Is this usual for No Win/No Fee?

[ShuntedWhilstShopping]

I am considering making a claim against a supermarket because of an injury one of their staff caused me a short while ago. I can’t go into more detail because it’s crucial that I’m not identified, but it was undeniably their fault and also captured on CCTV, accident report logged etc.

Because I have absolutely no idea what I am doing, I am going through a claims solicitor and they are happy to take me on. I’ve just spotted on their website that although if I don’t win I won’t have to pay their fee, they seem to require clients to take out an insurance policy against upfront costs.

Can anyone with experience tell me if this is usual and, if so, how much the policy would cost? I believe I have a very strong case, although the payout would probably be at the lower end because there’s no broken bones/permanent damage/expenses/loss of income.

Thanks in advance.

Interesting views. I would just like to mention that although I can’t go into detail about what happened, I don’t consider my claim to be frivolous nor my injury - which was wholly the other side’s fault - to be very minor.

very minor wasn’t an insult, but if it didn’t result in any loss of income, time off work, permanent damage, expense etc, then legally it will likely be.

honestly speak to a normal solicitor, understand if you have a case. This is not some easy way to make money, it really isn’t.

so what was your “injury”?

no broken bones and resulted in no time off work etc

a stubbed toe? a bruise?

@Jf20 thanks, I appreciate your advice. All the comments have made me think long and hard about going down the NWNF route.

Their advice is totally incorrect, but go ahead and follow it! 🤷‍♀️

If you pay privately, you will have to pay for everything as you go along, out if your own pocket. Even if you then lose. They don't care whether your prospects are good, as you're paying them anyway.

NWNF firms take a risk (after assessing liability as much as they can at the outset) that you'll win, funding your costs to the point the claim ends (win or lose) or they assess prospects to be less than 50%, at which point they can terminate the retainer.

Paying 25% + the insurance at the end is likely to be far less than private fees, even if they're reduced by the amount the other side has to pay.

As you've said you have PI cover on your insurance, many NWNF firms will act for you with no deduction, if you send them a copy of the insurance policy showing cover. They should've asked you if you had another way of finding it / before the event insurance when you spoke to them. Or you can go via the firm your insurer allocates to you (this is / can be the issue with that insurance, as you can't choose your own firm, even if you don't like them).

You should have been told the cost of the insurance or have it in the initial paperwork. Again, this is likely to be waived if you prove you have BTE cover.

Have you contacted the supermarket head office?
Used to work for 1 as the man (woman) on the Clapham omnibus
They used tp pretty consistently pay out and having a solicitor involved made no difference to the payment (except I assume the person got less as they had to pay their own legal fees)

@NoWordForFluffy As a lay person I have no idea of the nitty gritty NWNF practices, but I appreciate that both you & @Jf20 have taken the time to look at this seriously.

@ReindeerHoptimist Good point - thank you.

They don't have a clue about the nitty gritty. They apparently have some weird axe to grind.

I clearly don’t. The question is why are you so upset I am urging her to read her contract, ask the questions and speak to a normal solicitor? And you clearly are pissed about it.

op, you don’t know who anyone is on here. I have given you sound advice on what to do, anyone getting upset that you would read your contract, ask the questions and speak to a normal solicitor for comparison before making a decision , is someone I’d give thought to why.

I agree with @NoWordForFluffy that @Jf20 does not seem to understand how nwnf usually works.

If the claim value is low you might not find a nwnf solicitor who will take it, and it would be unlikely to be economical to pay for the case on an hourly rate basis.

There are two types of 'no win no fee' agreements.

One is a 'DBA - Damages Based Agreement', with this the solicitors take a share of the damages that you are awarded. So if it is 25% then if you are awarded £1,000 then they take £250.

The other is a 'CFA - Conditional Fee Agreement', with this the solicitors do not charge unless you win but then they charge their usual fees with a success fee (up to 100%). So if you are awarded £1,000 and their costs are £250 with say a 50% uplift then the costs they are entitled to is £375.

It sounds like the solicitors are offering you a DBA.

There are also 'disbursements' these are costs that are not included such as a Court fee, medical expert fees etc. You need to read the contract carefully to understand how these will be dealt with.

Some of the costs referred to above may be recoverable from the other side if you win - but not all of them and if the damages are below £1,000 then very few of them are.

It is entirely normal for you to be asked to take out an 'ATE - After the Event' insurance policy. This is to cover the other's sides costs if you lose and sometimes for your own disbursements. Often the premiums are conditional and deferred (so only paid at the end of the case and if you win). Again you should check the terms carefully but it is usually a good idea to take out ATE.

If you have legal expenses cover under your household insurance as you mentioned then definitely a good idea to speak to them as well before making a decision - indeed the other firm should ask you if you have any 'BTE - Before the Event' legal expenses insurance - if they don't ask you then that is a clear sign you should think carefully about instructing them.

