Beresfords - miners' compensation solicitors struck off
- Thread starter Louis MacNeice
- Start date
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yes. Here are some articles about the case:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5325602.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5325893.ece
Im not sure that union comes out of this smelling too good either?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5325602.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5325893.ece
Im not sure that union comes out of this smelling too good either?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That would be the scab UDM.
Geri
wasn't born to follow
Anyone who works in insurance will tell you that the fees solicitors charge are quite disgusting at times and very often fraudulent, in and of themselves. It's high time someone looked into them. Of course, because they have traditionally been ripping off insurance companies, they have got away with it for a long time.
PursuedByBears
Go stick your head in a pig
Good outcome. So are they going to have to pay anything back then?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
absolute grade-a cunts. i hope they swallow ground glass let alone shit sandwiches. complete fuckers, lets hope they begin to catch up with the ~100's of other firms who took advantage.
And of course, the facts that:
- having to pay claimants' costs in addition to damages diminishes the profits of insurance companies;
- the availability of solicitors to claimants facilitates them making claims when they almost certainly wouldn't otherwise be able to do so also diminishes the profits of insurance companies;
has nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of insurance companies on the subject.
The exploitation of ex-miners by these firms is the most disgraceful episode in the British legal profession for quite a while, but let's not turn this thread into a big "aaaaah" towards insurers, who collectively have done far more to screw over people who suffer from accidents at work and occupational illnesses and disease than Beresford or other spivs like him will ever be able to do.
Geri
wasn't born to follow
And of course, the facts that:
- having to pay claimants' costs in addition to damages diminishes the profits of insurance companies;
- the availability of solicitors to claimants facilitates them making claims when they almost certainly wouldn't otherwise be able to do so also diminishes the profits of insurance companies;
has nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of insurance companies on the subject.
I have no problem with paying costs that are reasonable, nor do I have any objections to people obtaining compensation for injuries - that's what insurance is for. There are some decent solicitors out there and if they send in a bill that genuinely reflects the work they have carried out, I have no objection to paying it.
I do however object to paying £11,000 in costs for a claim in which damages were £1,100 or £111,000 costs for a claim that was settled for £18,000 - the fact that it is not my money is irrelevant, any right minded person would think that was obscene.
The point I am making is that this culture of overcharging has led to the likes of Beresford and his cronies going one step further and not having any qualms about ripping off their customers as well.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Small matter of an indictment and trial, first.
Once they've blacklegged theres nothing they wont sink to.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
parasites
smiling
not smiling!
We all know solicitors are bent, but Jim Beresford and his robbing cronies makes most of the others look like fucking angels. We hope that he and all the other scum involved in robbing the miners gets what they deserve from the courts, but we doubt that justice will be truly served. If you’d like to pass your own verdict on Jimmy Boy he can be reached via…
BERESFORD SOLICITORS, QUAYPOINT LAKESIDE BOULEVARD, DONCASTER, DN4 5PL - 01302 329 655
360 years ago the Levellers called for an elected judiciary - still waiting
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That bastard owes my nan £1000! 
Incidentally, if, because of whatever happens to him, his solicitors firm goes bust that would possibly lead to hundreds of job losses in a deprived area (Doncaster) so there's something to think about...
He's already tried that once before, and I used to work for it! It went tits up and everyone (bar about 6 people out of over 100) ended up losing their jobs
Incidentally, if, because of whatever happens to him, his solicitors firm goes bust that would possibly lead to hundreds of job losses in a deprived area (Doncaster) so there's something to think about...
Great idea. They have one in most American states. The result is judges who pass ridiculous sentences and are terrified of giving verdicts which might be unpopular with the general public. We need an independent judiciary who don't have to answer to a higher authority (save, of course, for the appellate courts) for their decisions.
Superficially, yes. But the "right-minded person" might take the time to inform him/herself about the facts first, which would include:
- the fact that the solicitor almost invariably has to act on a no-win, no-fee basis and their profit costs from the cases they win have to cover the cases that they lose or which can't proceed for one reason or another.
- the fact that under the no-win, no-fee system, most claimants have insurance to pay the costs of the defendant if they lose, which enables insurers to recover their costs outlay, which they couldn't do under when personal injury cases were funded by legal aid.
- the fact that insurers have been fighting a ridiculous costs war for years now by creating all sorts of satellite litigation about the validity of conditional fee agreements (for which they were again subject to criticism by the Court of Appeal just this week).
- the fact that the costs in many cases become inflated because insurers don't settle cases that they should settle at an early stage.
- ultimately, insurers have the option of arguing about the amount of costs incurred and their proportionality by seeking a detailed assessment of costs.
I think that there is a very real problem about low value road traffic accident claims where liability is admitted and the costs are many times the damages recovered. I can see a case for having some sort of arbitration procedure where an independent Tribunal gathers the medical evidence and assesses damages, with the claimant having access to a limited amount of legal advice to enable him/her to assess the value of the claim.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
This is just plain wrong. Anyone who pulls a scam like that should be barred from setting up a business for five years at least.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Harsh words.
they should be sent to prison
a normal prison not a posh one
a few kids from my school have been to prison for stealing cars a few times over about a year. these guys stole millions of pounds over about 20 years
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
Are the people they nicked off UDM members?
My sympathy is probably down a notch or two if so.
My sympathy is probably down a notch or two if so.
it isn't about who they were
some of them could have been wife beating alcoholics
doesn't mean it's ok for some shady lawyer types to steal their money. it's not about sympathy for the victims, it's more about anger for the criminals
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
Yes, obviously it's about anger for the criminals.
Just wondering whether I should be 10/10 angry or 11/10 angry.
Just wondering whether I should be 10/10 angry or 11/10 angry.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The fact that it's UDM makes us even more right.
Similar threads
