled for relatively trivial sums between £500- 3500, nothing like the sums claimed and should have been on the small claims track.

Clearly, they cannot have been well founded or it would not have been such a huge mess, and they would have won on occasion? I get those homeowners after being told by someone, who they believed was an expert and they could trust, that CWI had caused issues wants to hold on to that information and belief. They want to blame someone else for issues in their homes, and not think those issues simply did not exist or were caused by other factors, and they are left which huge bills for nothing. Sadly, the experts they thought knew what they were doing sadly knew nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of the door-to-door salespeople (they were never surveyors) likely engaged in the sales of CWI prior to this and turned to this once that work had dried up.

I think it safe to assume the ‘Expert’ reports from the CMC firms produced in large volumes, were hardly convincing (I have seen many but if you see one you have literally seen them all) mainly stacked with untruths and contradictory information and a total lack of any actual evidence to link any issues to CWI installation or failure. They have not even tested for damp correctly many homes never actually had any. To be honest even to a lay person these reports looked wholly unconvincing.

Once you see these vs the defence expert reports you can see why the defendants have dug in so hard to defend these matters. One client had had over 60 of these claims yet not a single matter went to court all were dropped as there was no case to answer, and experts wouldn’t stand behind the reports largely written by the CMCs with  their signatures applied (one expert even stated this was happening to a Judge!).

Once the various main original Chartered Surveyors (4 individuals on the majority of cases) started to be taken to task in court they all dropped away like flies to live abroad, or having to step down due to ill health.

It is a fact, based on the outcomes at trial that most of the targeted homes had no issues caused by CWI. Many did have other issues causing problems in the homes, typically building defects, rising damp, poor maintenance, imbalance of heating and ventilation or over occupancy causing condensation issues. But not defects caused directly by CWI, this lack of linkage was always the most significant barrier when these claims went to court and why most simply failed. It got to a point in early 2022 that SSB knew they could not win these, so they simply started mass discontinuances, some of the defendants had their adverse costs paid off most however did not.

The claims were all without exception overstated and many should never have been put forward, there was simply no quality control at the CMC or the solicitors to sort the “wheat from the chaff” and the sales teams were rewarded on volume of sales which only encouraged questionable behaviours. I have heard of some truly shocking actions to create evidence to give them enough “evidence” to get a claim accepted and the level of surveying carried out by these unqualified door knockers was woeful. As I stated previously the lack of regulation on these CMC firms and the claims solicitors is shocking and a large factor why this situation has occurred.

As for the “experts” who signed the templated identical (bar photos and damp readings) reports they largely never set foot in the houses nor indeed reviewed the “evidence” in many cases (also documented at court)., I am sure there in some instances were issues, but never on the scale of the claims being made.  The worst thing is those who did have genuine claims, are now statute barred from making new ones and have invalided the guarantees they did have so are now high and dry.


The claims were always inflated even if genuine as they were in the main all small court claims and would have been better resolved under guarantee or via the installer if possible. But lead generators advised customers to not contact either nor fix any issues, as clearly there was no case if matters were resolved. This has exacerbated issues, and many claimants have by there actions not acted to mitigate their loss.

 

But frankly your suggested method is not the way these issues should be tackled even if they were true.

Other methods would be.

1.    The manufactures recommended solution to reinstall the foam to cover for any voids which may exist. A typical home a cost of  £1500-2000 depending on the property size most will have been mid or end terrace homes so between 25-80m of foam to instal.

2.    Internal Insulation the property to minimise the risk of a thermal imbalance if voids were present. Again, a likely cost of £4-9000 depending on property size.

3.    Localised void top ups perhaps £500-800 and likely the most common solution.

4.    Pressurized lance extraction a typical £7-12,000 cost for a property likely to have been installed.

The biggest issue of course was there was generally no need to do any of these on a large majority of properties.

Even your recommended method is grossly overstated even if needed. A typical three bed end terrace of 80m2 would likely have cost closer to £25,000-£30,000 for the method you claim is needed. Most of the items. on the statement of loss, added in these inflated costs you suggest involved huge betterment which was simply not needed or justified.

