Mr N wasn't happy with the firm's advice over the prospects of success for his claim...
Mr N wanted to bring a claim against his employer. His home insurance included cover for legal expenses, so he contacted this insurer for them to fund his claim. The policy stated that the insurer would only cover his legal expenses if the case’s prospects of success were 51% or greater.
The insurer instructed the firm to assess Mr N’s case. The firm decided that if the case was to be taken to tribunal, the prospects of success were 10%. As a result, Mr N’s legal costs could not be covered by this insurer.
A few weeks later Mr N negotiated a settlement with his employer, which included money in lieu of his notice period and a compensation payment. He believed that his employer would not have offered to settle if the prospects of success were as low as 10%. Mr N complained that the firm’s advice regarding the claim’s prospects of success was incorrect.
We concluded that the firm’s service was reasonable.
The firm had to make this decision based on their professional judgement and experience in handling similar claims. The evidence showed that they exercised their professional judgement reasonably.
The firm ensured they had all relevant documentation before considering the prospects of success. They made specific requests for evidence from Mr N and explained why they needed this information.
The firm’s letter included a detailed assessment of the claim and the reasons why they felt the prospects of success were 10%. They also shared this information with Mr N on a telephone call. When Mr N stated that he was unhappy with the assessment, the firm requested that a more senior member of staff review the case, however they agreed with the original outcome.
There was also no evidence to suggest that the firm’s advice was clearly incorrect. The firm’s assessment regarding the prospects of success may have been correct if the case did go to tribunal as the employer did not admit any liability, despite reaching a settlement.
We explained that employers may reach a settlement for different reasons. For example, it may have been more cost effective for them to reach settlement at that time rather than proceed to tribunal. Again, this did not mean that the firm’s assessment was incorrect.
We found the firm’s service to be reasonable in relation to these complaints, so we did not need to consider the impact of any unreasonable service to decide on an appropriate remedy.
