Last chance: Landlords face £7,000 fines if they miss key Renters’ Rights Act deadline

A growing number of personal injury claimants could be losing thousands of pounds in compensation by opting for “no win, no fee” arrangements, according to new case analysis from Palmers Solicitors.

Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) are widely used across the UK and are often presented as the simplest option.

However, success fees of up to 25 per cent are typically deducted from compensation when a claim succeeds.

Jennifer Hitchen, Solicitor at Palmers says that while CFAs have their place, they are not always the most cost-effective choice, particularly in more clear-cut cases.

“If liability is clear from the outset, for example, a rear-end road traffic accident or an accident at work where fault is admitted early on, the risk of the claim failing is lower.

“In those circumstances, giving up a quarter of your compensation can be hard to justify. You are effectively paying a premium for a risk that may not really be there.”

Jennifer points out that “no win, no fee” providers operate on a commercial model and are incredibly selective about the cases they take on.

“Firms offering CFAs are unlikely to take a gamble on a case. Many of them make a point of highlighting that they will take on the case if they feel they are at least 51 per cent likely to win.

“If your case is accepted on that basis, is it not worth asking yourself whether it might also be strong enough to pursue without giving away a percentage of your damages?”

Palmers’ recent case study involved a claimant who chose to fund her case privately.

With liability resolved and costs recovered from the defendant, she retained the full value of her compensation, leaving her more than £9,000 better off than she would likely have been under a CFA.

However, Jennifer is careful to stress that outcomes depend on the details of each case.

Factors such as disputed liability or the complexity of the claim can affect legal costs, meaning privately funded claims are not always the more cost-effective route.

“Where liability is denied, or there are arguments around medical evidence or long-term prognosis, costs can rise quickly. In those cases, a CFA can offer some comfort for the claimant because they are financially protected if the claim doesn’t succeed.”

According to Jennifer, there are other benefits to privately funding your personal injury claim as opposed to going with a CFA.

“We tend to deal with a smaller number of cases at any one time, which means clients know who they’re speaking to. They can pick up the phone and speak to someone who knows the details of their case without being passed between teams or call centres.

“When someone is recovering from an injury, that continuity can make the process far less stressful.”

Jennifer believes there is a gap in public understanding about how funding choices affect outcomes.

“A lot of people don’t realise they have a choice. They see the adverts, hear ‘no win, no fee’, and assume that’s the only sensible route.

“There are situations where paying privately can leave you with a good chunk more in your pocket at the end of the case if you are willing to take that risk.”

Jennifer is encouraging anyone considering a claim to seek early advice and weigh up the strength of their case before committing to any agreement.

“For some people, a CFA will still be the right choice for their situation, but it shouldn’t be the default without a second thought. It’s a conversation worth having at the start so you understand the risks and potential costs involved in your matter and the odds of success.

“Once you’ve signed up to a success fee, that deduction is locked in.”

The Government has announced the expansion of its Jobs Guarantee scheme from 18-21 to 18-24 and says this is expected to create more than 35,000 extra subsidised jobs.

It has also announced a new Youth Jobs Grant, through which businesses will receive £3,000 for each young person they hire aged 18-24 who has been on Universal Credit and looking for work for six months or more.

This is part of the Government’s response to the reported unemployment crisis among young people, with data showing that the number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 950,000 or around one in eight in that age group.

Employers will need to be careful to ensure that they balance any targeted hiring incentives with their duties under the Equality Act 2010.

There are different types of discrimination, including direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, which are likely to be most relevant here.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs where a person is treated less favourably because of their age without an objective justification.

This could include setting an age limit or range for a particular job.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination occurs where an employer has a provision, criterion or practice (a PCP) that has a greater adverse impact on those in one age group than those in another and the employer cannot show that the PCP is objectively justified.

This could include restricting a post to “recent graduates”, since most recent graduates are likely to be of a similar age.

Age discrimination is slightly different to other types of direct discrimination in that there is no discrimination where the employer can show that its treatment of the employee is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Here, the likely legitimate aim would be to reduce youth unemployment and to benefit from the Government financial incentives available to employers.

However, employers will need to consider their circumstances and ensure they can justify any age discrimination on this basis.

Employers will also need to consider what will happen when the initiative’s funding comes to an end, particularly in light of upcoming changes to the Employment Rights Act, which will reduce the required service to bring an unfair dismissal claim to 6 months.

This is likely to be from January 2027.

The Equality Act 2010 also allows positive discrimination in certain circumstances, although this is not required.

This includes where certain groups with a protected characteristic, e.g., age, are disproportionately under-represented in its workforce.

The positive action must be a proportionate means of achieving the specific aim, which, in this case, would be to encourage greater participation by those with that specific characteristic, e.g., to employ more people of that specific age.

The explanatory notes state that “the extent to which it is proportionate to take positive action measures which may result in people not having the relevant characteristic being treated less favourably will depend, among other things, on the seriousness of the relevant disadvantage, the extremity of need or under-representation and the availability of other means of countering them”. (Paragraph 512.)

The permitted action to be taken in respect of recruitment or promotion is “treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not”.

However, this is only allowed where:

• A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted.
• The employer does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it; and
• Taking the action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This, therefore, limits the circumstances in which this exclusion could be used and is unlikely to be available to employers specifically looking to hire younger workers as a result of the Government incentives.

Employers will need to carefully consider how they make best use of the Government incentives and their circumstances and policies in respect of recruitment for any potential new roles.

For legal assistance with employment matters, please contact our team.