You also claim the surveyors had to have no qualifications, while this may well have been the case pre 2013 the regulations relating to CWI have been tightening since that date. Almost all of these claims farmed in the NW were for installs completed between 2015 – early 2018.

At that time of course surveyors had to have some level of property qualification at least be a Domestic Energy Assessor and at the time when CWI was installed to most of these claims involving Foam they also, had to have a chartered surveyor or other independent expert also sign off on them as suitable prior to install.  Given these claims all revolved around funded claims they would all have had to be installed inline with PAS regulations.

There was also, oversight from Green Deal Installer schemes (operated by groups such as the BBA, and other professional bodies) as well as technical monitoring on 5% of all completed installations completed by independent inspectors employed by the utility companies who funded the works.

To say it was unregulated is clearly nonsense, clearly there will have been companies who have not operated properly, but not the majority hence why these claims simply were found to be without merit by the courts, or grossly overstated. The regulation today on CWI installs is significantly more robust.

The view it was all unregulated is one often peddled by the claim generators. Many of the houses did have issues with damp, many had structural faults rising dampness, poor property maintenance. Yet unqualified lead generators armed with a damp meter, a drill, a borescope, a thermal camera (which many did not know how to use correctly) and a camera were able to advise residents they had an issue due to CWI, despite not having the tools nor the experience to do so. And claimants tempted by the sales patter of tens of thousands of pounds or more in compo fell for it hook line and sinker…. Sign here please no win no fee etc

The fact that most of the claims generated have lost, tells a story perhaps? Maybe the fact that the initial chartered surveyors all got ill or left the UK clearly as they understood their templated reports on homes, they had never inspected were all a significant issue when it came to their professional standing?

It’s also curious why, did new experts never come back with the same conclusions as the initial “expert” who produced the template report based on information collected by the lead generators?

Why did many of the new experts stand down quickly after being appointed perhaps when it became clear their names were being applied to reports they had no hand in writing. Why did so many have to back down at joint expert meetings with the defence expert could it be many of the “facts” they claimed were blatantly untrue and a continuation of that narrative would have led to serious professional repercussions?

Maybe the Claims management companies with the solicitors had concocted the whole sorry tale to obtain the ability to access litigation funding and pay those involved in the generation of these claims. Its certainly sounding the most plausible situation base on the outcomes on the cases which were taken (or not to trial)

Sorry long post, but in the most part this is the whole claim culture has been the cause of this sorry mess and the fact that claimants had been poorly advised, (insert other words to suit) to by their solicitors and experts. I do hope they find redress somehow, but its clearly not fair for those who did not ask to be part of this sorry story loose out, on matters which clearly did not exist in the way being claimed.

kobayashi135

I have it in writing that Isothane Technitherm to be extracted out of a property is this :

''Removal would be a manual removal by removing sections of the outer leaf, and cutting the insulation away, and then rebuilding'  that is from one of their own technical employee's.

The datasheet also states its FLAMMABLE (this is more likely with poor fill ratio where there is air in the cavity) if a fire were to start elsewhere.

Closer to 100% fill this would not have any air to mix for fire risk but this fill ratio of 'maximum' also caused door & window frames to bow for some clients... 

The whole install process was flawed and not audited sufficiently, customers were not informed this would be next to impossible to remove if the issues were to arise..

CWI clients do not want a property with flammable material in their walls with 50% fill ratios, not based on Grenfell Towers...

The Technitherm material has to be carefully injected in stages with EXACTLY the correct method to a fill ratio that requires time delay and allows for the expansion of the material , but only if the contractor 'Green Sheet' is used & applied correctly. 

As for 5% auditing on completed installs, how many BUFCA installs were actually rejected  prior to installation or classed as unsuitable? I am guessing none....Is every property in the country suitable? i dont think so, some are in too poor a state to start with, or in wind driven south west facing areas, this was also never highlighted or rejected by the so called 'surveyors', they simply went ahead on every sales lead they got..

Was the CWI 'Hard To Treat' programme to just 'inject' every single house that came along, because it was free to the client and the installers and the material providers were being payed by the 'government backed schemes'.

