I have recently experienced another incident in which it became apparent, yet again, what a low profile we have. I am trying to open a trust account at NS&I. I was reluctant to send original documents, so certified photocopies. The copies were deemed unacceptable as such copies must be certified by a solicitor, according to NS&I rules.
I rang NS&I to query this and was advised, after the clerk made it clear that she did not have a clue what a Chartered Legal Executive was, that if I was an oÿcial commissioner of a commonwealth country, then I could authenticate the documents! I did not attempt to explain the difference to her! The clerk then really cheered me up by advising that a civil servant could authenticate the copies for me.
So, a teenage, unqualified clerk shuffling paper clips around can certify documents for NS&I purposes, but a Fellow of 20 years’ standing cannot. It beggars belief, and makes me query why on earth we bother to qualify and, furthermore, the lack of promotion of the profession in the wider world.
It is all very well the committee turning up at charity dinners; how about resolving the issues of certification? It still irks that we cannot certify powers of attorney, yet policemen, magistrate,s et al can.
Stuart Lawrence FCILEx, Devon
Louise Tyrrell, CILEx practice and membership support officer, writes:
Thank you for your letter. Generally, Fellows (as a Commissioner for Oaths) are able to certify copy documents. However, the person authorised to certify largely depends on the purpose of the document or the organisation seeking a certified copy. There is no statutory obligation on organisations to accept copies certified by a Fellow.
I have written to organisations such as NS&I in the past. I have often explained how Fellows reach qualification, the fact they are qualified lawyers, and the opportunities open to them (such as partnership, and judicial and coronial appointments, etc).
I can ask NS&I to change its policy and accept certification of documents by Fellows. I cannot guarantee that the company will change its policy, but I have had success previously in similar situations.
If you would like me to do so, can you please provide me with the contact name and address that you have for the person who originally advised that the certified copies were not acceptable. If you could send the details to me, and confirm whether or not you would wish to be named in my correspondence, I will write to NS&I. I can, of course, send you a copy of the letter if you wish, and I can let you see any response.
Finally, I completely understand the point you have raised regarding the certification of powers of attorney. As you will be aware it is section 3 of the Power of Attorney Act 1971which requires that they can only be certified by a donor, solicitor, notary public or stockbroker.
We have held a number of meetings with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, there is currently no suitable Bill in Parliament that will enable this to be amended. We have looked into the option of changing this by secondary legislation, which would have been slightly easier, but the MoJ has confirmed it needs to be change via primary legislation.
The best prospect now, is for us to attempt to include it in any Bill which arises as a result of changes to the Legal Services Act 2007. I understand that this means that there is no speedy resolution to this issue, but at present, that is the only option we have.
Compensators are required to notify the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) of all claims for compensation, making the CRU one of the most complete sources of claims data anywhere in the world. The claim in ‘Unknown unknowns: the current state of play in the PI market’ , (2016) July CILExJ p14 that there is ‘no reliable data on whiplash claims specifically’ , is inaccurate. If the CRU states that the number of whiplash claims has fallen 41 per cent since 2010/11, it has.
There are various potential reasons as to why the number of submissions to the Claims Portal appears to have increased, not least because the threshold has increased to £25,000. Claims Portal Limited itself also warned that duplication - where multiple forms are entered for the same claim - is inflating the total number of claims registered with the portal. What really matters is how many claims are settled, and evidence from the CRU tells us, with absolute certainty, that this number is falling. We are not aware of any information or data published by the Claims Portal which draws the validity of the CRU’s data into question.
Neil Sugarman, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, London