When a solicitor, accountant, surveyor or financial adviser gets something wrong and it costs you money, you may have a professional negligence claim. But these claims are demanding, and understanding what they require helps you judge whether yours is worth pursuing.
Below the standard of a competent professional
The test is not whether you are unhappy with the outcome, but whether the advice or work fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in that field. Professionals are not guarantors of results — they are required to exercise reasonable skill and care. A judgement that turned out badly is not automatically negligent.
Causation: the harder half
Even where the work was clearly substandard, you have to prove that it caused your loss — that things would have turned out better but for the mistake. This is frequently the most difficult part of the claim. A surveyor who missed a defect is only liable for the consequences of that defect, and only if you would have acted differently had you known.
Common examples
- A solicitor missing a limitation deadline, or a defect in title on a purchase.
- An accountant giving negligent tax advice.
- A surveyor failing to identify a structural problem.
- A financial adviser recommending an unsuitable investment.
Time limits
Generally six years from the negligent act, or three years from when you knew or should have known about the loss, subject to a fifteen-year longstop. These rules are technical and easy to get wrong, which is another reason to take advice early.
Insurance usually stands behind the claim
Regulated professionals carry compulsory professional indemnity insurance, so a valid claim is generally met by an insurer rather than the individual. That tends to make these claims worth pursuing where the loss and the merits justify it — and we will tell you honestly whether they do.