andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2006-04-27 11:24 am
andrewducker) wrote2006-04-27 11:24 am
Legal Telemarketers (#17 in a series of things which have really pissed me off)
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
The simpl answer to which, of course, is to streamline the work the lawyer's do, to make it easier to defend yourself.
no subject
no subject
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).
no subject
Hedging is always popular.
no subject
no subject
no subject