Important questions surrounding the SRA proposal for minimum indemnity insurance

The SRA is introducing a requirement on all firms to ensure they have an appropriate level of cover of indemnity insurance cover in case they make mistakes, but reducing the mandatory minimum level of compulsory cover to £500,000.

The rationale behind this is that the SRA wants to ensure consumers are better protected by, for the first time, requiring firms to make sure they have in place appropriate cover rather than relying on meeting the minimum requirements.  The proposal will also help firms who undertake low value work to obtain insurance at a more competitive level.  Well that’s the theory.

The proposal has yet to be approved by the Legal Services Board though it seems from what is being said that it will not be too long before the LSB confirms its approval.

So what will these changes mean for the consumer and the conveyancer?

For the consumer it will make choosing a solicitor more difficult.   The consumer will need to consider the value of the work to be undertaken (which may not be clear to the client) and then make sure that the solicitor has adequate insurance cover.  I wonder how many lawyers will look to reflect these changes in their marketing material even though advertising one’s insurance cover which would be available in the event of an error may not be the correct signal to give.

It begs the question whether the solicitor will be obliged to disclose its minimum cover in the client care agreement and to impose a duty on that solicitor to advise a new client if it considers the cover it has in place may not be sufficient.   In this situation will the solicitor be required to take out ‘top up’ cover and if so will the solicitor pass that extra cost onto the client.

Looking at these changes for the conveyancing solicitor the questions are far greater and have some interesting consequences.  Will those solicitors who wish to remain on lender panels lose out on the opportunity of reducing the cost of insurance cover? It would be a logical conclusion to reach that the lenders will be asking for a minimum level of cover of £2 million as a condition of membership of their panels.  If this is so, will this make firms who do not undertake lender work more competitive given they will have the freedom to choose and tailor their policies accordingly?

It will be interesting to see whether lenders will also require solicitors who are not on their panel but who act as agents for the purpose of discharging secured loans, to carry a similar minimum level of cover.

In a conveyancing transaction we may be faced with a number of professional parties who have different levels of indemnity insurance cover.  How will the conveyancer with say a minimum of 2 million pounds  of cover, and who may in the event of a negligence claim need to seek a contribution, know the level of cover of the other professionals in the same chain?  The level of indemnity cover of the solicitor acting for the other party may be become a standard question for conveyancers to answer at the outset of a transaction. 

A difficulty might arise when it becomes clear that the other solicitor involved only has reduced cover - would you need to advise your insurer and seek clearance to proceed as well as informing your client’s lender?  If clearance was not provided would you then write and advise that you client is not able to proceed with the transaction unless the other solicitor ‘tops up’ its insurance?

Some insurers may make it a condition of cover that the solicitor conveyancer will not be able to undertake work in a transaction without knowing and checking the level of the insurance over of the others involved.

This also begs the question what happens if the solicitor refuses to disclose its insurance cover level. There may be scope for suppliers such as Lawyer Check to collect this data (if it can) and to make it available as part of its existing service.

All of these questions clearly point to the need for the Law Society and the SRA to set out clear guidelines on what will be expected of a solicitor not only in the discharge his or her duty to the  client but also in the course of a conveyancing transaction.

MJP Conveyancing are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Reconstructing your conveyancing practice

Moving to a new conveyancing approach with technology at its heart, which allows you to keep track of any transaction at any time - and potentially involves lawyers for the other side - is a painful but necessary process, says David Pett as he shares his own recent experience:

Read Here: http://bit.ly/1gQGbSr

The death of simultaneous exchange and completion?

The time between exchange and completion has shortened considerably and more and more transactions are concluded through  simultaneous exchange of contracts and completion.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Santander v R. A. Legal Solicitors has cast serious doubt on whether this practice is exposing conveyancing solicitors to the possibility of a breach of trust claim

The decision at first instance in Santander v R. A. Legal Solicitors  [2013] EWHC 1380 (QB)  confirmed and clarified the Court of Appeal's decision in Nationwide v Davison’s [2012] EWCA Civ 1626 as to when solicitors should be relieved from the consequences of their breach of trust.

