Woodford compensation and No Win No Fee fees

Polska

So having now received a response to my SAR, it doesn't actually provide me with evidence of my engagement with them, just a s/sheet completed with what they say is the evidence that I agreed. Response in full below (sorry!)

We, the team responsible for data protection compliance at Harcus Parker Limited, have instructed the Woodford team to conduct a search for your personal data pursuant to your data subject access request (DSAR) below. 

The following documents were responsive:

• Administrative documents / systems records, including an extract from the firm’s Case Management System relating to your Woodford claim as attached. This contains the following personal data: client reference, IP address, first name, surname, email address, residential address, phone number, date of birth;
  
  
• The Insurance Policy with the names of other clients redacted; and

• Various emails between you and the Harcus Parker Woodford team in relation to your claim containing the personal 

In addition to these, you will have received various claim updates from us over the years in relation to your Woodford claim which contain the following personal data: full name and email address.

Note that this does not include any personal data which is available within the public domain.

On your other requests, your personal data was provided by you on the date detailed in the export attached. This data was provided electronically through a form provided by Survey Monkey. It was then transferred to our systems securely via an API. The data held in Survey Monkey has since been erased - the only surviving copies of your data exist on our servers.

The purpose of our processing your personal data was to bring a legal claim against Link Fund Solutions as stipulated in the retainer that you agreed to when you signed up to the group claim. We still process your data as your file is still open as we are yet to receive payment from you for the successful outcome of your claim.

If you were to close your file, we may still keep some of your personal data for a period of six years.

The only other third party with whom your data was shared was Leigh Day as part of a client de-duplication exercise - clients cannot instruct more than one law firm to bring the same claim and so the two law firms worked in coordination to prevent this from happening.

The other documentation you ask for is not personal data as defined by the GDPR and is therefore not subject to an Article 15 DSAR, although the Woodford team may be able to provide some of said documentation.

For further information in relation to our processing of personal data and data subject’s rights pertaining to that personal data, please consider our privacy policy.

Knarf01

Polska said:

So having now received a response to my SAR, it doesn't actually provide me with evidence of my engagement with them, just a s/sheet completed with what they say is the evidence that I agreed. Response in full below (sorry!)

We, the team responsible for data protection compliance at Harcus Parker Limited, have instructed the Woodford team to conduct a search for your personal data pursuant to your data subject access request (DSAR) below. 

The following documents were responsive:

• Administrative documents / systems records, including an extract from the firm’s Case Management System relating to your Woodford claim as attached. This contains the following personal data: client reference, IP address, first name, surname, email address, residential address, phone number, date of birth;
  
  
• The Insurance Policy with the names of other clients redacted; and

• Various emails between you and the Harcus Parker Woodford team in relation to your claim containing the personal 

In addition to these, you will have received various claim updates from us over the years in relation to your Woodford claim which contain the following personal data: full name and email address.

Note that this does not include any personal data which is available within the public domain.

On your other requests, your personal data was provided by you on the date detailed in the export attached. This data was provided electronically through a form provided by Survey Monkey. It was then transferred to our systems securely via an API. The data held in Survey Monkey has since been erased - the only surviving copies of your data exist on our servers.

The purpose of our processing your personal data was to bring a legal claim against Link Fund Solutions as stipulated in the retainer that you agreed to when you signed up to the group claim. We still process your data as your file is still open as we are yet to receive payment from you for the successful outcome of your claim.

If you were to close your file, we may still keep some of your personal data for a period of six years.

The only other third party with whom your data was shared was Leigh Day as part of a client de-duplication exercise - clients cannot instruct more than one law firm to bring the same claim and so the two law firms worked in coordination to prevent this from happening.

The other documentation you ask for is not personal data as defined by the GDPR and is therefore not subject to an Article 15 DSAR, although the Woodford team may be able to provide some of said documentation.

For further information in relation to our processing of personal data and data subject’s rights pertaining to that personal data, please consider our privacy policy.

