eetaylog Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I heard a statistic the other day that the average premium for fully comp has increased an average 7%, while TPF&T premiums went up by around 30+%. After doing a bit of digging around, it turns out that its true, and that insurance companies are doing it because: "Insurers have been reporting significant rises in personal injury claims. People now seem willing to pursue claims for minor injuries that in the past they wouldn't have bothered claiming for – all encouraged by personal injury claims lawyers" (guardian). Ive always thought that these personal injury claims must have an affect on premiums (not just car insurance), but when you see it having this much of an affect, surely new laws need to be brought in to control these injury lawyers? Whenever i have a day off work, im sick to the back teeth of the injury claim adverts on the tv (obviously aimed at scrounging wasters encouraging them to make a quick quid). Oh, and if you are an injury lawyer, or have made a false claim in the past... http://www.comedyhypnosis.co.uk/images/middle_finger.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobMk6 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Problem is, how would you identify real injuries from fakers, the NHS would be the ones to foot the bill for that as extra tests would need doing. However, knowing that if their injury IS genuine, I think that the injured party themselves should have to seek private medical testing funded by themselves, then the bill for that covered by the insurance company after medical proof of lasting injury has been given. Thus eliminating the scrounging c*nts fraudulent claims. However, no matter which way it works its always going to upset someone, the real problem is that we used to be a nation of moaning feckers who just complained and got on with it, we're now turning into a society of mini americans always looking for ways out of things/ways to make an easy quid/someone to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trig Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Outlawing "no win no fee" will make a huge difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Ambulance chasers I call them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 However, knowing that if their injury IS genuine, I think that the injured party themselves should have to seek private medical testing funded by themselves, This is retarded.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajc.78 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Outlawing "no win no fee" will make a huge difference No it wouldn't it would simply mean that normal working people (who are the sort who wouldn't make a false or exaggerated claim) who wouldn't be eligible financially for public funding would suffer. Those who are habitually on benefits and probably more likely to make a false or exaggerated claim would get public funding. Such a system would increase the burden on the public purse which has to fund legal aid/ public funding. The no win no fee system does not burden the public purse and despite what you might think the whole idea is that it effectively weeds out false claims as claims without merit are not financially viable for the firms taking on the work. Whilst there may be a climate of "where there is blame there is a claim" the comments on the funding situation are with respect misguided. al Problem is, how would you identify real injuries from fakers, the NHS would be the ones to foot the bill for that as extra tests would need doing. However, knowing that if their injury IS genuine, I think that the injured party themselves should have to seek private medical testing funded by themselves, then the bill for that covered by the insurance company after medical proof of lasting injury has been given. Thus eliminating the scrounging c*nts fraudulent claims. However, no matter which way it works its always going to upset someone, the real problem is that we used to be a nation of moaning feckers who just complained and got on with it, we're now turning into a society of mini americans always looking for ways out of things/ways to make an easy quid/someone to blame. The NHS do not assess injuries for the purposes of personal injury claims. They are assessed if necessary by a jointly instructed approved expert and the costs are generally met by the defendant subject to success. Such comments really do demonstrate ignorance to how the system you seem to want to criticise actually works. al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganges Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 this subject has reacently been covered on radio 2 (no comments please ), it would appear that the government are going to try and reduce the number of "no win no claim" they are going to try and implement some kind of means testing, and long over due imo, to many people jumping on that band wagon, now before somebody jumps on the band wagon, yes I know some of these claims are genuine, but even so enough already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST170 Dan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Outlawing "no win no fee" will make a huge difference i heard only the other week that theres going to be a clamp down on these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trig Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Outlawing "no win no fee" will make a huge difference No it wouldn't it would simply mean that normal working people (who are the sort who wouldn't make a false or exaggerated claim) who wouldn't be eligible financially for public funding would suffer. Those who are habitually on benefits and probably more likely to make a false or exaggerated claim would get public funding. Such a system would