The facts are as follows.  R A Legal Solicitors had acted for the purchaser of a property, for which Santander’s predecessor, Abbey National, had made mortgage funds available to the buyers solicitors to facility the buyers purchase.

Unknown to the buyer’s solicitors, those solicitors acting for the seller had been acting dishonestly, and the buyers solicitors had transferred the purchase sums before a first charge in favour of the lender had been acquired and an existing charge discharged.

The Queen's Bench Division held that, whilst the buyer’s solicitors had acted in breach of trust in releasing the funds advanced, the they were relieved of all liability in respect of that breach since the shortcomings of the solicitors handling in relation to the transaction were not an effective cause of the lender’s loss.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal did not agree and  found in favour of the lender finding:

“The failings of RAL ( buyers solicitors ) formed part of a larger picture of the shoddy performance of a conveyancing transaction from start to finish, which leaves me in no doubt that it would not be fair to excuse the firm from liability, in whole or in part.”

Significantly, and central to the success of the appeal  is the fact the Buyers solicitors  sent an unqualified certificate  of title to Abbey on the 13th July, even though they were waiting to inspect a copy of a 1986 Transfer. Their view was if the Transfer contained anything untoward Abbey’s money could be returned. This was done in order to speed up the eventual process of exchange and completion.

Condemning this practice the Court of Appeal stated:

“The appropriate way of dealing with delays is to persuade lenders to move faster or remit the funds to be held to order in advance of an unqualified CoT. To my mind the pretense that the investigation of title has been completed when it has not is a method of dealing with that difficulty which borders on dishonesty. The submission that unqualified CoTs are given frequently prematurely makes this misconduct all the more serious.”

This was one of many failings on the part of these solicitors and which viewed collectively pointed to a firm who had acted recklessly with the handing of money belonging to a third part to whom the solicitors owed a duty of care.   The other failings included the incomplete submission of requisitions, the submission of the mortgage monies to the seller’s solicitors in the absence of an undertaking to hold the monies to the order of the solicitors, failure to check the replies to requisitions and a total disregard of the completion code.

Rob Hailstone of the BOLD Group which represents a number of conveyancing practices today issued a very helpful note on the lessons to be learned from this decision and which act as a timely reminder to all practitioners to carry out an urgent review of processes.    I have set out these ‘lessons’ below.

More significantly however are the questions this decision leaves unanswered relating to the duty of care owed to a lender in circumstances where a simultaneous exchange and completion take place. 

The questions are as follows:

Is there a breach of our obligation to the lender to submit a COT in circumstances where we have certified that we are satisfied there is a good and marketable tile, but we have yet to exchange contracts?  Or putting it another way, should we only ever submit a COT once exchange has taken place?

If  a COT can be submitted before exchange, is it permissible given the CoA ruling to send mortgage funds over to the sellers lawyers (after making checks on the solicitors and checking carefully replies to requisitions) in readiness for completion providing we have a full and satisfactory undertaking from the sellers solicitors to hold the monies strictly to our order?

If is not then does it follow that simultaneous exchanges and completions on mortgage related transactions should no longer take place?

Here are Rob’s tips (rh@boldgroup.co.uk)

·         Raise your requisitions making sure that all relevant questions have been specifically highlighted and asked

·         Make sure that the replies to requisitions correspond to the correct questions, are specific, detailed and accurate

·         Do not submit your CoT until all title investigations have been completed to your satisfaction

·         Do not hold on to the mortgage advance if completion is delayed, without consent from the lender

·         Make sure that the Completion Code applies and it has been formally agreed to Complete by Post

·         Make sure that you receive all outstanding documentation by post immediately after completion, including any undertaking or form of discharge

·         Take correct and swift action if completion does not take place, outstanding documents are not received and/or vacant possession is not granted

·         In an ideal world (the judges seem to think we work and live in one), do not submit a CoT until exchange has taken place and do not agree a completion date that is less than five working days from exchange. Maybe we should get lenders to stipulate that this has to occur, thereby eliminating the dangerous and stressful practice of simultaneous exchange and completion?

