Why isnt there a bigger debate and motion to improve protection for the public

NCV

After reading several posts here and elsewhere, I realize that the reason I came here to ask is somewhat pointless. I’m suffering from post-concussion syndrome and was hoping to discuss its impact on my life, along with the response I’ve had from insurance companies and the airline involved. But after reading so many stories where people’s lives were turned upside down due to injuries—often with no fault of their own—and despite having insurance, they were left uncovered,unsupported I’ve realized this is a much wider issue. And so important at a time when support services are so stretched themselves, with huge waiting lists and inadequate resources.

Someone on the forum mentioned that people often pay for “peanuts” and expect “champagne”—that definitely wasn’t my experience. But I do think that the insurance process should be much more transparent. In my case, I thought being injured by falling objects from the cabin would at least mean coverage for some medical expenses. But after some brief NHS checks and long waiting times, I had to pay out of pocket for further treatment.

I also want to mention that I’m frustrated with the label of “ambulance chaser” that people often attach to anyone seeking help with their health—medical staff included. This isn’t something that’s usually said outright, but it’s often implied.

Why hasn’t an organization stepped up for the public in cases like mine? I booked a flight, followed all the rules, and disclosed my illnesses—but through no fault of my own, I was injured, which has greatly affected my life. I’m fortunate enough to be rebuilding my life, retraining, and working on my health, but no one seems willing to even help me cover basic health expenses or help me get back on my feet.

From what I’ve read, many others in similar situations have no protection. It’s not just injuries on airlines—it’s a broader issue across many different scenarios. People whose lives are changed, often dramatically, due to circumstances beyond their control, without the support or resources they need to rebuild their lives. And I wonder if things would be different if I had lost a limb—those with visible injuries seem to have more recourse. My brain scans showed no damage, and after physio and significant self-work, I’ve mostly alleviated the pain in my shoulder and neck. But I still deal with occasional arm/shoulder problems and ongoing issues like anxiety and "ADHD-like" symptoms. I’ve had to give up work, and while I’m now working part-time and improving, my brain is still not fully recovered.

What’s stopping someone from advocating for people like us? Why is it that these situations are often just brushed off as “what it is”? I truly believe there’s a gap in the system that needs to be reviewed. Shouldn’t there be a common pool of insurance for people who fall through the cracks of existing regulations?

Additionally, I’ve often wondered why there are so many areas—whether it’s airlines, workplace injuries, or accidents at public events—where people are left without proper protection. Why, for example, are there so many injuries on airlines, from falling objects to burns from hot drinks or trolley accidents? Why did they remove the nets from the front of the cabins? Why don’t they lock the cabins until landing?

I’m grateful to still be walking, but when I read and hear the stories of others who’ve lost their quality of life through no fault of their own, it becomes clear to me that there’s a significant issue here. It seems to me that organizations, whether airlines or any other industry, are quick to absolve themselves of responsibility, leaving the public without recourse. And society as a whole doesn’t seem to want to address this gap, even though it’s a problem that impacts so many of us.

---

This version broadens the scope beyond airlines and highlights how this issue affects many different situations where innocent people suffer life-changing consequences without adequate support. Does that feel more aligned with what you were hoping to express?Yup.... 

DullGreyGuy

Ambulance chasers normally refer to firms who attempt to get people to claim compensation, the idea being they follow the ambulance to be able to be the first one to be able to speak to the "victim", not the claimant themselves (who'll be the one in the ambulance not chasing it)


Legal systems in different countries are exceptionally different from each other. In the US you have the concept of punitive damages, monies paid by a defendant not to indemnify the claimant but to punish the defendant, these damages cannot be paid by (US) insurers and must be paid by the defendant themselves. Such damages are not allowed in the UK. In the UK the defendant has to pay for all future care the claimant will need for the rest of their life whereas in most of continental Europe they dont, that the role of the state. Move to Australia and no insurer has to pay for injuries sustained, there is a seperate body that does that irrespective of blame but it only pays for loss of earnings and home adaptations that may be required, no one gets paid for pain, suffering or loss of amenities (aka general damages) which all the aforementioned jurisdictions do give varying levels of compensation for. 

Air travel is complicated by the fact that a significant proportion of them involve travelling from one jurisdiction to another with a reasonable amount of time in no jurisdiction. The solution was the Montreal Convention which deals with international flights and sets standardised rights for the complex legal problems of different jurisdictions. I'm sure if you come from some jurisdictions its generous, for people from others it will seem very limited but thats the consequences of trying to get 197 different countries to agree to operate in the same way. 


Im uncertain what part of the insurance process you think isnt transparent? It's also unclear if you are referring to making a claim against insurance you hold or making a claim as a third party against someone else's insurance (eg the Airline's Public Liability)?

The former is fairly clear, your claim is simply assessed against the terms and conditions of the policy you bought. There is a problem that people dont read what they have bought and in many cases the choices made are driven by price. Travel insurance will effectively say they cover your illness and injuries to the extent of getting you back to the UK. They dont promise anything more than that or ongoing care when you are in the UK. When in the UK you go through your normal process for treatment be that using the NHS or claiming on your Private Medical Insurance if you hold such a policy. Likewise you may also be claiming on your Income Protection, Critical Illness or Accident & Health policies if you hold such things and your injuries are significant enough to either stop you working and/or trigger the policies payout. 

The claims process as a third party is slightly different as what you can claim is more broadly governed by law rather than the policy terms. As such the insurer is simply following what the likes of the Montreal Convention states their client is liable for. 

As a claimant you can self represent or instruct solicitors to act for you however the same laws govern if legal costs can be recovered from the defendant and inevitably that may limit which solicitors you can choose from or mean you have to self fund. There are legal expenses policies you can purchase that will cover such costs as long as your case falls within the terms (normally requires a reasonable prospect of success and costs being proportional to the damages sort).

Either you need to use an advisory broker that can advise you on the limitations of the different classes of insurance you are buying and what options exist to cover any gaps you have or you need to partition your MP to change the law on what compensation people are due.