SCHADENFREUDE is a wonderful word. Literally translated from the German it means "shame-joy" or revelling in the misfortune of others.

It's something I try not to indulge in but I have to admit allowing myself a smile after reading that Mark Langford, former boss of the Accident Group, is set to be sued by hundreds of former staff.

Mr Langford's company specialised in no-win no-fee claims and was one of the leading exponents of what I would call "ambulance chasing".

Many of you may have come across his company's tactics on the streets of towns and cities across Britain. Amid the banter of market traders and the hubbub of shoppers would emerge the mock concerned tones of Mr Langford's representatives inquiring: "Anybody had an accident lately," or "tripped over the kerb recently, love?".

Of course Mr Langford has always insisted he was merely helping the little man and woman get what was rightfully theirs. But last week the caring side of Mr Langford was exposed when staff were sent text messages revealing they would not be paid and suggesting they call a number. That number then played a message informing them they'd all lost their jobs.

But while the workers face financial hardship, newspaper reports suggest the millions of pounds made by company founder Mr Langford are beyond the reach of the liquidators - along with his Ferrari.

And so it is that Mr Langford himself may now find himself being sued by his former employees for a variety of claims ranging from unfair dismissal to emotional trauma.

I accept of course that some people have benefited from no-win no-fee deals but I feel there needs to be far greater regulation of the legal insurance industry. Certain unscrupulous firms seem to play the system - getting payouts not through justice but because it is cheaper for the other side to settle rather than incur court costs.

Then there are the firms who will bump up fees to the customer for the slightest reason.

An example was the experience of Darlington councillor Bill Dixon. Requesting a quote for motor insurance, Coun Dixon was asked whether he was married to his partner of 17 years. Answering no, he was informed he was "living in sin". Possibly, as with Mr Langford's street hawkers, this was simply another example of the inappropriate mateyness these companies seem to go in for. But the direction of questioning that then followed suggested it had a direct effect on the cost of the insurance.

My experience is that there are plenty of married people who are poor drivers and Mr Dixon's marital state was simply an excuse for the company to increase the premium.

I have remained loyal to the same car insurance company for over a decade, though I suspect I could get a cheaper deal elsewhere. The reason is because I have had to make two claims over the years and on both occasions the company has paid out swiftly without complaint and without imposing a massive hike the following year.

My word is my bond may be an old saying, but it is still the most important in any deal.

Published: 13/06/2003