The content of my SAR response was similar although yours is slightly more carefully worded, makes me wonder if they are refining their internal processes to ensure GDPR compliance. I followed this up with the email below after a preamble summarising the information included with the SAR response:
 
” For the avoidance of doubt, even if there was initial online assent in principle, the materials provided do not evidence that a compliant and enforceable Damages Based Agreement crystallised into a payable liability in my case, nor that any ATE premium became due.

Further, my questionnaire responses expressly refer to my having read and agreed to the following documents at the time of completion on xxx:

• the Terms of Use for the questionnaire;

• the Terms of Business;

• the Damages Based Agreement;

• the Letter of Authority.

Please therefore provide contemporaneous copies of each of these documents as in force at the time of my questionnaire completion, including any version identifiers, dates, or revision references. If no such copies are held, please confirm this expressly.

In addition, please confirm whether you hold (and if so, please disclose) any personal data relating to me contained within any claimant schedules, lists, or court filings; any internal records evidencing inclusion or progression of my claim; and any records relating to the calculation or allocation of fees or ATE insurance premiums in respect of me. If no such personal data is held, please confirm this expressly.

If you consider that further personal data within scope of my Subject Access Request is held, please confirm when it will be disclosed.”

Maybe some of this will be helpful

MapsterUK

I also received the rather shoddy response to my SAR today, they seem to be cut and pasting the language. Attached was the useless spreadsheet which shows my apparent consent to their terms but don't provide any details of what those terms were. A copy of email correspondence and it states that the Woodford Insurance Policy was attached but I didnt appear to get a copy of that.

I have also written back asking for meaningful information proving my consent to a contract that they are trying to enforce though not as elegantly worded as Knarf01! I also reminded them that the deadline is 30 days after request which happens to be today.

tigerspill

masonic said:

flopsy1973 said:

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 ? 

The redress scheme was for all investors. The details are set out here: https://lfwoodfordfundscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LFSL-FCA-Investigation-Summary-final-version10271360125.1-1.pdf

It was calculated to restore 77% of the loss attributable to the mismanagement.

Sorry if my question is not directly related to the specifics of this thread.  But there are posters who seem to understand the whole WF thing better than me and was hoping might be able to answer my tangental question.

I had invested on one of these WF funds with Charles Stanley.
Previously I had received various payments as the process was sorted out.  
I am now sitting with £38 in this CSD ISA - it is the only thing I have with them.
While this is a very small amount, and wondering how all this gets closed off and I receive this £38 (or even if it goes to zero).  It is just a bit of a main to have this account lying around that I don't use.  Just want to tidy this loose end up.
Thanks

masonic

tigerspill said:

masonic said:

flopsy1973 said:

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 ? 

The redress scheme was for all investors. The details are set out here: https://lfwoodfordfundscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LFSL-FCA-Investigation-Summary-final-version10271360125.1-1.pdf

It was calculated to restore 77% of the loss attributable to the mismanagement.

Sorry if my question is not directly related to the specifics of this thread.  But there are posters who seem to understand the whole WF thing better than me and was hoping might be able to answer my tangental question.

I had invested on one of these WF funds with Charles Stanley.
Previously I had received various payments as the process was sorted out.  
I am now sitting with £38 in this CSD ISA - it is the only thing I have with them.
While this is a very small amount, and wondering how all this gets closed off and I receive this £38 (or even if it goes to zero).  It is just a bit of a main to have this account lying around that I don't use.  Just want to tidy this loose end up.
Thanks

If you don't want to wait for the eventual outcome and instead want to close an account without delay, then contact CSD and see if you can donate them. Otherwise, check back in a few years time. 

woodfordidiot

I have recently joined the forum having read through most of all your comments. As I am in the same boat as all of you I was wondering whether any of you had paid these HP invoices.

Still_Do_Not_Like_Fridays

woodfordidiot said:

I have recently joined the forum having read through most of all your comments. As I am in the same boat as all of you I was wondering whether any of you had paid these HP invoices.

