Legal Telemarketers (#17 in a series of things which have really pissed me off)

[andrewducker]

I'm far too fucking polite with the horrifically amoral scum who phone me up to offer me things I would only want if I was so far down the food chain that pond scum looked like a shining role model to work towards.

In principle I think that no win, no fee legal arrangements are a good thing.  They remove the  inequity which meant that only the rich could afford legal representation, making it easier for those who have been legitimately harmed to obtain some kind of redress through the courts.

What isn't a good thing is legal companies phoning up people at random to ask them if they've had any kind of incident at work ove rthe past three years.  And making it clear that it doesn't have to be anyone's responsibility, but that it could be as simple as a minor brush with another driver, or a slip at work.  And then. when I say that no, I'm fine, offering me a £50 finders fee if I pass them along to anyone else who _has_ had any kind of incident in the last three years.

Offering your services to people in genuine need is one thing, asking people if they have a genuine problem is fine, but these scumbags were clearly looking for the  kind of thing that could be settled out of court for a nice tidy sum, in order to avoid publicity.

Oh, and as I'm registered with the Telephone Preference Service they shouldn't have been phoning me in the first place - if I'd had my brain in gear I'd have written down the name of their company and reported them.  The whole thing makes me feel slightly ill.

Comments

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, scumbags.

Surely if the legal system did not award damages in these kind of 'minor incident', 'shit happens' type of claims, then the market that the scumbags (and their clients) operate in would not exist? Or maybe it's not as simple as that and I am somehow missing something.

My only damages claim predated the wide availability of no-win no-fee, but I was very sure that I had at least a decent chance and the fees were not too steep. iwas willing to take that risk.

I have had to spend £200 on PI insurance for the very little skippering work that I do in case some dolt stubs their toe and decides to sue me...

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I think it's less the legal system and more the possibilities of the insurance cover and the out of court settlement that drives the market.

[andrewducker]

Surely if the legal system did not award damages in these kind of 'minor incident', 'shit happens' type of claims, then the market that the scumbags (and their clients) operate in would not exist?

Most of them never get to court. They get settled out of court, thus saving large legal fees...

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

In or out, it's still part of the system. There would be no motive(or opportunity) to settle out of court if it were not possible for claimants to bring the case in the first place, and for there to be a resaonable chance of succeeding should it actually get to court.

You need that threat to get an out-of-court settlement.

My own claim (*not* no win, no fee - predates that, but the fees weren't that bad) took 3 years and went right to the courtroom doors (in effect). There is no way they'd have paid anything if I hadn't been able to raise a case.

[andrewducker]

Actually, all you need to do is make it cheaper to make you go away than it costs to pay a lawyer to fill out the proper paperwork.

The simpl answer to which, of course, is to streamline the work the lawyer's do, to make it easier to defend yourself.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

OK, different threat, but if it wasn't for court you wouldn't need lawyers.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I don't think that adequately represents the perception of the risks involved.

If one is faced with the choices:

1. Pay £X now, and that's all

2. Pay nothing now, but risk paying £Y later

Then it isn't only the probability of 2 that matters, it's the difference between Y and X. If the difference is large enough then people will choose 1, even if the likelihood of 2 is small.

I'm not saying one doesn't have to have a case, but that it sometimes doesn't have to be a very good case, just a case with a possible (but not necessarily likely) scary outcome for the defendant('s insurers).

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Better put than I can some up with at this time of day.

Hedging is always popular.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

You mean like .. privet?

[andrewducker]

People will only choose (1) if they have X. If they don't have X then their only choice is (2).

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

True. Except people might also be insured to the amount of X.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

They remove the inequity which meant that only the rich could afford legal representation

Of course, a decent legal aid system would do that too.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

What they neglect to say is that their fee is not simply a percentage of the damages, but a fixed sum plus a percentage of the damages. In many cases this fee will be greater than the damages awarded, which leaves the individual out of pocket, owing money to the legal firm.

Of course all this is in the small print, but these companies are targetting the most vulnerable of societies' members who are unlikely to read or comprehend the small print.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Were they calling from the UK?

The TPS exists thanks to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which is a European directive which has duly been enforced with national legislation in each member state. It therefore should cover companies calling from within the EU. Of course it will not have any authority over companies calling from outwith the EU.

I wonder if it would have any authority to stop a third party (in say India) calling you on behalf of a British company?

[andrewducker]

It was a British accent certainly, so I assumed they were in the UK.

And I don't know about your last point, but if it's not the case now it almost certainly will be within a few years...

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Actually the TPS predates the PECD. Many companies obeyed it voluntarily.

In theory I think DP law jurisdiction can be founded on you having "equipment" in the UK, and various other heads: it probably means the UK Information Commisioner does have juridsn but they certainly don't have the resources to enforce agaisnt Indians (actually the UK Inf Commr has never brought a single action agaisnt spammers EVEN IN THE UK - the worst enforcement record in the E.)

I've never ever heard of UK lawyers cold calling like this. Not only is it against PECD/DP law but it's also I suspect solidly against lawyers advertising rules (which are strict as hell). get their name next time :-)

[moosedevil.livejournal.com]

Love the icon ;)

I seem to remember very similar wording in some extra on a computer game ages ago... I mostly remember the big beast thing that wanted a mountain dew!

[andrewducker]

Oh, yeah, the text has been around for ages, and has been applied to numerous different animations.

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

Scumbags indeed. And nice userpic :).