A win win surely?

Every install should have been signed off by a proper surveyor and not poorly trained contractors ticking off a green sheet without borescoping & thermal imaging, some contractors were simply guessing the drillwork & making damn sure they never went close to a maximum fill ratio.

There is no 'pressurized extraction' for Isothane Technitherm nor can 'top ups' be done in the areas where cold bridging occurs. This would require hundreds of further drill holes all over the stonework by guided camera! It is simply not feasible or possible.

Careful chiselled extraction must be done as to not affect the wall ties. 

If you have the beaded type install on CIGA this can rectified a lot more easily should you run into issues, the beads can be sucked out by Vacuum, you are not facing a rebuild of your property..

BUFCA should have never been signed off as fit for purpose for these liquid foam installs, it is too complex with little auditing, and there is good reason why CIGA has less cost associated with rectification.

The damp problem has increased massively in the last 10 years since the CWI installs for numerous tenants and property owners. It needs addressing by the government.

You would be lucky to get a a new conservatory in this day & age for £20-£25K. We are talking almost about a full rebuild outer leaf and the damage inside and rebuild of every room that this would be a catastrophic undertaking. 

Another method which hides the CWI issues is in the method of 'wall tanking' using a slurry mix, it should only be considered as an interim fix and is not guaranteed to prevent damp long term, but is the only option left...

Cavity walls are meant to 'breathe' you are best to leave well alone should anyone knock on your door.
Be careful on Spray Foam Loft insulations, these are invalidating next owner mortgages as the woodwork is hidden. Dont do it!

Legal Quagmire SSB etc..:

By the court judge ruling these original install dates were not culpable this led to uncertainty over which insurance company on behalf of the contractor was responsible in court. Then the contractors were lying about how many complaints they had. This potentially has invalidated the Insurance policy for the contractor.
Many people could not get in touch with the original contractor.

Why have they all the CWI firms gone bust? They liquidated themselves to avoid rectifying peoples homes...
Where are the directors of all these install firms now? Nobody knows .. some i traced to Gibraltar & Spain on companies house? 

There is no doubt SSB have employed negligent activities on some cases leading to frightful bills for home - owners this already seems bigger than the Post Office scandal.

It is far reaching and needs thorough interrogation of the Government Backed Insulation scheme, the installers,a robust auditing & surveying procedure for every install and  as for the Solicitors if you cant trust them dont use them! 

GillNuttall1962

David Wingate of WE Solicitors is working for a number of people affected by the closure of SSB.  He is also working with several MPs and their constituents.  

kobayashi135

GillNuttall1962 said:

David Wingate of WE Solicitors is working for a number of people affected by the closure of SSB.  He is also working with several MPs and their constituents.  

The first article I came across does not bode well.. Mr Wingate was fined for account breaches (Axiom)... If I'm going with anyone (if and when charges land) it's gonna be Hugh James (Erich Kurtz) he is making the most headway as of Feb 2024

darksky12

The Whatsapp group had a Teams meeting with the administrator (Andrew Gregory) yesterday evening and the big news is that RSA is going to cease action to recover costs from the claimants they have cost orders against providing they sign all legal rights to pursue any claim against SSB LAW over to them. i.e RSA will chase SSB's PI to recover costs instead and the victims of SSB's negligence can move on with their lives.

Sadly the other insurers like QBE (DWF Law), AXA, etc have not so far indicated if they will follow suite. It's a huge PR win for RSA and they will be able to recover their costs + extra legal costs when they file negligence cases against SSB's PI.

People being chased by RSA will hear some good news in the next few weeks. Others will have to pursue negligence claims against SSB LAW via any chosen law firm unless QBE and other insurers decide to do the right thing and follow RSA's goodwill gesture.

IMPORTANT: Those who did not receive a discontinuence letter from SSB LAW must urgently contact the administrator ( [Removed by Forum Team] ) otherwise they could incur significant court costs since their cases are still in progress. The administrator even tried contacting many victims by visiting their adresses but many victims were not even opening the door or reacting in a hostile manner. Please contact the adminitrator ASAP.