Nudged someones car in car park - now they're claiming they were injured !

Woody._2

Tilt wrote: »

Then the police will know whether the injury was sufficent enough to be recorded, If it wasn't then what is the claim for?

All injuires must be recorded even if slight.

Tilt

Woody. wrote: »

All injuires must be recorded even if slight.

yes, but it appears that the police didn't involve themselves officially which suggests that as far as they were concerned, there were no injuries. My point is that as the TP is now claiming to have been injured, then I would of covered my back by formally reporting it to the police at a police station as per what it states in the RTA. Obviously the OP can explain the fact that is outside the 24 hours rule because the TP didn't appear/indicate to be injured at the time. Personally, I would like to think that a false injury claim would be investigated with the hope it would lead to a prosecution. This may then send the appropiate message out to these con-people who are causing all our insurance premiums to go through the roof as they have done recently.

Woody._2

Tilt wrote: »

yes, but it appears that the police didn't involve themselves officially which suggests that as far as they were concerned, there were no injuries. My point is that as the TP is now claiming to have been injured, then I would of covered my back by formally reporting it to the police at a police station as per what it states in the RTA. Obviously the OP can explain the fact that is outside the 24 hours rule because the TP didn't appear/indicate to be injured at the time. Personally, I would like to think that a false injury claim would be investigated with the hope it would lead to a prosecution. This may then send the appropiate message out to these con-people who are causing all our insurance premiums to go through the roof as they have done recently.

Who would you sugest does that then?

sarahg1969

Woody. wrote: »

Who would you sugest does that then?

Precisely. You're never going to get hard proof that an injury claim is entirely false. No doctor who wants to keep his career going is going to say that someone's not injured. They make a fortune out of medico-legal reports.

I do, however, think it's about time that an insurer took the bulls by the horn and took out a private prosecution on a case where they have really good evidence of fraud. If one did, and it were successful, hopefully others would follow, and it might send a message out to the fraudsters. Real fraudsters - not people feigning injury after a minor bump.

d.ross_2

There are actually fraudsters who stage accidents on a regular basis for claims.

sarahg1969

d.ross wrote: »

There are actually fraudsters who stage accidents on a regular basis for claims.

And there are a lot of them. Investigating such claims is very big business now (as is the making of the claims, of course!).

Unfortunately, the police don't have the resources to investigate, and it's down to the insurers to do a great deal of work. It's about time that a brave insurer took the step of undertaking a private prosecution. Obviously, the case would have to be picked very carefully indeed, but it could encourage more insurers to take a stand, if successful.

vaio

As far as car insurance is concerned is there actually any commercial advantage to insurers detecting and prosecuting fraudulent claims?

Seems to me they just pay out and increase the premiums next year to cover it, can’t see that it makes any commercial odds to them how many fraudulent claims they pay out on.

The only thing they need to watch is that they aren’t paying out proportionally more than their competitors as that would put them at a commercial disadvantage.

In fact you can be sure that the bean counters have done a cost/benefit analysis on just this subject, comparing the costs of proper fraud investigations with the savings to be made and decided not to bother.

Insurance is pretty much an oligopolistic market whose members are risk averse so don’t want to get too far out of step from the herd and as car insurance is compulsory poor old Joe Punter just has to pay whatever is demanded, any differentiation is very much on the margins.

Obviously there is a moral aspect to it but where insurance companies are concerned I’m pretty sure that morals are very much in second place behind ££££

sarahg1969

They don't just pay out, though. They are spend more and more every year on detecting and dealing with fraud, and are constantly improving and developing their systems. They're still not good enough, but certainly, they do want to do more.

s_b

sarahg1969 wrote: »

They don't just pay out, though. They are spend more and more every year on detecting and dealing with fraud, and are constantly improving and developing their systems. They're still not good enough, but certainly, they do want to do more.

do you work in the insurance industry by any chance?
i could relate many insurance stories till the cows come home
insurance is all about limited risks and how they can minimise their spend
personally i feel motor insurance should be run by central govt

vaio

sarahg1969 wrote: »

They don't just pay out, though. They are spend more and more every year on detecting and dealing with fraud, and are constantly improving and developing their systems. They're still not good enough, but certainly, they do want to do more.

Whilst I don't doubt your honesty for an instant the evidence on multiple threads on here indicates otherwise.

Time after time we hear of allegations of fraud basically being ignored and that's before you look at the enthusiasm with which insurance companies refer clients to claims handling/PI firms (for a nice fat fee).

I'm sure that there are some honest CH/PI firms but I'm equally sure there are some that encourage fraudulent/exaggerated claims. The referral fee (what's the going rate? £500? £600? think I've read £800 somewhere) has to be covered somehow