CQS and Lender Exchange - Lets keep an open mind

Before we become defensive and begin casting negative thoughts lets wait for the detail to be supplied.   Why do we all  look at  the introduction of new systems as an attack on our profession?  We should  for the moment keep an open mind, writes David Pett, Director of MJP Conveyancing Limited. 

My thoughts in the meantime are as follows:

A platform of this type was inevitable and if it is introduced properly can only serve as an effective means of combating fraud and ensuring consistency on lender panel criteria.   The sooner the profession comes to terms with the fact that conveyancing is there for the serious players and not the ‘dabblers’ the better it will be for us all.  Why should we not accept with open arms a system which will allow us to apply to join all panels with one application and hopefully one fee?   Why not allow a system to operate which will ensure consistency in application of anti fraud and money laundering measures?  The Santander portal should demonstrate to us all that  lenders are entitled to be stringent in their vetting and control over firms who handle their money.  I am shocked by the level of contribution to the solicitor indemnity fund which we are expected to make this year.  We should all be asking ourselves why is so high and what is being done to ensure that those who do not have correct and effective systems and processes in place are not allowed to practice in property law.

Surely a portal of this type must be a more attractive option than separate representation.   If firms can not get onto the panel of lenders then there must I agree be good reason for this and if there is then we should respect that.  Looking at the Land Registry Data there are literally thousands of firms who only undertake a few completions each month - is it completely unthinkable that these firms should be excluded from lender panels?

As for the Law Society Portal do we need this, surely the money would be better spent promoting CQS firms to the public and looking at ways of changing and improving our archaic system for conveying property.  Why spend money building a system when the current system as we all know does not work!   Madness. Why also waste time and money building a system when the national protocol around which it will be built is not compulsory.   What happens when one firm who has bought into the portal deals with a firm which has not or where there is chain and one firm is sitting outside the portal?

Why also add costs to the process when most firms who take conveyancing seriously already have sophisticated case management systems? These systems will need to be adapted and integrated so as to avoid duplication  - yet more cost which we could do without. 

At the end of the day we all know that whatever the Law Society touches turns to dust as the Law Society’s HIP offering clearly demonstrated.  Do we therefore need to worry or be pro active in our response to their proposals?   They approved a contractor without consultation with members and are now determined to waste our money on a scheme which has ‘doom’ written all over it. 

I hope I am proved wrong. 

Success Story for East Anglian based Legal Practice

Legal 500 Norwich based legal Practice, MJP Solicitors, will soon be following the path taken by many of the Country’s leading lawyers by incorporating their business as a Limited Company.

From 1^st May MJP Solicitors will be creating two new companies – MJP Limited and MJP ConveyancingLimited – with the view to add strength to their already successful national clinical negligence and conveyancing services.

They will be part of a growing trend of legal practices taking steps to bring their business into line with modern day thinking on taxation and succession issues. 

According to Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) figures, 2,400 of the 10,973 law firms as of July 2012 were incorporated companies, compared to 1,898 a year before – a rise of 26%.

This move comes on the back of a very successful year for MJP who have seen their profits treble through the expansion of their clinical negligence and conveyancing offerings.  

David Jones, head of the MJP clinical negligence team, explains how despite the recent withdrawal of public funding and some of the worst trading conditions in the business’ history, he has seen business go from strength to strength:

“Trying to anticipate trends and careful forward planning has been the key.   This coupled with an investment in IT of over £80K and some focused marketing has helped us retain a national reputation in helping families all of the country with the consequences of surgical and treatment failures”. 

He adds:

“Many clinical negligence lawyers receive a bad press, but what is often overlooked is how lawyers like us have helped to provide a good and rewarding quality of life to many victims who through no fault of their own have suffered life changing injuries.   I also believe that due to our work we have helped to raise standards within the health service industry.

