Jack Straw on Car Insurance

[Fr0dders]

I'll gladly meet up with anyone from here for a beer, I attend every meet I can reasonably get to. Those that call me a liar (when what I have said is a statement of fact) can come and discuss the merits of their convictions at any such opportunity. No promises it will turn violent though.

Rather than being a **** about these very real, debilitating injuries why can you not see that in a lot of cases, it is warranted? Rather than outlawing personal injury claims why not suggest that, like in my Mum's case, the 'payout' is in the form of physiotherapy (which costs the earth btw, which is why the payouts are as relatively high as they are - £1000 goes nowhere when you have to see a physiotherapist regularly) rather than a lump cash sum?

I personally vehemently believe that if someone impinges my quality of life through absolutely no fault of my own then I should either be put right or if that is not viable then a financial settlement should be reached. In every case, I would personally rather the former rather than the latter but make no mistake I will be coming after that person for one or the other.

I agree with the sentiment

But wouldn't that then be open to abuse from people claiming they need treatment when they don't ?

Lying about having injuries they don't have is insurance fraud already, so telling a lie that they have been receiving physiotherapy when they have in fact been receiving something else would be no stretch for them either ?

Tbh if you discount whiplash as a 'genuine' injury then you may as well stop treating things like fibromyalgia, ME, CRPS, chronic pain and all those other wishy-washy pseudo-conditions for which the actual physical 'evidence' is just as scarce as whiplash.

Basically all you are seeing is what happens when you put a fundamental public service in the hands of the private sector - previously when legal aid was used there was at least a single-payer who could control rates, access and control funding based on merits and suchlike. However when legal aid was dropped because it 'cost too much' the only alternative to retain universal access to justice was to allow law firms to step into the breach through the introduction of 'no-win no-fee' to allow them to take a risk on potentially unprofitable cases.

Which of course is brilliant when you read that the coalition's new money-saving plan is to limit legal aid even further...

That said, I'm not saying the legal aid system was perfect, far from it indeed, it's just wholly unsurprising that when you open up a service to the private sector that there's a race to the bottom casting any form of ethics to the side in pursuit of the bottom line

thing is, even if you make them pay legal fees, whats to stop them lieing and claiming they have injuries they in fact don't have ? without an MRI / x-ray etc.. how do you proove these people wrong ?

 

[DRZ]

Tbh if you discount whiplash as a 'genuine' injury then you may as well stop treating things like fibromyalgia, ME, CRPS, chronic pain and all those other wishy-washy pseudo-conditions for which the actual physical 'evidence' is just as scarce as whiplash.

Basically all you are seeing is what happens when you put a fundamental public service in the hands of the private sector - previously when legal aid was used there was at least a single-payer who could control rates, access and control funding based on merits and suchlike. However when legal aid was dropped because it 'cost too much' the only alternative to retain universal access to justice was to allow law firms to step into the breach through the introduction of 'no-win no-fee' to allow them to take a risk on potentially unprofitable cases.

Which of course is brilliant when you read that the coalition's new money-saving plan is to limit legal aid even further...

That said, I'm not saying the legal aid system was perfect, far from it indeed, it's just wholly unsurprising that when you open up a service to the private sector that there's a race to the bottom casting any form of ethics to the side in pursuit of the bottom line

One of my best friends is a barrister and she regularly comments on just how ridiculous things are, purely speaking about the solicitor and barrister costs that literally dwarf the value of the actual award to the claimant...

I agree with the sentiment

But wouldn't that then be open to abuse from people claiming they need treatment when they don't ?

Lying about having injuries they don't have is insurance fraud already, so telling a lie that they have been receiving physiotherapy when they have in fact been receiving something else would be no stretch for them either ?

In my Mum's case the physio was appointed by the 3rd party's insurer and attendance and progress was reported back by the physiotherapist. Our counsel of course had her undergo an assessment by a doctor and physiotherapist acting for us, and the two both recommended broadly the same course of treatment - which she continued to receive whilst the case was ongoing. Why can an award only be financial? Insurance co instructs a physiotherapist to conduct an agreed course of treatment. No leaks are possible there if a similar system to agreed hire car costs was followed...

 

[DM]

I agree with the sentiment

But wouldn't that then be open to abuse from people claiming they need treatment when they don't ?

Lying about having injuries they don't have is insurance fraud already, so telling a lie that they have been receiving physiotherapy when they have in fact been receiving something else would be no stretch for them either ?

Very easy to verify though is treatment

 

[Fr0dders]

Very easy to verify though is treatment

even if the place offering the treatment is just as corrupt as the "no win no fee whippy compo" places ?

It just shifts the need for further control etc.. to another area.

