Woodford compensation and No Win No Fee fees

MapsterUK

I joined the class action with Harcus Parker for redress from the Woodford catastrophe which to cut a long story short was not heard in court and instead redress was made via FCA. I received the compensation which was a small fraction of what was lost and was very surprised to receive a bill from Harcus Parker for almost the complete amount of the compensation. Despite playing no part in the compensation received via the FCA they wanted their cut. 

As the compensation is paid directly into the pension I will need to pay tax to withdraw the monies if I were to pay their fee which would mean it costing MORE than the compensation received to make payment.

I believe there were three companies involved in NWNF claims and one has quite rightly dropped its claim for fees saying that 'Woodford investors have been through enough' but it seems Harcus Parker intend to continue.

This despite when approached by The Times in 2024 it was noted: " Harcus Parker was approached for comment. A source indicated that clients would not be pursued for the costs if they refused to pay."

Is anyone else in this situation with either Harcus Parker or Leigh Day and if so what did you do?

masonic

This is why it is generally unwise to involve legal firms in claims you can DIY.

You'll have signed up to an agreement when joining the class action. You should check the terms regarding what should happen if you receive anything in relation to the claim. You could check with them whether the Times quote is still accurate.

Assuming they will attempt to enforce the your contract, do you not have any money outside the pension with which to pay the fee?

Sam_666

Answers to all your questions will be in T&C you signed.
You could try to wait it out, to see if they take you to court and only then pay.

mc50

HI I am in same situation. Having lost about £200k I joined the claim on a "no win no fee" basis. It provides for out of court ( negotiated settlements) as you would expect as a negotiated out of court settlement is in my view a win. I received about 19K into my pension fund via the FSA decision. nothing to do with Hp negotiations. HP have presented me with a bill for about 8k, their 35% of the FSA settlement. plus about another 3.5K for the contingent liability insurance. the agreement said this would only be sought down the line and as the FSA deal overtook the court case I can't see why they would have paid it. Not legal enough to judge on this overall and just really Pixxed of with the whole affair. The FSa failed in my view to regulate the fund and administrators when it went way off Piste with investment decisions for an income fund. I am loathe to spend more on legal advice as it will inevitably fall to the definition of the no win no fee. Others be warned before entering into such no win no fee deals.
Basically the FSA proposed this meagre settlement allegedly to protect the defendant from going bust and the reputation of the (corrupt) industry as a whole. However the weight of votes form the institutional investors carried the FSA vote. Strange that, because if it had gone to court and the defendant had gone bust, the FSA would have been on the hook for up to £85K for each retail investor and the institutional investors would have got nothing. 

masonic

If you wish to complain about the negligence of the regulator (which might be worth doing), do make sure to make your complaint to the FCA, not the Food Standards Agency.

The £85k you mention wouldn't come into it, because your losses were investment losses, which are not covered by the FSCS. But the FCA might be pushed into making an ex-gratia payment for its own failings it you can adequately point them out.

dcs34

Can people please please learn to read the documents they sign their name to?

Don't always expect the taxpayer to get you out of a hole that is (in part) of one's own making, even if there are precedents like PPI "fraud" being bailed out after a protracted lobbying campaign.

dunstonh

Basically the FSA proposed this meagre settlement allegedly to protect the defendant from going bust and the reputation of the (corrupt) industry as a whole. 

To be fair,  the high level of illiquid assets was known 2 years before failure.  You had plenty of time to exit if you didn't like that.

 Strange that, because if it had gone to court and the defendant had gone bust, the FSA would have been on the hook for up to £85K for each retail investor and the institutional investors would have got nothing. 

The FSA is the Food Standards Agency.   The FCA is the Financial Conduct Authority.  In this case, you mean the FSCS.     However, it's unlikely the FSCS would have taken the liability as they do not cover investment losses.  Also, both the FOS and FSCS step aside when someone uses the courts.