Report this comment to a moderator

Opinion: Guilty firms should dig deep and repay miners

Opinion: Guilty firms should dig deep and repay miners I note with interest the above comments. It is also overlooked that solicitors conducting claims under the terms of the agreement the UDM entered into with the government received reduced scheme costs thus saving the taxpayer a very significant sum of money. Until recent events it has historically been normal for members to suport their Union financially, otherwise what does the word Union mean? Many of the claimants were no longer Union members so by agreeing with the Union the payment of a modest contribution (if the claim was a success) they received Union support and the benefit of the agreement the UDM had with the Government. In many cases the claimant signed up with the UDM before any referral to solicitors. Solicitors who have in good faith conducted the claims and provided full compensation to the claimant at reduced costs to the tax payer are being treated in the same way as others who made deductions for their own benefit. It is sad in my view that no journalist has been brave enough to look at all the issues objectively. There has been much publicity about the initial underestimation of the number of likely claims and the subsequent size of the scheme. No credit is provided to the Unions for all the hard work locating miners, arranging meetings and home visits etc. Has anyone asked the question how all this could have been funded? The funds for such did not come from the government, after all they are the Defendants and had no interest in pubisizing the right to claim. Access to justice does not come without cost to someone despite the marketing jargon. I would suggest most successful claimants who made a modest contribution to a Union of choice, more or less equivalent to union subscriptions see nothing wrong with the principle. Mistakes or errors of judgment may, with the benefit of hindsight, have been made, some more serious than others. I would suggest this comment has wider application than the practicitioners undertaking the claims. The Law Society and the regulators have referred to the complexity of the regulatory issues that have arisen and the Government was involved throughout. So my request is for balance, objectivity, and some fairness in reporting. I know it is a tall order and I am probably an idealist but that may be the reason I decided to enter the law in the first place.

6-Jan-2009

2:01 pm