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

alix123456789

Why should we even entertain this fraud, scam that’s happening? Wouldn’t it be better to avoid or shall we get a legal solicitors involved 

FazPatel

I have received an interim charging order of £28k and I don't know what to do. SSB are not giving me any information on what to do. They only let me know the claim was unsuccessful after 5 months meaning that I could not appeal it. I have contacted my local MP and they have advised me to get a good solicitor. I have tried to ring ATE insurance but no-one is answering. I have seen people say they have filled out a N244 form, what is this and what will it do? Also, I have seen mentions of a WhatsApp group, does this exist and if it does, how do I join? Does anyone know what else I should I do before I get the final charge. 

alix123456789

Same for me to, £18k, clearly this is fraud, I am planning on contacting fraud dept?

alix123456789

A No Win No Fee agreement should cover us from having to pay any legal fees should the firm lose the case?

LancsLady1

Hello, I am dealing with an issue around this for my Mother-in-Law and have details of a firm that are willing to look into this as Professional Negligence on teh part of SSB. I can't post a link to their info as I'm new to the forum but they're called Specters Solicitors. If anyone wants the information then send me a message.

jcrooke

SSB, will be sending out claimants a letter. (some may have had these via email)

It will state they still are trying to resolve ATE claims (they wont be able too, and there is a risk these are of a  limited value and that is likely to be swallowed up by the lender who funded your claim, leaving little to settle your adverse costs orders from the defendants) and also that it maybe worthwhile taking a claim against your expert (it wont be, as they likely never wrote the report in the first place), and there is a complex web of agreements between experts (via Limited Companies) and CMC agencies (Limited Companies)  to SSB, so the scope for any recoveries on the scale of this is therefore highly unlikely. 

They are also asking those who are owed money by claimants to stop seeking enforcement orders to get their money back and hope the above happens instead. They also wont be stopping as a result of this letter I would imagine, in which SSB acknowledge the debt is owed by their clients too them.

It does look like the administration of SSB will be formally underway will be within the next week though.

If your a claimant with adverse costs against you, I would contact the SRA (sure many already are), your local MP (but they wont be able to help that much, but if enough people contact them it may raise the profile of this issue more widely, if its affecting a significant number of people and bring it to national attention), and try via the Administrators to get hold of the PI Insurance details for SSB Law to make a claim against them (sure will be many no win no fee firms who will offer this service, in time assuming the PI company is a worthwhile prospect.  I would read the small print this time though before jumping in). These maybe the only routes to recover some of the sums that are owed by you to companies you have claimed against on (in the vast majority of cases) vexatious Cavity Wall Claims. The claimant must enforce these debts for you to have any claim against anyone in the first instance as you need to have suffered a loss to make a claim.

It may also be worth providing details on this matter via Action Fraud, to get them to look into the conduct of all involved here, but also bear in mind you will have signed statements of Truth to Court, so if you have in anyway in that stretched the truth you could also be a party to proceedings. If there is found to be some criminality here it may help you somewhat or at least bring some satisfaction to proceedings. 

Concerned098

I like what you did with the jCrooke there! 🤣

MattMattMattUK

alix123456789 said:

clearly this is fraud

jcrooke said:

It may also be worth providing details on this matter via Action Fraud,

It is not fraud and there is no point reporting this Action Fraud as it is not fraud. 

jcrooke

MattMattMattUK said:

alix123456789 said:

clearly this is fraud

jcrooke said:

It may also be worth providing details on this matter via Action Fraud,

It is not fraud and there is no point reporting this Action Fraud as it is not fraud. 

How do you know there is not fraud involved just out of interest? I agree with these claimants owing funds to defendants due to failed litigation this will not be fraudulent it will have been via a court order. But the whole process to bring the claim on in the first place seems questionable at least, and no doubt its worth a look at the actions of those involved here who have concocted these claims and caused this mess?

There are reported worrying aspects to the conduct of the law firm, the lead generation teams and experts here, surely worth someone having a look just to be sure. 

But has fraud not been active anywhere in the process it seems a wide blanket claim?  An expert (or not) knocks on the door and tells folks they have a claim and makes many allegations giving the claimants a potentially misleading opinion of their chances of success and encouraging them to sign legal papers to make a claim. (Which they are then paid a commission on brining in. Vested interest perhaps, on finding a sufficient volume of claims to make a living,  merit or not to matters its just a numbers game)  

CMC firms who have then produced a cut and paste report together, all claiming the same things (many of which are factually incorrect) with only address, date, damp readings (normally in the wrong mode to show damp where it doesn't exist) and photo's changes in each report. With an experts names then applied often with the expert not involved in any way with the report at all providing a misleading opinion there is  merit in a claim (most are quite clear that the expert hasn't viewed the property. Again each CMC is paid on volumes delivered to the claim solicitors, so vested interests perhaps again apply). An expert in court has said their name has been applied to reports they have not had any part in and intermated the CMC was applying his signature on reports and SSB appointing him after the event without his knowledge. 

SSB have been aware of these issues with experts since 2021..  SSB using experts with a interest in the claim being made, these are all matters of public record via various cases (Jagger vs Axa Insurance is a interesting one of late but there are many others over the last 2 years). 

If you have a look on the law Society Gazette over the last 5 weeks there are number of interesting articles on SSB worth a read and would certainly suggest its worth someone having a look into the conduct of all involved. 

Sa786

Please add me to wattsapp group 
Deadline near