One of Essex’s leading independent law firms, Palmers Solicitors, has strengthened its immigration offering with the appointment of highly experienced immigration lawyer, Pooja Kaur.

With a growing demand for specialist immigration services in Essex and the wider South East, Pooja’s appointment allows the firm to expand this new service across its six offices.

Pooja joins Palmers as a solicitor with nearly 20 years’ experience in immigration law, advising both businesses and individuals on the complexities of the UK immigration system.

Her appointment reflects the firm’s growing commitment to supporting clients with immigration matters, particularly as businesses seek specialist guidance on recruiting international talent and complying with immigration sponsorship regulations.

Pooja will play a key role in developing Palmers’ immigration services bringing extensive experience advising on a wide range of immigration matters, including skilled worker visas, sponsor licence applications, innovator founder and entrepreneur visas and family and partner visas, as well as appeals and removal matters.

She also provides guidance to employers on audits and ensuring compliance with their ongoing duties under UK immigration law.

Commenting on her appointment, Pooja said: “I am delighted to be joining Palmers Solicitors at such an exciting time for the firm. Immigration law plays a vital role in supporting both individuals and businesses and I am looking forward to helping grow the firm’s immigration services across Essex and the South East.

“I am passionate about empowering clients with the knowledge they need and advocating for them with clarity and integrity.”

Pooja prides herself on a client-focused approach, taking the time to listen carefully to each client’s situation and priorities.

Her aim is to ensure clients feel supported throughout the immigration process and confident in the steps being taken on their behalf.

Gina Newman, Chief Operations Officer at Palmers Solicitors, said: “Pooja is an exciting addition to our team and allows us, for the first time, to provide a dedicated immigration service, which will focus on supporting businesses and individuals in bringing the top international talent to the UK.”

Her appointment forms part of Palmers’ ongoing strategy to expand its specialist legal services and provide practical, expert support to businesses and individuals across the region.

To find out more about Palmers Solicitors wide range of legal services, please get in touch.

Proposals to ban social media access for under-16s risk creating complex practical and legal challenges for families where parents live apart, according to family law experts.

Much of the debate around the potential ban has so far centred on online safety.

However, Karen Bishop, Head of Family Law at Palmers Solicitors, says digital communication has become an established part of how children sustain everyday relationships with a parent they do not live with and warns that restrictions could disrupt those connections.

“Indirect contact through video calls is now routine for a lot of families,” Karen explains.

“It is very common for court orders to provide for regular FaceTime or similar calls each week.

“Older children, teenagers especially, often communicate more informally, using messaging apps, gaming platforms and social media day to day to maintain relationships with a parent.

“Restrictions that limit access to those platforms could therefore affect the more informal interactions that help relationships feel natural rather than managed.”

The issue becomes more prominent where distance is a factor. Families living in different parts of the country or in different jurisdictions often rely heavily on digital communication to bridge the gap between in-person visits.

“If parents live far apart, being able to contact becomes much more important,” Karen says. “Limiting it is likely to hinder those relationships to some extent.”

The concern over contact is not limited to just a parent-child relationship, either. Children dealing with separation often rely on extended family members, friends and peers for emotional support.

“Children dealing with their parents’ separation need support,” Karen says. “A social media ban could restrict access to that support and I would question whether that serves a child’s best interests.”

Karen also believes new rules could open the door to fresh disputes between parents.

Differences in parenting style already sit behind many disagreements and restrictions could create further scope for conflict, particularly if parents interpret the rules differently.

“You could have one parent trying to enforce a ban while the other takes the view that it does not need to be policed so strictly,” Karen says.

“It becomes a question of what counts as a breach and what does not.”

In a legal system already dealing with high levels of conflict, Karen expects the issue could generate further applications if disagreements cannot be resolved.

She also highlights potential implications for the right to family life and for children’s privacy, particularly as they grow older and seek greater independence.

“Restrictions on communication through social media are likely to affect a child’s sense of privacy and expression, which becomes more important as they mature.”

She cautions against a blanket-ban approach, noting that children of the same age can have very different levels of understanding and maturity.

“One child of a certain age may be very different from another,” Karen says. “A single age threshold may not reflect those differences, so I do not believe a decision over social media access for children is something that can be determined by age alone.”

Instead, Karen believes education and supervision offer a more workable path.

“Courts tend to favour child-focused solutions,” she says. “Measures such as clearer guidance on online behaviour, parental controls and agreed time limits could address safety concerns without removing access entirely.”

The reality of how courts handle technology disputes also adds complexity.

Provisions about device use already appear in the details of some contact arrangements, particularly where one parent has previously restricted access during contact.

Even then, enforcement can be difficult because expectations vary widely between households.

“It often comes down to personal parenting choices,” she says. “What happens in one home may not be the same in another.

“Any new framework would need to set basic expectations while allowing flexibility, otherwise families may find themselves returning to court to resolve disputes about interpretation or alleged breaches.”

Families returning to court to resolve these disputes could further strain a system already facing delays.

Alongside those challenges, Karen raises a less-discussed issue regarding the use of video calls in high-conflict cases.

While widely used, they can sometimes feel intrusive, particularly where tensions remain high or there has been past abuse, as they allow a parent to see into the other household’s private space.

“That can be triggering in some situations and it further demonstrates the need for a thoughtful approach to contact arrangements.”

For Karen, the debate over a social media ban highlights the difficulty of regulating modern family life through broad rules. The way children communicate continues to change, often faster than policy or law can keep pace.

“Social media use is a complex grey area,” Karen says. “Whatever solution the Government decide on to protect children from the dangers of these platforms should not be decided without recognising how families actually maintain relationships.”