Woodford compensation and No Win No Fee fees

Oli_boy

If it helps. below is a draft email you can copy and adapt with your own details to request copies of all data they hold about you in connection with the Woodford case, including correspondence, questionnaires, funding documents and any advice or updates sent to you. 

Perhaps if enough of us do it this the workload involved for them may make them thing twice about pursuing this.

Subject: Subject Access Request – Woodford Litigation – [Your Full Name]

To: privacy@harcusparker.co.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to make a Subject Access Request under Article 15 of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 in relation to the Woodford litigation. Please confirm whether you are processing any personal data relating to me and, if so, please provide:

• Copies of all personal data you hold about me in any form (including emails, letters, call notes, internal memos, questionnaires, schedules, and documents) in which I am identified or identifiable, specifically in connection with the Woodford litigation and any related group actions or investigations. 
• Copies of any retainer documentation, funding documentation, engagement correspondence, questionnaires, claim forms, schedules of loss, and any advice or updates sent to me regarding the Woodford litigation. 
• Information about the purposes for which you process my data, the categories of data, the categories of recipient you disclose it to (including funders, insurers, counsel, and claim administrators), and the envisaged retention periods. 
• The source of any of my personal data that was obtained from third parties (for example, funders, claims management companies, or administrators), rather than collected directly from me. 

To help you identify my records:

• Full name: [Your full name]
• Any other names used: [e.g. previous surname, if applicable]
• Postal address: [Your address]
• Email address(es) you may hold: [list]
• Telephone number(s) you may hold: [list]
• Relevant matter: Woodford litigation
• Any reference, client or claim number: [insert if known]

Please provide the response in electronic form to this email address unless you have a specific reason why that is not possible.

If you require further information to verify my identity, please let me know as soon as possible. I understand you are required to respond without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of this request.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
[Date]

arjun9128

arjun 9128 
 got a final letter of claim from harcus parker . like to be updated about latest situation. 

masonic

Oli_boy said:

Perhaps if enough of us do it this the workload involved for them may make them thing twice about pursuing this.

Based on the correspondence received by HP clients, they do not have any intention of pursuing this any further themselves. They have, however, committed to disclosing the details of clients whose cases were funded by Augusta to the latter, who has a legitimate interest in recovering the debt. This is unlikely to change.

The primary reason for doing this is not to punish HP, or frustrate the process, but to ascertain whether a valid contract exists. Anyone who suspects they might have an agreement in place, but is uncertain, should do this to get clarity, presuming they have already shared enough personal information to be identifiable.

If you have not shared enough personal information to be identifiable, then it may be unwise to do so through the SAR process, because it could enable some gaps to be filled in where you'd otherwise have slipped through the net. There will be time to submit a SAR later, should Augusta be able to obtain your details, and you always have an option to send a "prove it" letter directly to them.

arjun9128

From a laypersons perspective it seems HP made use of the term" no win no fees " without explaining  any scenario where HP didn't act or felt it necessary to argue / challenge the court of law on behalf of clients for a full  compensation where clients were paid by Link just a meagre/ tiny fraction of total loss. Had I been made aware of this scenario/ information , I wouldn't have had enlisted in this claim through HP. I was surely lacked this information. 

Knarf01

masonic said:

Oli_boy said:

Perhaps if enough of us do it this the workload involved for them may make them thing twice about pursuing this.

Based on the correspondence received by HP clients, they do not have any intention of pursuing this any further themselves. They have, however, committed to disclosing the details of clients whose cases were funded by Augusta to the latter, who has a legitimate interest in recovering the debt. This is unlikely to change.

The primary reason for doing this is not to punish HP, or frustrate the process, but to ascertain whether a valid contract exists. Anyone who suspects they might have an agreement in place, but is uncertain, should do this to get clarity, presuming they have already shared enough personal information to be identifiable.

If you have not shared enough personal information to be identifiable, then it may be unwise to do so through the SAR process, because it could enable some gaps to be filled in where you'd otherwise have slipped through the net. There will be time to submit a SAR later, should Augusta be able to obtain your details, and you always have an option to send a "prove it" letter directly to them.

Under UK GDPR, a data controller is entitled (and required) to verify identity before releasing personal data. That verification:

• is statutory;
• is procedural, not contractual;
• does not evidence or confirm a retainer;
• cannot be relied on to prove solicitor–client status.

Provide only what is reasonably necessary

Typically:

• proof of name and address (e.g. utility bill); or
• a redacted ID document (passport/driving licence with photo and DOB visible, number obscured).

You do not need to provide:

• phone number (unless strictly required);
• financial details;
• shareholding details;
• anything beyond identity verification.

Knarf01

arjun9128 said:

From a laypersons perspective it seems HP made use of the term" no win no fees " without explaining  any scenario where HP didn't act or felt it necessary to argue / challenge the court of law on behalf of clients for a full  compensation where clients were paid by Link just a meagre/ tiny fraction of total loss. Had I been made aware of this scenario/ information , I wouldn't have had enlisted in this claim through HP. I was surely lacked this information. 

I think your instinct is correct. There is an obligation to be transparent how any solicitor fees and insurance premiums affect you as an individual client.

arjun9128

  The idea simply passed through my mind. It is logical to interpret that the  law farm had have been aware of such a  situation. Had this information been given one would think twice before getting into in " no win no fee " as a layperson. it befalls on FCA & the government law makers to ensure safety of common people in this complexity law of land which  is responsible to protect people. one can not help thinking whether the information was   withheld or not.

masonic

arjun9128 said:

  The idea simply passed through my mind. It is logical to interpret that the  law farm had have been aware of such a  situation. Had this information been given one would think twice before getting into in " no win no fee " as a layperson. it befalls on FCA & the government law makers to ensure safety of common people in this complexity law of land which  is responsible to protect people. one can not help thinking whether the information was   withheld or not.

The potential for a redress scheme was first announced as part of the disciplinary action proposed by the FCA in September 2022 (see https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-statement-regarding-potential-enforcement-action-against-link-fund-solutions-ltd ). Someone signing up to the group litigation after that would be in a fairly strong position to claim this was money they were already entitled to when they joined the class. The question is, did anyone sign up at that late stage?

Most of the discussion about the various group action schemes took place in 2020-2021 on this forum, e.g. here, here, here and here.

Knarf01

I think a lot of people on here are in the same position as me and didn’t realise that they had signed up. I apparently completed a Survey Monkey questionnaire in August 2020 and didn’t hear anything back from HP apart from ‘Dear all’ emails. I assumed that I had registered my interest and ended up on their mailing list until the first fee demand email arrived in September 2025. I have taken legal advice and it is possible that I became a retained client in August 2020 but that depends on various factors relating to the information they hold on me and what they did with it, hence my SAR. The irony is that I have had more communication from HP in relation to their fee demand than I’ve had in the past 5 years when they were supposedly representing me…

flopsy1973

Will everyone get a cut of this settlement or only people that joined the legal claims ?
Also what is the total cash payout we have received so far ?  How much money did we lose is what I want to know really ?