Commenting on the recent withdrawal of public funding and welfare reforms, Mr Jones remains upbeat:

‘Gaining access to legal services of the type we provide will be more difficult but we have several options and ideas on offer which will ensure that we will remain highly accessible to victims who wish to seek advice and support from our team of specialists.

Another part of the success story has been high level of growth in the property division of the business.  

“ We have over the past 12 months moved over 5000 clients”, states Head of Residential Property, David Pett. He adds “that despite the slowdown in the property market, we have seen over the past 18 months, the level of completed transactions increase from around 20 to over 200 each month.

Much of the success for this lies with the “in house’ creation of an online tracking and property log book IT system.   This allows estate agents and clients to track the progress of the transaction and with our unique Property Log Book we have been able to offer our clients added value to accompany a very competitive fee structure”.

Looking forward there exists, as Mr Pett explains, a positive plan for growth:

“We continue to recruit new staff and are already looking to expand the business further through careful acquisition decisions. We are on the constant look out for other providers of property related legal services that may be looking to be part of the exciting plans we have for the future.   Our aim is to be one of the largest providers of conveyancing services in this region within the next 5 years”.

MJP Solicitors – contact DavidPett on 01603 887067 for further information

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

How do I speed up the process of selling my home?

What can you do to sell your home fast once you have received an offer?

Dealing with the legal formalities involved in selling a house should be straightforward and relatively cheap.  The problem is that not many homeowners prepare for the sale sufficiently and unfortunately there are not too many agents around who are willing to help.

Here are my tips and ones guaranteed to speed up the process:

• Get together for production all of the guarantees and warranties relating to work undertaken to the property.
• If you have altered or extended the  property find the planning consents and building regulation documents.  This extends to boiler installation and electrical work. 
• Remember the buyer will also be interested in seeing consents, approvals, completion certificates, guarantees in connection with work carried our before you became owners.   The solicitors who acted for you when you purchased the property may still be holding these. Check with them.
• If you are not sure whether alteration and other works required planning consent and or building regulation approval check out this site  : www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/
• If you know planning consent and or building regulation approval was required but you are unable to find the paperwork contact the council and ask for copies to be sent to you.
• Complete fully and quickly the property information and fitting and content forms handed to you by your solicitors.    You don’t have to wait to instruct a solicitor to fill these forms in.   You can find a specimen of the property information form here: www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/.../ta6_formspecimen.pdf
• The buyer will through your solicitors ask you questions about the property  - make sure that when your receive these questions you answer them quickly.
•  If there is a mortgage and or loans secured on the property make sure you find out how much is outstanding by seeking up-to-date statements and pass these onto you solicitor.

Unless you are looking to tie in your sale with a purchase the sale should take only around 3 weeks to complete depending of course on whether the person buying your property is not selling and or arranging a mortgage!  Unfortunately in conveyancing you can only go as fast as the slowest person in the chain.

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Three good reasons for not instructing a solicitor recommended by an estate agent

You might not know it, but you could be paying more for legal services when moving home because of the recommendation received form your estate agent.   The reason for this is that many estate agents have ‘arrangements’ with solicitors under which they receive what is known as a ‘referral fee’  or as it is often described, a ‘kick back’.

Many of the solicitors who operate in this way do not absorb the referral fee in their fee but add the fee on to the fee they quote you.  This means that you could very well be paying as much as £200 more for the service than you would have otherwise paid had you shopped around and gone to a conveyancing solicitor direct.

Is this legal?  Well at present yes providing the estate agent and solicitor tell you about the arrangement before you make the decision to instruct the solicitor.  The question is how many of those involved actually disclose the referral fee.  Sadly I do not believe it is many.

It also raises the question whether instructing a solicitor recommended by a ‘tied’ estate agent will ensure you receive the best service available.  My experience is that where such arrangements exist the solicitors instructed are normally part of some ‘factory’ operation and in the main the service levels of those firms is very poor.  This could mean you will find yourself having to constantly chase and inevitably the move will take longer.

