It was Rene Descartes who wrote “I think therefore I am” – the starting point for a method of analysis whose foundations were to be impregnable.

Descartes was so certain of his own certainty he believed he’d proved the existence of God. Even a genius can be wrong!

Like all of us, Descartes was limited in his tools of thought by the society in which he lived. There was no concept of cultural relativity, for instance. Nor any concept that language structures and gives boundaries to thought.

Hence, despite the rigour of his mind, he still formulated flawed arguments which later philosophers have debunked.

Why does Descartes matter?

Because, as we say in our cliché-filled world, he was a benchmark.

Descartes told his Catholic masters very very politely, that although he remained in the fold, and wanted always to remain in the fold, they (his Catholic Masters) really ought to think about his (Descartes’) methodology and meditations.

Sadly for Descartes, they paid little attention to him. But later philosophers did.

I read Descartes over 30 years ago. At that time I didn’t really understand what he was about. Now, age has perhaps helped me see how he fits into the evolution of thought.

Despite the elapsed years, I propose to apply a small dose of his methodology – that is, in so far as a common mind clogged by legal jargon and domestic normality can be said to apply Cartesian method.

It is the words of Kris Cairns, the signatory to emails sent by Compensation Professionals Network Ltd, to which I wish to apply a touch of Cartesian rigour.

This company – CPNetwork – as you can see from their website, markets itself as CLAIMS JUSTICE CONSUMER CHAMPIONS.

Champions.

Their web address includes the words “claims justice”.

Now, as will be known by anyone who reads my posts, the association between Claims Management Companies and Justice is not one in which I have much faith.

Ah, but then the original email from Kris Cairns says:

To confirm [so says CPNetwork] we are not [my emphasis] a claims management company, we are simply a lead/referral provider delivering very large volumes of quality opt-in PPI clients. Our entire operation is run professionally, regulated by the Ministry of Justice (CRM 2828).

Well, that’s a relief.

And yet, there seems something not quite wholly consistent.

CPNetwork wants us to know that it is regulated by the Ministry of Justice. And, at the bottom of the email, CPNetwork confirms that it is regulated in relation to “claims management activities”.

I’m confused.

Let me do a bit of Cartesian formulating of argument:

1. CPNetwork sells leads.
2. CPNetwork is the Claims Justice Consumer Champion.
3. CPNetwork is regulated by the MoJ under the Claims Management Regulations.

But

4. CPNetwork is not a Claims Management Company.

Is there something wrong with the logic here?

Presumably, a company whose USP is about claims justice for consumers must DO something other than sell leads? Presumably, they DO something kind of legal, fight cases, take risks challenging the establishment to correct miscarriages of justice, make representations to Government about wrongly applied law, institutional failings, regulatory excess…. Presumably.

Do they?

CPNetwork is very direct in stating they are NOT a Claims Management Company.

Well, what are they if not a Claims Management Company?

They sure aren’t solicitors. This is evident because they are not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Are they some kind of pressure group? Do they lobby for change on behalf of consumers? Do they invest their profits in preparation of research documents to submit to MPs on how our society should be changed so that Justice for Consumers is improved?

I can’t be sure, but I don’t think CPNetwork is, or does, any of these.

I wouldn’t like to libel them, so if I’m wrong, perhaps they will correct me.

Assuming I’m right, what are they, this business which is the Claims Justice Consumer Champion?

This brings me to the title of the post:

“If there was no need for this type of business then why does it exist?”

This “type” of business. That is the word used by Kris Cairns. This “type” of business.

Now, it seems to me there is a problem here. I’ve tried to analyse what kind of business CPNetwork is. The conclusion seems to be that it’s neither a claims management company nor is it not a claims management company.

Looking a little more carefully at the statement for the justification of CPNetwork (as stated by Chris Kairns – sorry, its Kris Cairns – sorry, bad with names) – if there was no NEED for this business it wouldn’t exist, he says.

I humbly suggest there may be a flaw in the argument here, Mr Kairns or is it Cairns – sorry – I keep getting confused.

Assassins exist. Very large fast food companies exists. MPs putting in false expense claims exist (or did exist). Phone hacking exists (or did exist). Cigarettes exist. Cocaine exists. The Taleban exist. Mugabe exists.

Ergo – Latin for “therefore” – it’s nonsense to argue from the existence of a way of social interaction that that way of social interaction is desirable or needed.

Equally, it’s hard to see how a company that sells itself as the Consumer Champion can be the champion of anyone if all that company does is sell leads.

Either it does more than sell leads or it is not the Consumer Champion.

Kris Cairns tells me I have a closed mind, or I must have been stung.

Stung, yes. By CMCs selling fraudulent claims then folding and taking our money.

Closed mind, possibly. Closed to marketing by companies that are positioning themselves by making claims they cannot deliver.

Is there a “need” for companies like CPNetwork?

My answer is no. This company is, I believe, a classic intermediary business. It sucks in potential claimants with marketing spiel and then sells them on as “leads” – it does exactly what Lord Justice Jackson condemned – it makes a turn but adds nothing.

We are the marketing arm of the legal services sector, will be the defence. Nonsense.

Without us claimants wouldn’t have access to justice. Nonsense.

There are countless solicitors accessible through the internet. Or on the High Street (yes, they still exist). Or by telephone. Or through print media advertising.

Legal services offered by solicitors have never been easier to access nor cheaper to buy – because price competition has driven down charges (irrespective of tabloid comment and irrespective of what Ts&Cs actually say), and because so much litigation is done on some kind of deferred payment terms.

CPNetwork, and all the businesses like it, exist because they can, not because they are needed.

The reason why they CAN exist is because of a feeble regulatory structure and poor thinking on the part of legislators.

Both of which are regretted (see Jack Straw, ex-Minster for Justice (ha ha!)) – as is evident from the changing position of the MoJ and the Government which is turning against these licensed exploiters of prospective/potential claimants.

Whilst it is late in the day, a ban on referral fees paid by solicitors (and intermediaries to other intermediaries), along with a ban on cash inducements (offered by anyone, and in any form), would cut the lifeblood of the intermediary businesses.

Mr Cameron, if you are serious about banning referral fees, come on, get it done.

John Holtom

The image for this post is borrowed from this blog, which is borrowed from an academic journal, which, I imagine, is borrowed from a very old print. I don’t believe therefore there can be any copyright issues related to use reproduction here. If I am wrong, please contact me at once.

Article posted on Tuesday, July, 26th, 2011 at 1:44 pm

Tags: Cameron, Claims Justice, CMCs, CPNetwork, Descartes, Intermediaries

One Comment

1. Julia Wooten says:

   August 19, 2011 at 8:19 am

   Keep blogging. Anyway, thanks again and I look forward to posting again sometime!

   Reply to this comment.