I understand all that you say but it shouldn't distract from the original persons claim.
Just because law firms choose to rinse the public purse for their own gains doesn't make the victims of one of the biggest scandals in history less deserving.
I hear what you say.
But I have had the advantage of being on both sides of this sort of thing.
To give a simple example, each side will have an expert on quantum (amount). The Claimant's expert will be 1 of life's optimists. Just like the Defence's expert will be 1 of life's pessimists. Guess what? The answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. Claiming the other side isn't paying out on the highest figure is optimistic. Bordering on unrealistic.
Then there is the wishy-washy bit about sold the business "at a loss". I'm sure she did. Just like I'm sure that some of that loss was also down to the fact that (regardless of Horizon) Post Offices became less attractive, as the profit had plummeted. Tried selling a Newsagents lately?
She will be entitled to a large sum of money. But people who have easily quantifiable losses talk in real money terms, not vague stuff. So-for example-there is a clear loss of £50,000 mentioned.
I have sympathy that 10-15 years of that lady's life was adversely affected. But I want a 92-yr-old spending her money on herself. Not spending her last years trying to squeeze another few quid out.
If this wasn't taxpayers money, this would be dealt with very differently. Right now, each hour that goes by involves extra risk to the taxpayer. And none to the Claimant. Whereas a Part 36 Offer would be used if the Defendant was spending their own money.
In short, if someone does not end up with more than the Part 36 amount, they have to pay both sides' legal fees from the date of the offer. Which concentrates the mind, and levels the playing field.
Comments
But I have had the advantage of being on both sides of this sort of thing.
To give a simple example, each side will have an expert on quantum (amount). The Claimant's expert will be 1 of life's optimists. Just like the Defence's expert will be 1 of life's pessimists. Guess what? The answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. Claiming the other side isn't paying out on the highest figure is optimistic. Bordering on unrealistic.
Then there is the wishy-washy bit about sold the business "at a loss". I'm sure she did. Just like I'm sure that some of that loss was also down to the fact that (regardless of Horizon) Post Offices became less attractive, as the profit had plummeted. Tried selling a Newsagents lately?
She will be entitled to a large sum of money. But people who have easily quantifiable losses talk in real money terms, not vague stuff. So-for example-there is a clear loss of £50,000 mentioned.
I have sympathy that 10-15 years of that lady's life was adversely affected. But I want a 92-yr-old spending her money on herself. Not spending her last years trying to squeeze another few quid out.
If this wasn't taxpayers money, this would be dealt with very differently. Right now, each hour that goes by involves extra risk to the taxpayer. And none to the Claimant. Whereas a Part 36 Offer would be used if the Defendant was spending their own money.
In short, if someone does not end up with more than the Part 36 amount, they have to pay both sides' legal fees from the date of the offer. Which concentrates the mind, and levels the playing field.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/post-office-pays-fujitsu-another-21m-to-try-and-fix-scandal-software-horizon/ar-AA1CPP0Q?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=f8556ece19634ff9a3e1a168de8c597b&ei=28#fullscreen