We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a very Happy New Year. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Car accident insurance advice
Comments
-
BertTheRaccoon wrote: »I take it you don't agree with Dominic Clayden's sentiments then Jamie? :-D
Not one iota. What he said would have made perfect sense if insurers dealt direct with injured third parties in a fair manner. But this case is a prime example of how they do not. Indeed, the idea behind insurance companies making early offers is to keep costs down. It has nothing to do with the care and wellbeing of the injured party, which is self evidence by the fact that these are early offers, and not ones that are made after a recovery has been made or is at least well under way, and indeed which are made even before medical evidence has been obtained. As such he entirely lacks credibility on this point, and it is verging on dishonest to suggest that the focus of the insurer is on the recovery and fair settlement of cases. The focus is and always had been settling cases for the lowest amount. His attempt at riding on the coat tails of public opinion in relation to the compensation culture and high insurance premiums is one that frankly should leave a sour taste in the mouth for anyone involved in that sort of litigation, who will know that the situation is quite different to how he portrays it.Dominic_Clayden wrote:Dominic Clayden, claims director at Aviva, said: “Our figures for average compensation settlements show that dealing direct with an insurer results in at least as much compensation for the claimant and has the advantage of being quicker –meaning their treatment and rehabilitation can start almost immediately. Our focus is on their recovery and settling their claim quickly and fairly. It would also prompt a significant reduction in the costs of the current system which would benefit all UK motorists, who will begin to see a reduction in their premiums.”
It's not just your experience; that is how most injuries progress. Injuries being 'front loaded', with the worst pain and loss of amenity at the start followed by a longer period where symptoms are less severe until full recovery is made, is entirely normal for the vast majority of injuries, whether whiplash or otherwise. That's why it is important for as much of a complete recovery to made as possible, or for a definitive prognosis to be made, before a settlement figure is reached.BertTheRaccoon wrote:In my experience, soft tissue injuries like whiplash etc usuaully cause significant problems for 2-3 weeks post injury and then settle to "nuisance" level thereafter. But it can often be 6 months + before a person is 100% recovered, whichn is why it is dangerous to get any "deal" struck with the insurer for a payout now."MIND IF I USE YOUR PHONE? IF WORD GETS OUT THATI'M MISSING FIVE HUNDRED GIRLS WILL KILL THEMSELVES."0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.8K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 260K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards