SSB: Many victims were vulnerable
SSB Law has been accused of employing “unethical tactics” to retain clients who wanted to drop their cases and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) condemned for its response.
A member of the SSB Victims Support Group said that, after complaining to the SRA, she expected action “but encountered indifference”.
The comments were made by representatives of the group who were invited to address last month’s meeting of the Legal Services Consumer Panel.
According to the minutes of the meeting, group member Debra Sofia Magdalene said SSB purchased leads generated from a claims management company (CMC) that got them through door-knockers. SSB also used it for surveys and for progressing paperwork.
“Domestic energy assessors inflated cavity wall insulation damage claims using inaccurate templates and surveys signed off by RICS surveyors who never visited the properties. Some surveyors had a conflict of interest because they had a financial interest in over-inflating claims,” the minutes recorded.
“The courts questioned this and it resulted in no expert witnesses prepared to work with SSB Law. Following Ofgem’s fraud investigation, some domestic energy assessors subsequently lost their accreditation. This resulted in problematic claims which SSB took too long to process.”
The panel was told that, before SSB Law collapsed, many clients were told their cases had little chance of success or were asked to pay SSB Law directly to continue.
“Many clients decided to do nothing and thought their cases were dropped. Then a few months later, victims began receiving unexpected adverse costs bills and some faced crippling financial consequences, including county court judgements and bailiff visits.”
Their after-the-event (ATE) insurer refused to pay for the adverse costs because it said SSB Law had failed to comply with the terms of the cover.
Laura Longworth, a journalist working with the group, highlighted the vulnerability of victims, many of whom were elderly, unwell, non-English speakers or from low-income backgrounds.
The minutes went on: “She also cited conflicting surveys, long delays, and minimal communication from SSB Law, which frustrated claimants. After their claims were suddenly dropped or deemed unsuccessful, adverse costs orders left some victims feeling suicidal and many no longer trust the legal system.”
Ms Longworth also pointed out “the unethical tactics used by SSB Law to retain clients (who wanted to drop cases because they were taking too long), including emotional manipulation, misleading information about case prospects and employees explaining no win, no fee arrangements and ATE insurance by reading a script without understanding what they were saying”.
Group member Ailsa White told the panel that she had complained to the SRA about SSB Law and JMR Solicitors, the firm that took over SSB cases.
“She expected action but encountered indifference,” the minutes said. “Despite submitting written complaints, the responses from the SRA were slow, dismissive, and avoided addressing serious concerns about misconduct.
“She felt that the SRA did not thoroughly and transparently investigate complaints. She criticised the SRA for prematurely ruling out dishonesty at SSB Law, which impacted their ability to claim from the compensation fund, and for focusing on efficiency rather than justice.”
Among the reforms the group called for were banning the term ‘no win, no fee’ for its misleading nature and stricter regulations to prevent conflicts of interest.
The minutes concluded: “The panel thanked the SSB Victims Group for sharing their experiences. Members empathised with the tragic nature of the consumer experiences and the significant obstacles in addressing them.
“The panel was impressed by the efforts and advocacy of the group and their invaluable support provided to victims, whether legal or emotional to navigate these complex challenges.”
In February, the SRA said it had completed its investigation into the collapse of SSB and issued disciplinary notices to a number of individuals.
The Legal Services Board’s review of how the SRA handed SSB’s demise remains ongoing, with no date given for its completion or publication.
Leave a Comment