How to claim compensation?

Manxman_in_exile

I do know somebody who was involved in an accident in 2004 where the car was written off and the other party was 100% at fault.  (Multi - car accident).  Apart from getting a pay-out for the car, the person I know was told that they could make a PI claim for "whiplash" - they had a sore neck - which they did and they got back a couple of grand.  The only correspondence was "You can make a claim" - " OK then" - cheque received.  No medical examination or report.

I was involved in a RTC in 2014 where a third party wrote off my car.  Somehow, we managed to get involved with a claims management company (don't ask me how - I think our insurers referred it to them) and all they wanted to do was to fabricate a bogus PI claim.  They asked me a load of questions about any injuries I might have sustained as a result of the accident and concluded from my answers to their questions that I had a legitimate PI claim.  But what they never asked me was whether any of the "injury symptoms" pre-dated the accident - they just presumed they did!  If I hadn't put my foot down and told them to **** off, I hadn't suffered any injury, I don't know where we would have gone.  (I did visit my GP for a check and he actually ordered a MRI which showed nothing other than known pre-existing issues).

Sandtree

There are without doubt both companies that will encourage you to claim and even ones that will coach you before going to see the medical expert.

I know plenty have historically claimed they have the cheque waiting when they call you out of the blue asking if you've ever had an accident but thats simply lies. I've come across many half truths and down the pub conversations but the only without medical claims I've seen is a right at the beginning token offer before you get caught up by claims management companies etc... though I wouldnt put it past some to fabricate evidence (at least back in my days when things were less regulated) so maybe there was no Drs appointment and the signature wasnt really the claimants.

Manxman_in_exile

All I can say is that I know the 2004 payout was made because I was asked what I thought about the correspondence.  There was no medical examination or report.  Just "you're entitled to a payment for ..."  No mention of making a claim - just would you like a cheque for the amount you are entitled to.  That was it.  And this was almost as an afterthought after the car claim had been settled and it was considered all over.  And no PI claim had been made by the person I know. 

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:
*It all started to go downhill in this country 20 - 30 years ago when insurance companies started to settle "whiplash" claims without challenging them, and bumping up everybody's premiums.  Claims management companies grew out of that whereas what should have happened is that insurance companies should have stamped down on the claims at the outset, and not settled anything without supporting medical evidence.  It may have been cheaper in the short term, but it had long term consequences not necessarily to eveybody's advantage...

It's claims management companies that are the real ambulance chasers and bottom feeders.

There have been various attempts to try and legislate against minor soft tissue claims but they've never gotten anywhere and until they do the claims will keep coming.

And I sincerely hope they continue to get nowhere.  I remember when Jack Straw was Home Secretary and he wanted to do something barmy like stopping people from making "whiplash" injuries.  The problem is that some people do suffer genuine whiplash injury (and not all of them are soft tissue) and so those people and up doubly disadvantaged: first by the injury and second by being prevented from claiming for it.

What's required is for the people paying out the claims to investigate and challenge them properly, and not throw their hands up and say "It's too difficult!"

(FWIW I think we are actually in a position where a proportion of bogus claims do get through the net which, TBH, I'm happier with than having a proportion of genuine claims NOT paid out).

I'd better shut up now or the thread will get closed down for becoming a discussion thread.  Can't have that...

Car_54

I'm currently reading, and would recommend,  "Fake Law" by The Secret Barrister.

In the book, he (or she?) investigates the ideas that there is a "compensation culture" and that Britain is the "whiplash capital of the world", and concludes (with convincing evidence) that both are myths, peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail*.

* = Other trashy comics masquerading as newspapers are available.

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:
What's required is for the people paying out the claims to investigate and challenge them properly, and not throw their hands up and say "It's too difficult!"

(FWIW I think we are actually in a position where a proportion of bogus claims do get through the net which, TBH, I'm happier with than having a proportion of genuine claims NOT paid out).

They are ultimately commercial entities and you do get to the situation of paying out £10,000 to defend a £7,000 claim which you can take a moral stance on but ultimately most will have to take a commercial stance on. Clearly that doesnt mean paying everything because then its not just a £7k claim but all the others that follow as you're seen as a soft target. 

