2mph accident - insurance have paid out £5K to other party!!!

Crazy_Jamie

vaio wrote: »

It seems to me that these either reward fraudsters who don't fancy their chances at a medical or pressurise genuine claimants into accepting "very low" compensation, neither of which are desirable outcomes.

My post regarding that issue was intended to be factual rather than opinionated. Parking Trouble raised an issue with increased insurance premiums directly before I commented on the pre medical offer point, and I was just pointing out that, from that perspective, early offers do reduce costs on the whole. But I do actually agree with you; the practice is not desirable. It's just that the reason for it being undesirable is not that it increases costs, because it does the opposite, albeit through a method that should not be encouraged.

vaio wrote:

Also, I suspect the fine distinction between.....
and
is a bit too subtle for Joe Punter, in both cases solicitors are paying for cases and if anything it seems better to me that the injured party should get the "bung" rather than an insurance company/claims handling firm

Again I agree with you. The distinction may well be too fine; it is actually something that I realised just before I posted. But hey, if more explanation is needed then so be it.

Parking_Trouble

Jamie. Thanks for your considered and rational response. I have a couple of comments.

i) Heightened advertising from PI firms leading to increased awareness of members of the public regarding the fact that they can claim for injuries.
ii) Conditional Fee Agreements, though there are a lots of benefits to these as well given that they provide access to justice. Reform rather than removal is needed.
ii) Poor handling of claims by insurance companies, leading to too many claims running to disposal hearings and huge costs being incurred as a result.
iii) Fraud, though this is not nearly as significant as people think it is.

Thanks. I now have some key issues to focus on. To protect consumers and reduce costs the industry, regulators and government have to address these root causes. I will read up on CFA changes.

The main question is what 'prove' means. In a civil claim the standard is 'balance of probabilities', not the 'beyond reasonable doubt' that is in criminal proceedings. So a judge only needs to be satisfied that a claim is genuine on a 51/49 basis. That is a significant, because you can have doubt and still find a case proven.

An oversight on my part and a key factor that consumers need to understand. I do understand this principal having successfully taken a case through the Small Claims court!

Of course you do. It's all over the media. It doesn't make the information accurate. For a start, people consistently fail to make the distinction between solicitors and case management companies. People also don't realise that a lot of the texts and such they get about making claims are actually scams and not 'ambulance chasers' at all.

From a consumer/victim perspective I don't differentiate between Claims Management and Solicitors. I see £2.5k "legal" and "medical" costs and £2k in the pocket of the claimant. People are lining their pockets charging far more than is needed.
I can see a consultant privately at my local hospital for £100 - £200. I suspect The £500 "medical" fess involve someone far less qualified but no more effort than seeing my consultant.
Without doubt people/insurers are being ripped off and others are profiteering.

If that is true (I wouldn't know either way), then I'd consider both points to be poorly conceived. All PI claims going before a Judge is a horrific waste of costs, and injuries can occur in collisions below 10kph. I'd be glad that neither policy is in force in this country.

There is clearly no perfect way to deal with a condition that is difficult to diagnose and easy to fake. But if you make it more difficult it will reduce the number of claims.

I have mentioned elsewhere that my employer has saved huge sums challenging customers about "phantom" withdrawals and "The ATM didn't give me cash". In the past they paid up without question. I see a parallel with whiplash claims though I am sure people will highlight the differences.

To put the record straight I am indeed a Daily Mail reader (when I can be bothered to buy one). I don't believe everything I read but I have lived long enough to see massive change and I live in an area that is a microcosm of many good and bad things about todays society.

Younger generations are more likely to accept the way things are but the injustices and unfairness that has crept into todays society should be challenged. The British are very tolerant and passive. Good characteristics in general but we have stand up for ourselves when things are clearly wrong.

mikeyk07

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

In my case the claimants 10 year old banger is a £1500 write off.
Total claim £25k
£11k in "solicitor" costs
£8k in PI claims between 4 claimants.
£2500 in "medical fees"
He tried to claim for 72 days of car hire, claiming 4 times more than his car was worth.

My insurer paid out at least 2 of the claimants pre-medical to keep the claim down.

A gravy train for Claims Management company and their cohorts in the medical and legal profession.

This is why insurance costs are sky rocketing.

Disagree. Ask yourself why, he had to hire for so long. No doubt the insurers were messing about for appox 72 days before they paid him out his £1500 which clearly he is entitled too.

As for the Solicitors costs, they must have had to issue legal proceedings to get that much and it must have gone some way towards a Trial. Another sign (and example) that the insurers dealt with the matter poorly. Not the Solicitors fault or claims management co.

mikeyk07

I suspect The £500 "medical" fess involve someone far less qualified but no more effort than seeing my consultant.

Nonsence. For £500 it would be on your 'average whiplash claim' a qualified Orthopeadic Surgeon with a full review of medical history.

sarahg1969

In a recent article, a claimant solicitor was explaining why doing away with referral fees would be a bad thing. He said that solicitors are notoriously bad at selling their services, so it makes sense for them to make use of an accident management company who are much better versed at it. Funny, though, that a lot of these accident management companies are actually owned by the solicitors' firms anyway!

Mikeyk07 - It's more usual to obtain a report from a medical expert who is a GP these days, in a standard whiplash case, and the cost would still be around £500. In my experience, they usually don't bother with a review of medical records, preferring instead to take the medical history from the claimant. If a review of medical records is then required, they can charge for a second report, you see - they're not daft! Orthopaedic surgeons don't seem to be used on as regular a basis as they used to be.

mikeyk07

sarahg1969 wrote: »

In a recent article, a claimant solicitor was explaining why doing away with referral fees would be a bad thing. He said that solicitors are notoriously bad at selling their services, so it makes sense for them to make use of an accident management company who are much better versed at it. Funny, though, that a lot of these accident management companies are actually owned by the solicitors' firms anyway!

Mikeyk07 - It's more usual to obtain a report from a medical expert who is a GP these days, in a standard whiplash case, and the cost would still be around £500. In my experience, they usually don't bother with a review of medical records, preferring instead to take the medical history from the claimant. If a review of medical records is then required, they can charge for a second report, you see - they're not daft! Orthopaedic surgeons don't seem to be used on as regular a basis as they used to be.

Well if an insurer is paying £500 for a GP report then more fool them, as this is over and above the MRO rate and is simply another example of insurers delaing poorly with cases. Also if they are agreeing a GP report on a case of 2 mph at the outset (which they have the option to do) another example of insurer inefficiency.