To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
4 thoughts on “Surplus to requirements?”
Less surplus?
Hmmmmmm so everyone gets less and less (which in turn produces lower standard of work / quality generally) and yet the insurers still put the premiums up and still take their hefty referral fees
This is a separate issue I know but fact remains that Jackson will only benefit insurance companies and their shareholders
Jackson should stop listening to the Insurers feeding him this tripe.
And how about the courts now conducting Summary Assessments by slashing Base Costs because, and I quote, “the success fee brings the costs up to a reasonable level of remuneration for this case”!!!
But he’s right isn’t he? Solicitors were taking cases from unions, motoring organisations, credit hire companies and LEIs for years on the understanding that they only got paid what they recovered from the other side. This is what distorted the present system from the start: it was bulit on assumption that, before CFAs, solicitors got paid win or lose. It simply was not true. It was even untrue, after 1994, in legal aid cases. Solicitors got paid much less if they lost. So, they did not need to double their fees in order to break even on CFAs.
point noted
however please explain how this means that the insurers will not be the main beneficiary given that
A) their total outlay will go down,
B) premiums are at their highest
C) some of the largest referal fees are paid to insurers
As simon said there will be less surplus as this will now be deposited back in the accounts of the insurers. less surplus does not mean that the system will collapse