The Moral Compass and Compensation claims companies

jatclarke999

Hi

I would like to share with you a recent incident and also to question the legallity of it.

End last year, my wife was involved in a very minor car incident. Another driver reversed out of a parking space and clipped the front bumper of my wife's car. Whilst at the time it looked a bit messy, on further inspection, there was only a few superficial scratches to the bumper. However the other driver's car did suffer some what more damage.

Anyway, once home, my wife reported it to her insurer and they asked her to upload photos to assess the damage. It was agreed that the car would be taken in to an accident repair shop to have it resolved.

Alll great so far. Wife got back a nice shiny valeted car, the bumper was not replaced but the scratches were polished out.

Earlier this week I get a call on my mobile from a company called First Response Legal team, asking to speak to my wife. As she was not with me, I asked them what it was regarding and to get them to call back later. This got me wondering, how did they have my number? When we looked deeper into this, the only source was through the vehicle repair company Gemini who had my number as an alternate contact number. The caller claimed the details were collated from the National accident register.

The First Response legal team called back today. Anyway the jist of the conversation is that my wife is entitled to Secondary discomfort payment sustained through the accident. However there was no discomfort. Later in the conversation, as we were acting very suprised that this was an available option, he was strongly advocating that my wife should be telling his solicitors that she sustained injury because the total cost of the accident repairs were sufficiently high enough to assume injury, and then went on to explain how similar accidents have resulted in thousands being awarded.

Our own moral compasses are saying no, but it really disgusts us that they are asking strongly that we should be fraudulent. I know many people would have different outcomes on this.

My issues are:

1. The car repairers disclosing our personal details to either openly to this national database or someone within selling the details is in breach of the 2018 data protection act
2. The First Response legal team encouraging us to commit fraud.

I would be interested in others views

John

JJ_Egan

So where is your Campaign sign up .

naedanger

jatclarke999 said:

Hi

I would like to share with you a recent incident and also to question the legallity of it.

End last year, my wife was involved in a very minor car incident. Another driver reversed out of a parking space and clipped the front bumper of my wife's car. Whilst at the time it looked a bit messy, on further inspection, there was only a few superficial scratches to the bumper. However the other driver's car did suffer some what more damage.

Anyway, once home, my wife reported it to her insurer and they asked her to upload photos to assess the damage. It was agreed that the car would be taken in to an accident repair shop to have it resolved.

Alll great so far. Wife got back a nice shiny valeted car, the bumper was not replaced but the scratches were polished out.

Earlier this week I get a call on my mobile from a company called First Response Legal team, asking to speak to my wife. As she was not with me, I asked them what it was regarding and to get them to call back later. This got me wondering, how did they have my number? When we looked deeper into this, the only source was through the vehicle repair company Gemini who had my number as an alternate contact number. The caller claimed the details were collated from the National accident register.

The First Response legal team called back today. Anyway the jist of the conversation is that my wife is entitled to Secondary discomfort payment sustained through the accident. However there was no discomfort. Later in the conversation, as we were acting very suprised that this was an available option, he was strongly advocating that my wife should be telling his solicitors that she sustained injury because the total cost of the accident repairs were sufficiently high enough to assume injury, and then went on to explain how similar accidents have resulted in thousands being awarded.

Our own moral compasses are saying no, but it really disgusts us that they are asking strongly that we should be fraudulent. I know many people would have different outcomes on this.

My issues are:

1. The car repairers disclosing our personal details to either openly to this national database or someone within selling the details is in breach of the 2018 data protection act
2. The First Response legal team encouraging us to commit fraud.

I would be interested in others views

John

The thing to remember it isn't just the insurers they are attempting to con or defraud (assuming what you say is true which I expect First Response would deny) it is also your wife. If she were to agree (which would obviously require her to be dishonest) then they will be equally happy to pursue her for their "fees" if she ever gets cold feet and pulls out from any claims that they instigate.

Manxman_in_exile

What makes you think it was the car repairers that contacted First Response and not your wife's insurer?  I was involved in a collision a few years ago and it was our insurer who passed it on to a claims management company.

That claims management company was also encouraging me to make a fraudulent personal injury claim for a back injury.  They came to this "clinical" conclusion by asking me questions over the 'phone about back and neck pain.  But they never asked me the obvious question - "Did this pain only become apparent after the accident?"  (I'd been suffering pain for years before the accident).

Ask First Response to put this in writing:  "... he was strongly advocating that my wife should be telling his solicitors that she sustained injury because the total cost of the accident repairs were sufficiently high enough to assume injury... "

Bet they won't.

If your wife were to claim and the insurers defended it, you can bet First Response would deny all knowledge of "encouraging" her to claim - it would just be down to her dishonestly manufacturing a fraudulent injury.