I might have done so if I could get them to actually send me an invoice - all they send is a link which doesn't work. They keep doing it and I keep saying send me an actual invoice - as the amount they propose to charge will include VAT I think they are required to produce a VAT invoice (but I'm not an expert). 

My mother, who is in the same boat, is an elderly woman and doesn't even have a computer - so she certainly can't engage with links.

It's all very frustrating.

Knarf01

woodfordidiot said:

I have recently joined the forum having read through most of all your comments. As I am in the same boat as all of you I was wondering whether any of you had paid these HP invoices.

thetrainengineer in this forum paid their fee I believe. It depends on your personal tolerance but I wouldn’t succumb to their pressure tactics until they have evidenced that you were a retained client, and a compliant and enforceable DBA existed. Then they still have to show how a client liability for a share of the funding arrangements and ATE insurance crystallised. I very much doubt that the transparency required under the DBA regulations have been met if in this forum alone a significant number of people are left scratching their heads…

thetrainengineer

Knarf01 said:

woodfordidiot said:

I have recently joined the forum having read through most of all your comments. As I am in the same boat as all of you I was wondering whether any of you had paid these HP invoices.

thetrainengineer in this forum paid their fee I believe. It depends on your personal tolerance but I wouldn’t succumb to their pressure tactics until they have evidenced that you were a retained client, and a compliant and enforceable DBA existed. Then they still have to show how a client liability for a share of the funding arrangements and ATE insurance crystallised. I very much doubt that the transparency required under the DBA regulations have been met if in this forum alone a significant number of people are left scratching their heads…

Hi, yes I paid. Was going through a bad patch and the stress wasn't worth the cost.

I requested an SAR and received the response recently. Interestingly my home address wasn't on any of the correspondence, just a spreadsheet like others have mentioned. But this only contained my name, telephone number, email address and confirmation of my agreements to their terms of service and the DBA.

So, if someone was to ask for the invoice to be physically posted to their address what would they do.

Note, when I paid via the link there was an optional field to complete a physical address. I left it blank on purpose so they couldn't get my home address from there.

thetrainengineer

After paying the invoice and in response to my other questions they responded as follows -

What constitutes a win

As you know, our agreement with you entitles us to charge you a fee of 35% of any Claim Proceeds you receive, plus VAT. In addition, you have a separate agreement to pay your share of the deferred and contingent insurance premium due to the insurers (to which Harcus Parker is not a party).

Clause 5.2 of our Damages Based Agreement (“DBA”) with you states that you will 'win' if you recover or are awarded any Claim Proceeds. Clause 5.1 in turn defines 'Claim Proceeds' as 'the sum recovered in respect of the Claim, or any damages awarded to you'. This definition captures any sums received as compensation for losses arising from the Woodford matter.

In simple terms, this means that you will have ‘won’ if you receive any money (claim proceeds) for your claim, which is defined as follows:

 (the 'Claim') against Link Fund Solutions Limited, any relevant subsidiary or associated entities, authorised agents, and/or any other entity against whom Harcus Parker advises you to bring a claim (together, the 'Defendants') which arises out of losses suffered by you as a result of the mis-management and suspension of the LF Equity Income Fund (formerly known as the LF Woodford Equity Income Fund) (the 'Fund') in which you hold or held shares or units, either directly or through an intermediary, between 2 June 2014 and at least 3 June 2019.

The Scheme of Arrangement and its relationship with the Claim

The Scheme of Arrangement is a court-approved agreement between investors in the Woodford fund and Link Fund Solutions Limited (“LFSL”). Under the Scheme, investors receive compensation and, in return, agree not to pursue their claims against LFSL or other members of the Link Group, whether proceedings have already been commenced or not. The purpose of the Scheme from Link’s perspective was to close off any liabilities it may have arising from its management of the Woodford Equity Income Fund, expressly including the claims of our clients. It represented to the Court that if the claims were to proceed, along with the FCA fine that had bene proposed, it would be rendered insolvent and so it sought the approval of the Companies Court for a settlement which would bind all of its creditors, in this case chiefly the investors in the Woodford Equity Income Fund, whether they agreed to it personally or not. It had to convince the court it was fair to sanction it doing that. We argued it was not fair, chiefly because investors could avail themselves to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if Link were to become insolvent. The Court rejected that argument on the basis it was not proven that Link would go on to lose the Claims, and so it was fair for investors to decide whether to accept the limited recompense on offer now instead of a potentially greater return later.

