SSB: Funder pursuing rights under ATE policies
The law firm that took on SSB Law’s cavity wall insulation (CWI) cases after it went bust is exiting the field and passing the files on again to Hugh James.
JMR Solicitors in Manchester gave clients only two days to instruct another solicitor before their file was transferred.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said it has been liaising with both firms “about this process and their obligations” and acknowledged that “the short notice given to clients by JMR of their plans will have caused further distress to some”.
It continued: “Despite the short notice, clients still can choose to have their files returned and for Hugh James not to represent them. Hugh James is in the process of writing to all impacted clients to explain their options.”
The focus of the SSB scandal has been the after-the-event (ATE) insurance on failed CWI claims it brought being repudiated, leading to successful defendants and their insurers seeking to enforce substantial costs awards against clients.
Many of the clients are in no position to pay what is owed and their cause has been taken up by several MPs – it was raised just this week in the House of Commons.
Clients have also been “confused and uncertain” about an insurer’s offer to stop pursuing them for costs if they assign their claims against the law firm.
JMR has not explained why it is exiting, having earlier this year said it was “confident” of pursuing professional negligence claims either against SSB or its insurer.
On its website, Hugh James repeated that JMR clients were not obliged to instruct it “but we do recommend that independent legal advice is sought particularly where there are ongoing legal proceedings”.
It continued: “Hugh James believes that the majority of former SSB clients will have claims for professional negligence against the firm relating to the handling of their CWI case. We already act for a large number of clients bringing claims for professional negligence seeking to recover losses incurred due to the handling of their cavity wall insulation claims.
“We will assist you wherever possible in reducing your adverse costs liabilities, dealing with third-party solicitors who threaten enforcement action and advise you of your legal position and options for redress.”
An open letter circulated by a member of the SSB Law Victims Group, said to echo the concerns of others, recalled that SSB had also only given them two days to agree to the transfer to JMR.
“How can it be fair or reasonable to expect vulnerable claimants to make a crucial decision about their legal representation within 48 hours? This unsettling development, shared by other members of the SSB Law Victims Group, has left us in a familiar panic and confusion…
“At no point have I received a cost-benefit analysis, a timeline, or any clear guidance on the risks involved regarding my claim. Essential information regarding the likelihood of success for my claim, the potential risk of receiving a bill for adverse costs, or whether a professional negligence claim might be applicable, remain unknown.
“All reference to the promised compensation and remedial work relating to which the case was originally ‘sold’ to me has fallen by the wayside. The claim(s) and justice it appears, are not important.”
SSB owed funders more than £200m. Opportunity SA was the biggest one, providing £42m for CWI claims and owed a further £28m in accrued interest. It has a registered charge over both SSB and JMR.
The JMR letter told clients that their funding arrangement assigned their rights under the ATE policy to the funder. It revealed that Opportunity was intending to make a claim under the policy and was enforcing its contractual right to obtain a copy of the file.
The SSB victim complained about this process happening without any consultation or approval, arguing that “the claimants’ access and right to justice is superseded by the return on investment”.
The SSB Law Victims Group has collected more than 35,000 signatories on a petition calling on the government to “bring in new laws and deliver justice for victims of the CWI scandal”. Specifically, it wants the government to:
- Provide funding to restore homes to their original condition;
- Help to cover “the legal debts”;
- Investigate how trade and legal firms “failed and/or exploited homeowners and government green grants”;
- Introduce new laws to protect homeowners in the future, like regulating installers, surveyors and extractors, taking control of guarantee agencies and holding their CEOs to account for non-payment of warranties, and banning the term ‘no win, no fee’; and
- Meet with victims.
The Legal Services Board is currently reviewing the SRA’s actions in relation to SSB.
Leave a Comment