Monday, 24 March 2014

No Win No Fee: Is It Really Bad For All Of Us?


In January this year, the UK Legal Ombudsman had ordered lawyers to repay more than £1 million in compensation for misleading consumers regarding the No Win No Fee confusion, or the Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA) used by most lawyers, solicitors and claims handling companies.



According to the Legal Ombudsman, it said that it “begun to see cases where the fundamental promise, which underpins the marketing of these arrangements- that the consumer will not have to pay for losing cases-is being broken.”

Truthfully, no win no fee is something I’d prefer because it enabled me to reclaim refunds from my bank without much trouble. I did not mind paying back 25%. However, most claims handling firms now concentrate on the viability of a client’s success rather than fulfilling their duties to represent any client in court.

The viability of success, coupled with legal intelligence, had resulted into widespread disasters for the insurance industry. Insurance premiums have skyrocketed in rates, deeply affecting younger drivers applying for car and personal injury insurance.

No win no fee can be misleading because in the end, clients will need to pay undisclosed fees. If legal representatives will not make their statements clear to avoid hidden costs or misleading information, then it would be better to banish no win no fee from the legal system once and for all.