Always ask for a worked example of how much you are likely to get after fees, disbursements, ATE premiums etc at different levels of damages awards - that will give you a clearer idea as unfortunately sometimes the information given to clients by some firms is not always clear and sometimes people get upset that they end up with a very small amount of the awarded damages as they haven't properly understood what they're signing up to.

Good luck

Sorry @Jf20 I think your post is well intentioned but misinformed.

Here is an example of a NWNF Conditional Fee Arrangement:

If you are unsuccessful you pay nothing and the lawyers get paid nothing.

If you are successful:

Let’s say the compensation you are awarded is £100,000.

The lawyers fees are £35,000.

The lawyer recovers their fees (provided a judge considers them reasonable) from the other side.

The lawyers charge a success fee to you which is 25% of your compensation (which is the maximum a success fee can be).

So you pay the lawyers £25,000 and take home £75,000 for yourself.

The lawyers total take home is £60k (their original fees of £35k paid by oppo plus £25k success fee paid by you).

Regarding the insurance policy…

It is quite standard for lawyers to ask you to take out an insurance policy in the event you are unsuccessful as this covers any fees incurred such as medical reports and court fees.

It won’t usually cover the solicitors own fees though as claimed further up thread though which is ridiculous! I think @Jf20 said that your lawyers get paid either way - that is totally incorrect! NWNF lawyers are taking a real risk that they will get paid nothing, that is why they are allowed to charge a success fee to claimants in addition to recovering their legal fees from the other side when they do actually get in as this balances the losses.

The only way Claimant lawyers get paid irrespective of the outcome is if you instruct them on an hourly rate which perversely is what @Jf20 has recommended 🤷‍♀️

The only time it makes sense to pay by the hour and not under a NWNF is when your claim is worth massive amounts (and has very strong merits) and legal fees are dwarfed by what the 25% success fee would be. E.g case is worth £4 million, legal fees likely to be £50,000 which are covered by the other side in the event of a win. Would you want to pay your own lawyers the £1 million success fee? Probably not, most people would risk losing £50k in the event of a loss when faced with those figures if they have such funds available. If you don’t have such funds you go for a NWNF and hold your nose when you have to pay your lawyer £1 million.

I was recently paid a significant amount of compensation after being hit by a car.
I had personal injury on home insurance policy. My solicitor contacted them and this only kicked in at the court stage so was of no help as the driver admitted liability and it didn't get as far as court.
So check what home insurance actually covers carefully.

There is a lot of incorrect, outdated and dangerous advice on this thread.

No win no fee is heavily regulated by the SRA and most claimant personal injury firms will use some type of NWNF for clients who do not have before the event legal expenses insurance because since legal aid was scrapped for this type of claim this is how government wanted injury claims to be funded. NWNF solicitors are "normal solicitors", it is one funding model used by many firms amongst other funding models. No firm will take a crap low value claim that is unlikely to succeed on a NWNF because they lose out, that doesn't mean they win everything but they expect to win substantially more than they lose.

In this case NWNF is irrelevant as the OP has legal expenses cover with her home insurance and should use this as it will be more economical for her. In fact any NWNF solicitor would advise her to use her insurance.

i will take a punt that that claim goes no where

If you suffered no loss or lasting damage, then by definition it was minor. Personal injury compensation is intended for cases where loss has been suffered, so if no loss was suffered it won't be worth it.

@ion08 I find it extraordinary not to mention goady, sick and terribly sad that you would go to the trouble of resurrecting a ghost thread (presumably you trawled through pages and pages of old threads in the Legal forum) in order to make such a crass comment which isn’t even related to my original question, which was strictly about the process of making a NWNF claim. What an exciting life you must lead!

By way of update to anyone else who posted and has now got a notification, my home insurance lawyers have taken up this claim for me. Full evidence has been provided to them by way of CCTV footage which shows exactly what happened. I appreciate that some of the more negative comments suggesting that I am trying to cash in and that my claim is too trivial to pursue may have been trying to provoke me into disclosing what actually happened, which I am not going to do. I will say that I was absolutely DONE TO by the supermarket, it hurt like hell and, nearly three months on, only now does it appear to be healing.

Having googled the incident in question, I see that a member of supermarket staff was killed by the same action a few years ago. So regardless of how much or how little compensation I receive, there will also be a more procedural case for the supermarket to answer here, which my solicitors are also actioning.

Thank you again to those who gave me the benefit of their genuine advice here.

If you go shopping it is reasonable to expect to be able to do so safely.

Whilst some unexpected things do occur it sounds like, in the OP's case, the shop were aware of the issue or it would be reasonable to assume the shop should be aware of the issue.

If people like the OP just kept quiet, where is the incentive for the shop to put in reasonable health & safety processes?

I do not understand MNs obsession with jumping on OPs when compensation is mentioned. In the majority of cases it isn't about money, it's about making the other side address a potentially dangerous situation.

The fact a staff member died in the past and the same thing happened again is reason enough to see this through.

Risk assessments and policies need to be looked at.