Instructing an agent with a ‘pet’ solicitor may also impair the solicitor’s ability to offer independent advice. The agent will have a vested interest in the sale completing. Once an agent has agreed a sale, they will want it completed so they will put pressure on the connected solicitor to complete without regard to your best interests. If your solicitor discovers a problem and considers he should advise you to withdraw, will he be prepared to do so if the agents on whom he relies for work tell him not to?

My advice is not to rely on your agent’s recommendation.  Shop around, visit websites, read the reviews on the service offered and do not be tempted by deals offered by some agents to ‘wrap’ your legal fees in with the agent’s fee.  Perhaps even choose your solicitor before you put your house on the market because many solicitors like us know which are the 'good' and 'not so good' agents.    And before you ask, no we do not get a ‘kick back’ for recommending an agent!

David Pett Partner MJP Conveyancing Solicitors 

The fallacy behind mortgage fraud

Steps by some of the main lenders to push home owners down the route of only using certain solicitors has caused concern within the legal sector and has also led to increased expense for the consumer.  The main reason for this action seems to be the aim of the lender to reduce mortgage fraud.

Lenders take the view that by reducing the panel of solicitors undertaking mortgage work, and thereby monitoring those solicitors more closely, this will help to reduce the risk of mortgage fraud.

The suggestion is that sole cause of  fraud lies with solicitors who handle residential transactions.  I accept there have cases of fraud involving lawyers and other professionals and I also acknowledge that lawyers have access to large sums of money in handling this type of work.  The question is however can all of the incidents of fraud costing the industry over £1bn be attributed to the criminal activity of a small number of lawyers.  Is it also fair to use mortgage fraud as an excuse to restrict mortgage work to a limited amount of property lawyers at the expense of higher moving costs and a decline in conveyancing services?

In looking at these questions one must begin to understand from where the bulk of the fraud originates.  Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the majority of fraud stems not from crooked lawyers, but from individuals misrepresenting their personal circumstances. In fact over 90 per cent of attempted mortgage fraud in 201l was down to this failing.

Experian Identity & Fraud has revealed that fraudulent applications for mortgages increased by eight per cent in 2011, marking the fifth consecutive year in which the rate of mortgage fraud has increased.

Experian explain:

‘Around 34 in every 10,000 applications for mortgages were found to be fraudulent in 2011, compared to just 15 in every 10,000 in 2006. . Typically, these first party frauds involved falsifying employment status or financial information, and, most commonly, attempting to hide an adverse credit history’.

This would clearly suggest that, although I accept solicitors acting for lenders needs to be vetted and monitored, lenders should be doing more to stamp out the fraud which happens at the beginning of the process when the application is completed and often submitted by the applicant's independent financial adviser.

In a recent press release from the Council of Mortgage Lenders talk of a new scheme designed with this very aim in mind.  The CML explains:

 “….. the launch of a new mortgage verification scheme in September was the culmination of many months of carefully co-ordinated work we under took with HM.Under the scheme, lenders receiving mortgage applications that are not supported by adequate evidence of the declared income, or where fraud is suspected, can submit details via a secure link to HMRC. The tax authorities check the details that have been supplied to the lender against their own income tax and employment returns, helping to expose applications based on bogus claims about earnings or working history’.

The indicators are that some of these measures are working and as the CML reports mortgage fraud is now on the decline though I suspect that not much of this can actually be tied in with the rather inexplicable decision of lenders to arbitrarily restrict mortgage work to the exclusion of a large  number of honest and hardworking property lawyers.  

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Why moving home with a mortgage will cost more and take longer

Why do some mortgage companies insist you go to one solicitor for your mortgage and a different one for your purchase?

For many years one solicitor would act for both you and the lender because in the main your respective interests would be the similar.    You both wish to purchase a property without any adverse legal consequences.   This is known as a “joint representation” transaction.

The benefit of this is that providing your solicitor was on the lender’s general panel one overall fee would be charged.

However, some mortgage lenders in response to increasing concerns with levels of mortgage fraud and poor conveyancing practice have decided to limit the number of firms that can act on their behalf.

