'no-win-no Fee' a Curse or a Blessing in Disguise?

Television adverts tell us that no-win-no-fee law firms will provide a zero cost solution to all our legal problems, particularly if they involve an accident of any kind.

The scheme has many defend it as the last bastion of true access to justice, but is it really a wolf in sheep's clothing that has only helped exacerbate existing problems in the framework of litigation and the insurance industry?

Although the original no-win-no-fee structure was aimed at improving access to justice, it may be the precursor to spawning new ways to effectively cajole money out of unsuspecting claimants.

For example, claims firms offering a no- win- no- fee service may take up to 40 per cent of the final settlement. Additionally, most of them will only take on cases where they foresee a big settlement. With this in mind, they advise individuals with smaller claims to use one of the online claims forms to deal with the issue themselves.

More worryingly, the moniker of ?no win, no fee' may be set up with a different new identity but with the same intention of squeezing out money at the ?successful' stage of litigation. This new incarnation would be tax rebate companies. A customer signs up and the company will contact HM Revenue & Customs to see if that person is due a rebate. The advertising boasts that one in four people will get money back and the claimant will only pay if you they receive a rebate.

Instead such firms can charge as much as 40% of the rebate for simple tasks that anyone can do themselves for free. In reality, these companies do nothing more than draft a few letters.

One of the problems with such quick proceedings given the ease of taking up the services of ?ambulance chasing' law firms is the significant litigation in the NHS. Even for relatively minor accidents, there is a cost. If we had a little less litigation in the NHS, then we could save a lot of money which could be ploughed into recruiting new doctors and nurses and improving the overall service.

Additionally, if this litigation trend is not curtailed the cost of hospital treatment can balloon to heights seen in the US. Patients are often encouraged by over enthusiastic lawyers who are following ambulances to hospital to drum up trade

More to the point, hospitals themselves as a whole are suffering. When lawyers apply for medical records they should be charged the actual cost plus a nominal fee. This would help to offset the cost and disruption to the hospital and would allow the original records to be kept where they are most needed, as only copies could then be forwarded.