A former employer did try tricks earlier with credit hire by refusing to pay anything until the last possible second and trying to starve them of cash but its easier to tackle companies as there are a finite number out there. Then the ABI GTA scheme came along and they gave up the fight.  Now the mentality of "where there's blame there's a claim" has seeped deep into the public psyche and trying to put individual claims management firms out of business won't get you anywhere. Plus there are too many others out there who do nicely from the claims industry... it appears many docs almost have template reports that they just slot the relevant details in but still charge full fees and given they are instructed by the claimant you could argue they've a vested interest even if their code of ethics states otherwise.

Manxman_in_exile

I don't really have a problem with it being a commercial decision.  But I do have a problem when that commercial decision has unwanted consequences.  (Which may be longer term premium increases.  The insurers may be happy to make a commercial decision to pay out rather than to defend "smaller" claims - but it's not their money, is it?  They recover it through premiums).*

I joined this thread because I was disapponted to see the OP** displaying what seemed like an "all compo is bad" point of view after his DiL had been knocked down on a zebra crossing and had her femur fractured!  On the contrary - I think compensation is a good thing - if deserved.  Also I wasn't too happy with the comic-book demonisation of NWNF lawyers - they provide a necessary service.  (Or at least they do because of the current configuration of our civil law system).

Also, I'm not keen on the idea of banning claims for whiplash/soft tissue injuries because they are difficult to prove.  I'm very much of the "I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man imprisoned" philosophy and the equivalent of the Jack Straw approach to that problem would have been "Well let's lock up everybody then". 

*From what you are saying though, it sounds as if insurers are taking a more robust approach in challenging a lot of these claims than they used to - so that's good.  But why do we hear so many stories of "crash for cash"?  Or is that an urban myth?

**Just to clarify - I'm not castigating the OP here, he's simply demonstrating a mistaken, but common, perception of compensation.  The same one that Car_54 alludes to,

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Also, I'm not keen on the idea of banning claims for whiplash/soft tissue injuries because they are difficult to prove.

The problem is they are hard to disprove.

Moderate RTA at traffic lights where policyholder failed to notice the lights change as they were changing the radio station and went into the rear of a static vehicle at circa 20mph.

Claimant says they had a stiff neck for 3 weeks that got better over time and was all gone after 3 months. They took OTC medications for it and as their sister had whiplash before and the Doc said just to rest it they didnt bother going to the doctors and self medicated.

Claims management company coaches the person on how to go through the medical assessor. GP history is obtained and no prior muscular-skeletal issues. Claimants solicitor instructs a medical report and assessment occurs 9 months after the accident. Medical expert states the description of injury is consistent with whiplash and such an injury is consistent with the accident circumstances and there is no negative prognosis. 

How do you go about disproving the claimant? They are fully healed so you can get a second medical opinion but if they know how to answer the questions already you'll get the same outcome. Accident circs are reasonable for a soft tissue injury and so?

Cash for crash is a different kettle of fish as in those circumstances the injuries/damages are often true, if exaggerated, but the accident itself is staged and so the focus there is to prove it wasnt an accident rather than the person wasnt injured. Things like CCTV and Dashcam footage comes in very handy.

PS. its not your money, if anything its their shareholders money as if they payout too much profits go down and so do dividends. It would impact you next year as they raise premiums to try and get profitable again but you arent bound to buy from them again.

Day_Of_The_Doris

leonj said:

The taxi driver is 100% responsible if she was hit on a zebra crossing, doesn't even matter if she stepped out at the last second, the driver should expect it at a zebra crossing and slow right down, it's essentially part of the footpath

I see you are the type of person that thinks people shouldn't be even partially accountable for their actions.
There is no legal requirement for a vehicle to stop until a pedestrian has physically stepped onto the crossing so even if a car has slowed right down, it still needs some time to stop.
This is why the Highway code states:

18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

• always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
• 19 
• Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing
  

Manxman_in_exile

Of course the more insurance companies pay out the more premiums go up.  Shopping around doesn't help if the problem is industry wide.  Once you start deciding to settle more small claims because they're cheaper to settle than to defend, the danger is that you let the genie out of the bottle and people think they can get away with it.

I must remember to start up that charity for impoverished insurance company shareholders.