JOHN NICHOL’S faith in solicitors has been shattered by the way that his hearing-loss compensation claim was handled. If he could compare notes with another former miner, Stephen Platko, his disillusionment would be all but complete.

The two men, both aged 54, live a few miles apart in the heart of the former coalfield in Nottinghamshire. Both spent 22 years underground, from 1971 to 1993, and each suffered damage to his hearing caused by the use, without adequate protection, of excessively loud machinery.

They both responded to an advertisement by Vendside, a company wholly owned by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM), which promised the chance to win compensation. Crucially, there was an eight-month gap between the dates on which they responded. The men’s diverging fortunes show the complexities and injustices of funding civil litigation and how the lawyers can be the ultimate winners.

Mr Platko, from Warsop, near Mansfield, filled out a UDM claim form in June 2001. He gave his employment history and signed an agreement that if his claim were successful a fee of between £58.75 and £352.50, depending on damages, would be deducted to pay Vendside for “pursuing this claim on my behalf”.

Within two months, Mr Platko underwent a hearing assessment. A medical report was prepared and in September 2001 he received a letter from Beresfords, a firm of Doncaster solicitors, which told him that “on your behalf the UDM has instructed Beresfords to claim compensation for industrial deafness”.

By December another Beresfords letter informed Mr Platko that British Coal was offering £2,865 in full and final settlement. He accepted and in January 2002 received a cheque for £2,512.50 after Vendside’s fee of £352.50 had been deducted by Beresfords.

The claim lasted seven months. Mr Nichol was not so lucky. By the time that he filled out the UDM claim form, in February 2002, Beresfords and the union had embarked on a new way of handling claims.

He was advised by Beresfords to sign a “no win, no fee” agreement. This required him to take out an insurance policy “so that you do not have to pay your opponent’s costs even if your claim is unsuccessful”. The policy was funded by a Bank of Scotland loan with 11.3 per cent interest.

The loan paid for the £519.75 insurance premium but grew as further costs arose. These included a fee charged by Melex, a medical agency 90 per cent owned by Linda Beresford, whose husband, Jim, is Beresfords’ senior partner.

Mr Nichol was told that if his claim succeeded he would receive his damages less the Vendside fee and the interest.

Other costs would be recovered from British Coal, said Beresfords, although it said that “it is not possible for us to give an absolute guarantee that all of the sums can be recovered from your opponent”.

It was July 2004 before his solicitors informed Mr Nichol that British Coal was offering him £2,825 as a final settlement. He accepted, but two years later — four years after he had made his claim — he has been paid only £1,469.04.

As with Mr Platko, the Vendside fee of £352.50 was initially deducted, but in Mr Nichol’s case a further sum of £123.71 — the loan interest — was removed. That should have left him with £2,348.79, but of that sum £879.75 has not yet been paid because British Coal is disputing its liability to pay for insurance and the Melex fee.

Mr Nichol was among hundreds of hearing-loss claimants who attended public meetings held by John Mann, a Nottinghamshire MP who is challenging unfair charging by solicitors and trade unions.

“I thought it would all be settled within a year,” Mr Nichol said. “They said it wasn’t going to cost me a thing but I’ve been left with a fairly low opinion of solicitors. They promise you everything and it almost seems too good to be true, but — as I’ve found out to my cost — there’s always a catch.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers