Letter from Mrs Ann Elizabeth Evans to
Committee Chairman
Further to my conversation with Daisy Hodgson
of the National Audit Office, I was advised to write to you following
my discussions with her and the release of the National Audit
Office's Report.
I am aware that you are the Chairman of the
Committee of Public Accounts and that you are due to debate the
above Report in October. The Report and the intended debate of
this Report are of particular interest to me being a claimant
of this scheme. I have, over the last nine years raised serious
concerns regarding my claim and possible fraud within my claim.
I am aware that you are a Conservative MP and
I have in the past received immense support from the then Shadow
Welsh Secretary, Bill Wiggin and his secretary. (This was after
Chris Bryant took over the seat from Allan Rogers when he retired,
as he refused to assist me any further because he has destroyed
Allan Rogers' files.)
As a Barrister and member of Inner Temple, I
am also sure that you will appreciate the seriousness of the concerns
that I have been trying to fetch out to the attention of the Government
for the last nine years and I can only hope that I have now found
someone who may be prepared to look at what has happened to my
claim in the last 10 years.
My then MP, Allan Rogers, reported my solicitors
to the then Solicitors Complaints, the then claim handlers, Irisc
(Aon) now Capital, instructed their fraud department to come to
Cardiff and see me (where a section 9 statement was taken against
the solicitors) and inspect my papers, and furthermore I met with
the Government Solicitors, Messrs Nabarro Nathanson in Sheffield
who also raised the same concerns about the potential fraud that
was evidence within my file.
However, the Law Society investigation took
seven years to complete. Nabarro Nathanson took matters no further
and having shown my papers to an independent solicitor recently,
he is concerned that the fraud contained within my file, could
be a much wider practice being exercised by solicitors for claimants.
He believes that it could potentially open a can of worms into
the financial assessment of damages in these claims.
I am therefore setting out for you the background
of my case and would be most honoured if there is a potential
that I could meet with you or an assistant before the Report is
debated in public.
My Case:
My father William John Thomas was a miner having
worked from 1932-78 at Fernhill Colliery, Rhondda. In 1996 he
died from Industrial Disease recorded following inquest.
My mother died two years later in 1998. However,
she was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer in Christmas 1997,
one month before the final Judgment came from Mr Justice Turner.
I had on behalf of my mother in September 1997, instructed Hugh
James Solicitors to act in a potential claim for my mother as
the widow. My mother had no capacity issues, but due to her physical
mobility (severe arthritis) was not capable of handling her affairs.
I was advised by Hugh James Solicitors in September 1997, five
months before the Judgment, that her claim was registered and
if the Judgment was in the claimants favour, then she would be
one of the first widow claims to go through the system.
It was a total shock to us, three months later
to discover that she now had terminal breast cancer and was given
an estimated three months to live. As any daughter would, I contacted
Hugh James Solicitors and advised them of the situation.
On release of the Judgment in January 1998,
Hugh James Solicitors began a number of public meetings in the
working men's clubs. Attending many of them myself to obtain information,
I was advised by an employee of Hugh James Solicitors that despite
the large volume of claims now flooding in, my mother was a priority
as it was registered and due to her health decline.
With the release of interim payments to widows,
my mother asked me to contact Hugh James Solicitors to see if
her payment was in line (my mother was now defying the Doctors
without treatment and was still alive although very ill). I was
assured that as it was registered she was in the next batch. Such
batch never arrived. I contacted NACODS, who contacted Hugh James
Solicitors on my behalf. It was discovered that the claim had
never been registered. From this day in, the fight with the solicitors
began. I was now assured that they would try to get an interim
payment through as soon as possible. In August 1998, my mother
lost her fight against cancer and no interim payment ever arrived.
I was told that should a cheque arrive it was to be returned and
that the claim had now been lost. Refusing to accept this I took
over the claim for the Estate. It was a hard fight with Hugh James
Solicitors as I had already been told by them to move the file,
but to do that I would have to pay their bill. I refused and instructed
them to sort it out.
By Christmas 1998, I was now fighting for the
right of the Estate where the widow had died between the Judgment
and the handling agreement for ex gratia payment. This
was written into the handling agreement. Matters became more intense
as time went on and I found a source of help that was able to
point me in the right direction of what questions I should be
asking.
In May 2001, I was forwarded the claim questionnaire
to be completed. Most of the information had already been completed
by the solicitors. Boxes had been ticked and information had been
written in by the solicitors. I contacted the solicitors and advised
them that many of their answers were incorrect and I could not
agree to signing the declaration at the end of each booklet. I
was told that unless I signed it and returned it to them they
would refuse to look at it. I went through the questions as honestly
as I could and added post it notes to those that I could not agree
with. They were returned to Hugh James Solicitors and I was told
on the telephone that someone would contact me to go through the
form.
Time passed and no one contacted me. I telephone
the solicitors and asked what had happened to the form, I was
advised that it had been sent in. This now had been sent in without
anyone contacting me.