 

[Raymond Lin]

One of my best friends is a barrister and she regularly comments on just how ridiculous things are, purely speaking about the solicitor and barrister costs that literally dwarf the value of the actual award to the claimant...

Yup.

Claimant's legal costs - £10,000
Defendant's legal costs - £2,000
Settlement figure for claim - £3,000

I've seen a law firm wanted £40,000 for a 13 page report....

 

[DM]

you know what its all a load of ******, if someone wants to try it on they will, but having spent a proper nasty amount of money on insurance over the years best they all get through than the one poor sod who is really hurt getting knocked back.

Its all over for reform in this country for insurance, we got what we got.

 

[DM]

even if the place offering the treatment is just as corrupt as the "no win no fee whippy compo" places ?

It just shifts the need for further control etc.. to another area.

I gotta tell you iv paid for health care for 15 years because the NHS is ****ed but im yet to find a doctor to go above and beyond a few valium i didnt deserve.

 

[Fr0dders]

Yup.

Claimant's legal costs - £10,000
Defendant's legal costs - £2,000
Settlement figure for claim - £3,000

I've seen a law firm wanted £40,000 for a 13 page report....

While we're putting the world to rights, that's another thing that needs fixing.

The amount i've seen legal firms charge for letters constructed 98 % from a mail merge document, posted for the cost of a 1st class stamp at business rates is amazing. It's a license to print money.

 

[Rich_L]

Yup.

Claimant's legal costs - £10,000
Defendant's legal costs - £2,000
Settlement figure for claim - £3,000

I've seen a law firm wanted £40,000 for a 13 page report....

Conversely, the amount of times I've seen insurance companies and their law firms come in with pathetically low offers only to double/triple/quadruple them a day before trial, delay making interim payments, delay making a decision on liability, refuse to accept experts, delay authorising treatment, make pathetically low offers on costs..the list goes on

I swear if insurers weren't so incompetent and/or simply acknowledged that part of being an insurer is that you are actually supposed to pay out every now and then, you could see legal costs cut in half overnight

 

[DRZ]

Conversely, the amount of times I've seen insurance companies and their law firms come in with pathetically low offers only to double/triple/quadruple them a day before trial, delay making interim payments, refuse to accept experts, delay authorising treatment, make pathetically low offers on costs..the list goes on

Quite, but when you have barristers earning thousands for just turning up to a disposal? One side is as bad as the other - and both are getting VERY rich as a result.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Conversely, the amount of times I've seen insurance companies and their law firms come in with pathetically low offers only to double/triple/quadruple them a day before trial

It's call a Part 36 Offers (I am sure you know that )

delay making interim payments

Takes ages to get that cheque...seriously!

Day 1 - We agree to make interim, usually within 14 days.
Day 7 - Letter goes out to request the cheque (in some cases, under a MOUNTAIN of work!)
Day 13 - Claimant's Solicitor calls asking where is that cheque, if it doesn't come they will threaten making an application. I tell them a cheque request has gone, and i will chase the client. Call up, finds out they never got that cheque request...turns out the reference number for the file was wrong! (happened once...), or the claims manager is also under a mountain of work before he gets to this file, or their cheque machine is broken (happened once too!)
Day 17 - receives cheque from client (it's a Friday)
Day 20 - cheque goes out

LOL, it happens more than you think and it is NOT intentional.

delay making a decision on liability

That could be down to a lot of things.

It could be waiting for a Claims investigator's report
It could be waiting for Counsel's opinion, and we know how long they take. First, we need to find one, then write a brief, send it to him, let him read it and wait for him to write an advice.
It could be we are arguing causation and denying it at least for now.

refuse to accept experts

Sometimes the Claimant's expert is in appropriate. I've seen a GP recommends a Psychiatrist, but the Claimant goes and instruct a Psychologist?! They are not the same thing!

delay authorising treatment

Same as the cheque reasons lol

Or, simply that if there were no experts recommending that treatment, or if our experts says the Claimant does not need that many sessions, that will delay things.

make pathetically low offers on costs

That's because often the Claimant claims for a Grade A rate but if you look them up on Law society website, they only just qualified (Grade C) or all the letters were done by a legal exec instead and the rates were wrong! Or there are duplication of work....etc etc



swings and roundabouts

 

[Lethagized]

I had someone try to claim off my insurance back in 1998. I gently hit the side of his motorbike as he cut across my give way point. I only put a small dent in his exhaust. The force of the impact didn't even knock him off. I had a letter from his 'No win, No fee people, but i ignored it. Nothing come of it.

The idea of no win, no fee has been going on for over a decade. It's only really took off in the past 3-4 years though.