|
Recent Press Coverage - response to The Times
|
Summary of response to The Times
You may have read or heard about a recent article in The Times which mentions Beresfords in connection with the processing of Noise Induced hearing Loss (NIHL) claims.
The article seeks to extend the sensationalist coverage of the Miners’ Scheme which appeared in The Times in June of last year and is by the same freelance journalist.
It contains numerous factual errors but most importantly is based on a lack of understanding of the relevant legal procedures relating to NIHL claims and is peppered with innuendo and unfounded slur for apparent journalistic effect.
A detailed response to points made in the article has been sent to The Times entirely refuting any implication that Beresfords has acted improperly in any way.
There are three specific issues raised by the article which are particularly concerning to us and our response to them is summarised as follows:
1) The theme of the article is that at a “secret” meeting with the UDM Beresfords agreed to change its process for pursuing claims and that this change was to the detriment of the client. This is wholly and completely untrue. The process did not change. Beresfords has consistently sought to protect its clients in managing the financial risk inherent in litigation by arranging insurance, which is a common and fully accepted practice in these claims. Indeed, Beresfords would have been remiss in its duty to the client if it had not dealt with the question of insurance. The meeting with the UDM was irrelevant to this process and we have strongly contested with The Times their use of the word “secret”. A meeting held at the UDM offices between senior members of this firm and of the union which was minuted, with such minutes being voluntarily disclosed, is hardly secret.
The lack of understanding of these procedures (whether wilful or otherwise) is the fundamental flaw in the article and because of this lack of proper research the other assertions that flow from the article are equally flawed.
2) The article goes on to state that litigation insurance is unnecessary in the sense that the DTI would not seek to recover costs from failed litigants. This is wholly untrue. We have a number of cases where the DTI has correctly sought to recover their costs. However this was achieved at no financial loss to our clients because they were adequately insured.
3) Comparisons are drawn with other firms who appear to have done things differently. The Times appears to have made no effort to understand why such differences may exist but firms do approach this area of claim from different perspectives. Some firms “cherry pick” cases in the sense that they will only proceed with those which appear certain to succeed in terms of being settled without the issue of court proceedings. If there has never been any possibility of litigation because such proceedings would not be issued, there would be no requirement for insurance. However, Beresfords has never adopted this policy and has consistently been prepared to represent clients which it feels have legitimate claims even though an appreciable element of risk has existed. The firm has represented such clients as fully and robustly as possible in order to obtain for those clients the proper levels of compensation to which they are entitled.
As a result of this approach and Beresfords extensive awareness campaigns, the firm has brought access to justice to tens of thousands of people. All of these clients have proceeded on the basis that they bore no financial risk if their claims failed. They have proceeded in the full knowledge that their solicitor is entirely committed to pursuing the claim vigorously and using the full recourse of the law.
|
|