This “separate representation” approach means the lender will appoint a solicitor to act on their behalf and you are able to instruct your own solicitor.   Generally there is no restriction on which firm you choose providing they are on the lender’s general conveyancing panel.  

However there is one lender namely HSBC which has through charging extra legal fees made it very difficult for you to exercise a free choice.  

If you are involved in a transaction where you have two firms of solicitors acting this can often cause delay because your solicitor will not be able to exchange contracts on your behalf until the lender’s solicitor has confirmed approval.

The likelihood is that separate representation is likely to figure more in the future with the consequence of  adding extra expense and time to the  already slow and stressful process of moving home.  

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Solar panels could make your property difficult to sell

Solar panels may be associated with green issues but beware as they might be viewed as a red card when it comes to re-mortgaging your house or when looking to purchase a property with a mortgage where solar panels are fitted .  This is according to an article recently appearing in the Guardian.

Guardian Money reported on a Southampton couple who were refused by several companies when they tried to re-mortgage their home. The couple had previously agreed, with their lenders permission, to allow a firm to install solar panels on their roof for the duration of a 25-year lease.  They now face the prospect that their property has become ‘unsalable’.

The owners are reported to have said:

"We signed up to this scheme on the basis that we were doing the green thing, but it has turned out to be a nightmare," says John, who works as an air traffic controller.

The implications for us are that we cannot re-mortgage our house on a lower interest rate. We would still have a mortgage but one on the standard variable rate which will increase with the Bank of England interest rates.

We are extremely concerned that we will not be able to sell our house as no buyer will be able to get a mortgage on it. We can't be the only people in this position, can we?"

The big question is how many more home owners are there out there who are oblivious to this potential problem.  Solar leasing deals were heavily marketed last year by companies  looking to take advantage of  Government backed incentives to  those with solar PV panels on their roofs.

The most credible companies advised their customers to seek their lenders agreement, but many didn't.

The issue does not affect those who paid for their panels to be installed. It only relates to those installations undertaken under a lease arrangement.

One can only surmise as to why lenders are struggling to come to terms with these arrangements.    They may be concerned that if they have to repossess and sell quickly there could be a problem in finding someone to purchase the property where there is lease with financial obligations to take on.   This is because the leasing arrangement for the panels follows the property and not the owner who installed the panels. The lease company will only remove the panels if the lender can show it has tried and failed to sell it.

The article suggests having contacted the Council of Mortgage Lenders that the  issues which have begun to arise  may be down to  a failure on the part of the banking sector to formulate a clearer policy on solar panels and how these cases should be approached.

This reported case should however send out a warning to those looking to install panels under a leasing arrangement and also to those acting for those looking to purchase a property where an arrangement exists.   Time will tell whether those homeowners who have sought to reduce their energy bills in line with Government advice and encouragement will be left with problems in selling their property at  market price.  

Morgan Jones and Pett are solicitors who provide legal advice and services to clients based in England and Wales and who can be contacted on 01603877000 or via email at davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Conveyancing firm marks successful year with launch of new website

Entering the market in late 2010 was not the easiest.  The property market was in free fall and the recession was still biting.  Every indicator was pointing to contraction and on the face of it this was not the time to look at expansion.

Not deterred however the partners in MJPconveyancing.co.uk  decided this was the best time to invest in people and information technology and look to build for the future. 

Partner, David Pett, explains:

“At the time of receiving my brief to reorganize and develop our conveyancing department we were operating with one conveyancer and two support staff.  We were fixing fees in line with expectations that predated the rise in competition caused by the introduction of the Legal Services Act.  

The philosophy was to ensure we could provide a service to our litigation clients who were looking for a conveyancing service.  To be honest we had not idea whether we were making any money and as for case management this simply did not exist.

The first step was to invest money into creating a new case management system.  Along with our IT programmer, Leon Williams, we designed and introduced a unique risk and case management system  - Quick Conveyance.  Straight away this put us in a position to develop a new low cost conveyancing model without having to make any sacrifices on risk management or the quality of service.  It also gave me the tools to see how much money we were making and to ensure profit margins were maintained.’