At the same time, the Law Society was investigating
the complaint for the delay in the registration of the claim that
had resulted in no interim payment being received before my mother
died. Also during this time, the handling agreement was finalised
and a letter was them received from the solicitors advising that
they now intended to warehouse all estate claims. Having come
so far in this fight, I wrote personally to Mr Justice Turner
to the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of all Estate Claims.
Asking not for us to be warehoused in particular to mitigating
circumstances. Whilst not in court that day because I had recently
fractured my leg, my correspondence to the court was read out.
I also received a supportive letter from Mr Justice Turner and
it was agreed that estate claims that had reached a certain point
being what I veiled was the MAP stage would continue. The letter
also stated that it had been my later mother's legal right to
have received the interim payment before her death and also stated
much to my surprise that the Judge had been told an offer had
been made.
It would appear that the day before the hearing
in November 2001, Hugh James Solicitors had overnight requested
an offer to be calculated. That offer changed over the next three
years no less than three times. I was advised not to accept the
offer as they now wished to use my later father's case to pursue
the Pneumoconiosis element of the claims. Then in December 2002,
I was contacted by Hugh James Solicitors who stated that a new
offer had been made (it had kept going up) but if I did not accept
this now it was wrong and the Government were going to take £3,000.00
of it off of me. So he advised me to accept. Also, the Law Society
had told me that they could not pursue the matter until the offer
was accepted. Much against my principles, I accepted the offer
as I had two brothers. This would now allow the Law Society to
continue.
I was then advised by another solicitor to request
a copy of my file. I never expected to find on the file what I
did. The claim questionnaires were sent to Irisc for assessment
together with the map for an offer. I never had any sight of the
forms after they left me in May 2001. They were sent to Irisc
in June 2001.
It is for this reason that I am writing to you
as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and it is for
this reason that the Government Solicitors and Aon fraud team
were involved. As a barrister with specialism in arbitration and
criminal law, I am sure that you will understand why I feel so
strongly that I have to give this information to you.
The claim questionnaires had been altered in
particular to questions that raised the most special damages (damages
as a result of the injury). The answers which I was now seeing
on the copy documents on their file did not reflect the questionnaires
that I had sent to them in May 2001. I immediately reported this
to the Law Society and a fresh investigation began into my complaints.
On another question, they told the Law Society
that had they not altered the answers, then there would have been
no special damages due to the client under that head. Well I believe
that if that was my honest answer, then no damages should have
been awarded.
My late father retired in 1978, under a voluntary
retirement scheme. Whilst he had been on sick leave up to his
retirement, this was for dermatitis and photophobia of the eyes.
I therefore ticked the appropriate box, however, on the amended
form changed by the solicitors they had changed my answer to "retired
early respitory". This was not true, but as Nabarro's told
me would make a huge different to the special damages being five
years loss of earnings as it was chest problems. They altered
other answers which made a difference to the amount of damages
and in particular, they altered the funeral account question.
Taking into account my father had only died
in 1996, there was still a copy of the funeral account available.
The question had simply asked for some proof of what was paid.
I ticked the box, "yes" I had a bill, their copy now
had no tick. Initially, they advised the Law Society they did
not have a bill. The Law Society found a copy of the bill on their
file and asked for their explanation. They claimed that it was
only an estimate, despite stating it had been paid with thanks.
They then said that Irisc would not accept it because it had family
flowers on it and it could confuse the case worker. The Solicitors
gave a full explanation to the Law Society that:
"Had they submitted the funeral account
they had, in accordance with my instructions to them, then the
damages on that section would only have been £143.00 that
the claimant would have received. As they had not submitted the
funeral account, the claimant had £300.00 plus interest.
Therefore they told the Law Society that they had used their professional
judgement and knowledge of the claim for the benefit of the client.
The Law Society accepted this, stating that they agreed that they
agreed that the forms had been changed after I had signed them,
the only thing they had done wrong was not tell the client."
This is why I am so concerned about the claims.
At the end of the day, there is a declaration on the forms that
you are to the best of your knowledge and belief providing correct
information.
What would have happened to me as a person had
that form been spot checked and the information deemed to be incorrect
as it is. I would have had a knock on my door and honestly would
not have known what they were talking about. The solicitors would
have said that I had signed the forms.
It may only be £300.00, but as was agreed
by Nabarro's how many £300.00s are there and how much money
that amount to out of the public purse? Could there be a pattern
there in the questionnaires, like the questions about pigeons!
I am attaching a copy of the Law Society report
in respect of this.[23]
There are two reports because Hugh James Solicitors appealed the
first report seeking judicial review proceedings to overturn their
severe reprimands. However, the Law Society agreed to place the
case before an independent panel for a second time to eliminate
proceedings against them which is why there is a second report.
As you can imagine, all I wanted was an honest
claim in what would have been legally entitled to the Estate for
the illness and death that my father suffered. Instead I will
never know if the claim is right or wrong or whether there will
be a knock on my door for a fraudulent claim. I am sure that it
may be of interest to see how many other claims are like this
and the client is not aware that their answers may have been altered
using their professional knowledge for the benefit of the client.
I am able to provide any further information
that you may require as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
and would kindly ask if I could bring my fight to you or a Member
of your Committee before October.
23 Information provided, not printed. Back
| 
