Clients left desperate and in some cases facing adverse costs orders after the collapse of SSB Group have been hit by fresh uncertainty.

JMR Solicitors, the Manchester firm that took on a large number of cavity wall claims from SSB, has decided it cannot continue to act in the cases. The claims have been transferred again, to national firm Hugh James – but are unlikely to be pursued. Hugh James is already instructed on professional negligence claims against SSB Law’s insurers where clients face adverse costs orders. Former clients are being advised on their options should they wish to continue proceedings.

Cavity wall insulation

JMR Solicitors has decided not to pursue the cavity wall claims it took on from collapsed SSB Group

The Solicitors Regulation Authority, which is itself being investigated for its actions over the SSB collapse, confirmed that JMR has passed on the cavity wall insulation (CWI) claims. A spokesperson said: ‘We have been liaising with both firms about this process and their obligations. JMR should have now informed relevant clients of their plans and have begun the process of transferring files.

‘We recognise that the short notice given to clients by JMR of their plans will have caused further distress.’

A letter sent to JMR clients, seen by the Gazette, explained that the firm will shortly cease work on cavity wall claims.

The letter added: ‘We are aware that costs may have been incurred on your CWI claim which the defendant may be seeking to recover from you directly. The new firm of solicitors will be provided with your complete file of papers and all pertinent information so that they can advise you directly about this.’

One client told the Gazette this letter was ‘eerily familiar’ and caused her significant distress.

‘There was no explanation given, other than that a “business arrangement” had been made,’ she said. ‘The same, unrealistic two-day time limit that was offered by SSB Law was evident. Two days to accept or appoint an alternative solicitor. How can it be fair or reasonable to expect vulnerable claimants to make a crucial decision about their legal representation?’

Some former SSB clients have received debt recovery letters from defendants seeking costs, amid confusion as to whether their claims had ATE cover.

 

This article is now closed for comment.