The investment has clearly paid off for MJPconveyancing.co.uk .   The business has gone from strength to strength and is now operating with six case handlers and a support staff of six.  It s handling around 100 completions each month and has recently released a new website whereby instant quotes for conveyancing services can be sought.

The Partners are also looking to see if they can ‘resell’ to other conveyancers the risk and case management system – Quick Conveyance

The next stage in the plan is to operate the business as an alternative business structure which MJPconveyancing.co.uk  hopes will be up and running in August of this year. 

For further details of MJP Conveyancing or Quick Conveyance please email davidpett@m-j-p.co.uk

Abdominoplasty error leads to compensation payment

A five figure sum recovered for a young lady who had routine plastic surgery but had not been properly assessed and the hospital had not taken her through a proper consent process.  She has been left with scarring and a psychiatric reaction. 

For further details on this or indeed any other claims contact

Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877064

£30,000 compensation claim for HIP replacement hospital error

In excess of £30,000 recovered for a hip replacement which was carried out negligently when a globule of cement was dropped into the hip causing a thermal burn to the femoral nerve and required remedial surgery  After an initial period of disability the Claimant had made a reasonably good recovery but needed care and assistance from his partner in the early days. 

For further details on this or indeed any other clinical negligence claims contact:

Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877064

Childbirth failure leads to compensation payment

Compensation recovered for a lady who had a swab left inside her vagina following a routine childbirth.  Fortunately the swab was detected quite early on but still resulted in a period of pain and suffering and extreme discomfort. 

For further details on this or indeed any other clinical negligence claims contact:

Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877064

Bus accident leads to five figure compensation claim

Significant five figure sum recovered for Claimant who was injured when his car was hit but a bus.  The case was particularly interesting as he muddled by trying to carry on working but eventually had to give up, suffering a psychiatric injury which was not of immediate onset. 

Arguments from the Defendant as to what caused the psychiatric injury were put forward but the compensation agreed reflected the fact the Claimant was able to recover all of his loss of earnings. 

For further details on this or indeed any other personal injury claims contact Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877064

Injury at school leads to compensation payment

Compensation recovered for a child who was injured in a PE class which was improperly supervised by a teacher.

The Defendants had denied liability for a number of years and the case involved having to employ a leading expert on physical education within schools. 

For further details on this or indeed any other personal injury claims contact:

Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877064

Injury with saw leads to compensation payment

Five figure sums recovered for 2 Claimants, one of whom was not properly trained in the use of a saw, and suffered serious injuries to his hand and another, a cleaning lady who recovered compensation when she tripped over a “Henry” style hoover which she was using and fell down stairs.


The cleaning lady was a particularly interesting case as she was a foreigner and often required the help of an interpreter. 

For further details on this or indeed any other personal injury claims contact:

Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877064

Hair Extension compensation claim

Compensation recovered for a model who had hair extensions applied which caused her hair loss and aggravation of her scalp.  The award included loss of earnings for missed modelling sessions as well as a cancelled holiday. 

This was quite a complicated claim as there was a clear dispute between the parties as to the facts of the case. The Claimant said that she had relied upon the hairdresser’s experience and expertise in telling her what the best product was to give her the effect that she wishes for but they failed to take into account a number of factors, carry out a strand test, properly counsel her about the risks.

The hairdresser then ignored her complaints that there was a problem for too long meaning that by the time the extensions were removed they had caused irritation to her scalp and hair loss, requiring use of hair growth tablets, special shampoo and precluded her from being able to use a hair dryer, or any hair products such as hair spray, hair gel and such like. Inspite of the dispute as to the facts of the case and continued denial of liability, upon taking the case to court the Defendant backed down and paid the claim on a full liability basis (although without making such an admission).

If you have suffered in this way and require a free and no obligation consultation with us please email Simon and we will be happy to help. 

Simon Bransby at simonbransby@m-j-p.co.uk or call 01603 877000