Ambulance Chaser?

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

This isn't weird (or wonderful), but a regular occurrence!

Agree, was more pointing out the list wasnt intended to be exhaustive but some of the more common examples

Quentin

nodiscount wrote: »

....The more they crack down on these people the better.

There's no-one to crack down on (apart from the rogue police man/ambulance man/a +e nurse/insurance clerk etc who has mistakenly passed on the guilty party's details to the ambulance chaser (for a bung) instead of the details of the innocent party who was crashed into by the OP's daughter!)

drobe

My wife gets these calls and she doesn't even drive, no licence, no car.


They are a con.


Sometime down the line you will be asked for a deposit.

nodiscount

Quentin wrote: »

There's no-one to crack down on (apart from the rogue police man/ambulance man/a +e nurse/insurance clerk etc who has mistakenly passed on the guilty party's details to the ambulance chaser (for a bung) instead of the innocent party who was crashed into by the OP's daughter!)

I meant, crack down on those who make fraudulent claims. A few have been prosecuted but it's nowhere near enough.

InsideInsurance

drobe wrote: »

Sometime down the line you will be asked for a deposit.

No you wont. They sell your details to solicitors as a hot lead.

No deposits involved from you, its your data thats of value to them.

OnanTheBarbarian

If the law firms were doing proper due-diligence, they would be refusing to take such claims as the manner by which the potential client had been obtained ( a cold call) is an activity the solicitor is prevented from doing and they are prevented from taking on leads which have been procured by third parties in a manner the solicitor are themselves forbidden from doing themselves.

Sadly, a lot of these cold calls come from overseas call centres.- which are difficult to police

Money still changes hands from law firms to claims management and marketing agencies, no longer is it a referral fee, it is now a "marketing fee" and so long as the actual data of the client is not passed from the CMC to the law firm, there is nothing illegal about that and it is LASPO and SRA compliant.

drobe

No deposits involved from you, its your data thats of value to them.

OK then not deposit but some other payment.

My wife, years ago, injured herself so she went to one of these no claims no fee lawyers.

She was told to go to a specialist, who they recommended, to get her injuries assessed.

She would have to pay for the specialist but if she was successful in her claim she would get the fee refunded.

We didn't have a spare £999 to pay upfront so our no fee no win lawyer wouldn't proceed.

As I said, it's a con, at some stage you will be asked for money.

InsideInsurance

drobe wrote: »

As I said, it's a con, at some stage you will be asked for money.

Under normal circumstances no, unless you are found to have been fraudulent.

The cold callers get fees from the solicitors for generating leads. The solicitors buy ATE insurance to cover their risks of taking you on no win no fee. They refer you to companies which they pay because of the protection of ATE and can have "arrangements" with those companies too in terms of fees for the referrals to them.

The "con" is about the cold callers claims that there is a pot of money sitting there with your name on it that will be wasted if you dont claim it or the fact that they convince people with negligible injuries to claim which ultimately pushes everyones insurance up.

OnanTheBarbarian

Sounds like your wife's claim prospects were lame or the lawyer was, or both.

If there are prospects of success, the lawyer will fund such report fees under the no win no fee arrangement.

There are no reasons to be asking a client to pony up money upfront unless the prospects look grim, or you get a medical report and it is not favourable, so you don't disclose it and chose to seek another expert opinion. generally the report the client does not disclose would then be at their own expense as the expert is still entitled to be paid for their report fee, whether you like their opinion or not.

magpiecottage

Quentin wrote: »

You are also not at fault if you hit the car in front "innocently" as a result of being shunted forward by another car hitting you in the rear with such force that although you left a gap you were pushed into the car in front.

Many years ago I saw exactly that happen right in front of me.
The driver in the middle was a West Indian and was run into by a white man in uniform.

In those less enlightened time he was particularly glad that I was prepared to stand up and say what happened - although he should have been able to rely on my testimony alone, not the colour of my skin.