PROCTOR & HOBBS LIMITED
This firm is also known as Proctor & Hobbs Solicitors View other names
SRA-regulated firm
- Head office address
- BRADFORD + 1 other office View contact details
- Website
- www.proctorhobbs.com
- Type of firm
- Recognised body since 12/12/2019, authorised for all legal services
- Regulator
- Solicitors Regulation Authority
- SRA number
- 665229
- Regulatory record
- Show regulatory record
We set the rules for this firm. There are benefits and protections for customers of SRA-regulated firms.
Important information
- The firm can provide all types of law, including reserved legal activities
- Everyone working in this firm must follow our rules
- If things go wrong, the firm must have insurance cover
- If things go wrong and your money is lost, our compensation fund may be able to reimburse you
- If things go wrong we may be able to get your documents and money back
Trading names lists the names this firm uses now. Previous names lists names this firm has used in the past.
These are the SRA-regulated people in this organisation.
-
Abdul Hafeez Nasir
SRA-regulated lawyer
Works at PROCTOR & HOBBS LIMITED
-
Alan Stirling Bridger
SRA-regulated solicitor
Works at MORGANS SOLICITORS + 1 Others
-
Aman Ullah
SRA-regulated solicitor
Works at Princeton Legal Limited + 1 Others
-
Aneesa Ehsan
SRA-regulated solicitor
Works at Princeton Legal Limited + 1 Others
-
Ehsan Maqbool
SRA-regulated lawyer
Works at PROCTOR & HOBBS LIMITED
-
Sabah Jabeen
SRA-regulated solicitor
Works at PROCTOR & HOBBS LIMITED
Areas of law shows the sort of work this firm does. Reserved activities lists the special legal jobs this firm can do because we regulate it as a law practice.
DECISION HISTORY
This section gives the disciplinary and regulatory decisions published under our decision publication policy.
Decision - Fined
Outcome: Fine
Outcome date: 12 June 2024
Published date: 14 July 2024
Firm details
No detail provided:
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Short summary of decision
The firm was directed to pay a financial penalty for charging clients 35% of their recovered damages, in contravention of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (the Regulations) which provide for a recovery of costs of up to 25% of recovered damages. Facts of the misconduct
An investigation into the firm identified that in all of the 13 sampled client files relating to road traffic accident (RTA) personal injury claims, 35% of damages were deducted by the firm in respect of its legal fees. Each of the 13 settlements post-dated the Regulations. It later transpired that there were at least 26 client files where this occurred.
The Regulations state that in claims arising from RTAs on or after 31 March 2021 where the amount claimed for injuries is not more than £5,000, a maximum of 25% of damages can be deducted by a firm for its fees.
As a result of the SRA’s investigation, the firm obtained independent advice regarding the level of recoverable costs and was advised that it was not in fact entitled to deduct 35% from clients’ damages. The firm subsequently rectified the overcharging of affected clients by refunding any deductions over 25% and paying compensation of £100 to each client. It was found that:
- The firm failed to comply with the Regulations and in doing so it breached:
- Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.1 of the Code of Conduct for Firms and
- Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2019.
- The firm failed to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons, and in doing so breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.
Decision on sanction
The firm was directed to pay a financial penalty of £10,729.78 and ordered to pay costs of £1,350.
It was decided that a financial penalty was an appropriate and proportionate sanction by reference to the following factors in the SRA’s Enforcement Strategy:
- The firm had full responsibility for its conduct, which was serious.
- Clients will have been placed in a disadvantageous negotiating position in agreeing to the firm’s 35% deduction from damages.
- The firm breached Principle 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, and Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.1 of the Code of Conduct.
- Any lesser sanction would not provide a credible deterrent to the firm and others. A credible deterrent plays a key role in maintaining professional standards and upholding public confidence.
In view of the above, the firm’s conduct was placed in band C which has a financial penalty bracket of between 1.6% and 3.2% of its annual domestic turnover. Its conduct was placed toward the top end of this bracket at band C4, which attracts a penalty of 2.8% of the firm’s annual domestic turnover.
In terms of mitigating factors, the financial penalty was reduced to give credit for the firm’s swift and decisive action once the issue had been identified, refunding the overpayments to clients with an additional £100 each by way of compensation.
SRA Principles breached
SRA Principles
Principle 2: You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
Principle 7: You act in the best interests of each client.
Code of Conduct for Firms
Paragraph 2.1 You have effective governance structures, arrangements, systems and controls in place that ensure:
- you comply with all the SRA’s regulatory arrangements, as well as with other regulatory and legislative requirements, which apply to you;
- your managers and employees comply with the SRA’s regulatory arrangements which apply to them;
- your managers and interest holders and those you employ or contract with do not cause or substantially contribute to a breach of the SRA’s regulatory arrangements by you or your managers or employees;
- your compliance officers are able to discharge their duties under paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 below.
Paragraph 3.1
You keep up to date with and follow the law and regulation governing the way you work.