The Order of the Court, sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement, included a Release Deed. Clause 3.2 of the Release Deed states that each Scheme creditor ‘fully, finally, irrevocably and unconditionally releases … any and all claims … arising out of, related to or in connection with the Woodford Equity Income Fund up to and including the Record Date, including any existing or prospective proceedings’.

That is typical settlement language.

While it was not a significant part of the press reporting, this interpretation of the Scheme, as a settlement of claims, was the common understanding of the parties and the Court. That is reflected in the Court’s judgment sanctioning the Scheme in paragraph 10: “[the Scheme] effects a settlement between LFSL and persons who might have civil claims against it … (including, but not limited to, those creditors who have brought Litigation Claims).”

The court in paragraph 8 specifically referred to Harcus Parker clients when describing the creditors who brought ‘Litigation claims’. I have attached the relevant High Court judgment for your convenience.

The consequences

We maintain that our terms were sufficiently fair and transparent as we are only charging clients who have received compensation. The wording of our agreement is tightly regulated by the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013. We also routinely obtain advice from a top regulatory barrister on our agreements which are blessed before they are sent out to clients. The definition of a win is standardized through these Regulations and it is intuitive. The alternative would be to not include funds received through settlements, which would discourage all settlement and prevent cases from being run in the first place. It is also worth noting that despite agreements being routinely scrutinised by defendants as a means of avoiding liability and causing the claimant solicitor relationship to collapse where possible, this particular argument has never been considered to be of strong enough merits to be advanced.

The obvious injustice of this is that those who have actively advanced a claim and engaged a lawyer to do so to receive less than an investor who chose to do nothing. Link itself acknowledged this in the Explanatory Document in which it set out the effect of the Scheme to the creditors, at Part 4 paragraph 19: Where a Scheme Creditor has entered into an arrangement with Leigh Day, Harcus Parker, Wallace LLP or any claims management company with respect to claims they wish to pursue against LFSL, they may need to consider whether there are any fees that may be payable under those arrangements if they receive compensation under the Scheme.

The counterbalance against that injustice is that a third party funder, Augusta, has invested in the claim on behalf of its underlying investors and it is beholden to those investors to recoup any claim proceeds which it is ultimately due. Augusta has spent over £4m on the claim.

The definition of a ‘win’ in the DBA was drafted to ensure fairness to all parties involved. While claimants receive compensation under the Scheme, the funder and insurer have carried significant financial risk throughout the litigation. It would be inequitable for them to bear those costs without any recovery when the claim ultimately results in compensation for claimants.

Because the Claimants have received as little as they have through the Scheme, and because it is unlikely that all of the claimants will pay an invoice, Augusta will not recoup its initial investment or make a profit and the insurer will not receive its full contingent premium. As you would expect, Harcus Parker must pay back Augusta in full before it can retain any of its contingent fee as profit. That is why we have communicated that our firm will make nothing from the case; once the time and expenditure required to seek payment from the clients is factored in, we will have lost money as a result of the Scheme.

Referral to Augusta or insurers

We have a duty to properly advise our clients and that includes advising them on the risk if they elect not to pay, particularly where third parties are involved. For example, whether a client raises a complaint with a law firm as to their service does not have a bearing on their separate agreement with an insurer, to which the law firm is not a party.

Harcus Parker will not take further legal action to recover the amount if the invoice remains unpaid. We have already taken reasonable steps to obtain payment and sent our final reminder email last week. If payment is still not made after this, we are required to provide Augusta with a list of clients who have outstanding invoices. At that point, Augusta and/or the insurers may decide to pursue recovery directly, which would be entirely at their discretion and outside Harcus Parker’s control.