Noise-induced hearing loss from military service is a recognised, compensable injury. But the system that handles these claims is not designed to maximise what you receive. That is what solicitors are supposed to be for. When they fail to do their job, veterans carry the cost.
The hidden gap in military compensation
The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is designed for speed, not value. You submit your claim, your hearing loss gets assessed and placed in a tariff band, and a figure is produced. There is no negotiation built into the process. There is rarely any independent expert unless someone pushes for one. And for most veterans going through the scheme without specialist legal representation, the figure they receive is accepted without question.
For veterans with moderate to severe hearing loss, the difference between what the tariff produces and what a properly litigated case can deliver is enormous. We are not talking about a marginal gap. In many cases the gap runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Veterans who were represented by solicitors who understood the full picture, and who pursued litigation rather than accepting the tariff route, received settlements that bear no comparison to what others got.
The tariff system exists because it is efficient. It is not efficient for the veteran. It is efficient for the Ministry of Defence.
What a good solicitor should have done
If you instructed a solicitor to handle your hearing loss claim, they were there to protect your interests, not to find the quickest path to a closed file. That means advising you on every available route. It means commissioning proper medical evidence that accurately captures the full extent of your hearing loss, including tinnitus, the psychological effects of living with impaired hearing, and the impact on your relationships, your work, and your daily life. It means understanding what the case could be worth if pursued properly and being honest with you about that.
A solicitor who directed you toward the tariff route without explaining that litigation was an option, or without investigating whether your specific case might have substantially greater value, may not have fulfilled their duty to you. The fact that you received some compensation does not mean the advice was adequate. Adequacy is judged against the standard of what a competent solicitor should have done.
You do not need to have suspected negligence at the time
Most veterans who contact Sold Short did not realise anything was wrong when they settled. They trusted their solicitor, accepted the advice they were given, and got on with their lives. The realisation came later, often when they heard what other veterans received, or when someone sat down and explained the Matrix Agreement and what it actually meant.
You do not need to have raised a complaint at the time. You do not need any formal record of dissatisfaction. You do not need a complete file of paperwork. What matters is whether the solicitor's conduct fell below the standard they were required to meet. A free review with Sold Short will tell you whether that is the case and whether a claim is worth pursuing.
No win no fee means no financial risk
If your case has merit, Sold Short will connect you with a specialist professional negligence solicitor from our panel. They take cases on a no win no fee basis. That means there is no upfront cost, no financial risk if the case does not succeed, and no reason not to find out where you stand. You served. You were injured. You deserved proper advice. If you did not get it, you deserve the chance to put that right.
Sold Short offers a free review of military hearing loss claims where veterans believe they were undersettled. No win no fee. No obligation. Get in touch today.