increase the burden on the public purse which has to fund legal aid/ public funding. The no win no fee system does not burden the public purse and despite what you might think the whole idea is that it effectively weeds out false claims as claims without merit are not financially viable for the firms taking on the work. Whilst there may be a climate of "where there is blame there is a claim" the comments on the funding situation are with respect misguided. al The idea might be that it weeds out the false claims, but does it? Its far easier to lodge a claim if you dont have to funds the costs yourself and if the claim itself would be dubious. Also, the businesses that take on "no win no fee" claims, surely they will take on quite a few of the dubious cases as chances are a few of them will win, therefore generating cash for the business. Another question would be are these firms employing their sales people and paying them with commission? That could influence the sales people to exagerate claims on the basis of hitting their own targets. Im happy to be corrected on all of this if Im wildly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajc.78 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I think there is a big misunderstanding here between claims management companies who advertise in the "where there is blame there is a claim" way which seems to annoy people and lawyers. The original post basically stuck a figure up at PI lawyers in general which is ignorant and misconceived. No win no fee means that if the case is lost by the claimant they do not have to pay their own solicitors fees. It does no mean that they can take a case without merit for two reasons. 1. As stated there is nothing to be gained by a solicitor taking on a case which is unlikely to succeed as they will not be paid anything for the work they have done. 2. If you take a case with a no win no fee arrangement you are still potentially liable for the defendant's legal costs if you lose. This is dealt with by taking out an insurance policy which covers those costs in the event of losing. Such policies are not available where the merits are assessed as being low for obvious reasons. There is no such thing as risk free litigation. As I accept there are some companies who make referrals for a fee which are probably dubious and I take no issue with well founded comments about them. However the comments made about lawyers and no win no fee I do not believe are based on proper understanding of either. The current government may want to do away with no win no fee cases but they have no interest in normal working people. The only alternative to no win no fee is either private paying which I can assure you is expensive so precludes all but the rich or legal aid. Legal aid or public funding is means tested which means if you are on benefits you get it free. If you work hard but have only a moderate income you are not likely to get legal aid (as the thresholds are generally low) but wouldn't be able to afford to pay privately. That is inherently unfair. I have no issue with people expressing their opinions but the problem is a lot of those opinions being expressed about lawyers/ funding are not based on fact or understanding of how the system actually works in reality or would work if it was changed. In relation to inflating claims any contentious claims have to be decided by the court with evidence and generally the civil litigation system is set up in such a way that exaggerated claims or pointless litigation is actually in reality rarely pursued. al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawdreamer Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) false claimers? my sister got into a scrape a while back where another driver was a bit slow on the brakes and "nudged" the back of her Audi (seriously the insurance company didnt even consider placing the damage into a write off category as it was silly easy to repair cosmetics) however my sister decided that she had a opportunity for a cash gain and started screamin about how her neck was immovable and apparently kicked up so much of a stink that two paramedic cars, several rozzer mobiles and a ambulance ended up attending a very minor accident. She later returned home with a neck brace on. long story short..... she was still planning on going on a skiing holiday planned for two weeks later (despite being incapable of performing even simple everyday tasks due to her injury) and continuing her claim of temporary disability..... ....right upto the point were I warned her that being a money grabbing lying bint would see me become a honest grassing c*nt to the appropriate insurance group. she strangely hasnt talked to me since? Edited April 11, 2011 by shawdreamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 I think there is a big misunderstanding here between claims management companies who advertise in the "where there is blame there is a claim" way which seems to annoy people and lawyers. The original post basically stuck a figure up at PI lawyers in general which is ignorant and misconceived. No i didnt. I posted that car insurance premiums went up 7% for fully comp, and 30+% for TPF&T. Nowhere in my post did i mention any figures regarding PI lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajc.78 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I think there is a big misunderstanding here between claims management companies who advertise in the "where there is blame there is a claim" way which seems to annoy people and lawyers. The original post basically stuck a figure up at PI lawyers in general which is ignorant and misconceived. No i didnt. I posted that car insurance premiums went up 7% for fully comp, and 30+% for TPF&T. Nowhere in my post did i mention any figures regarding PI lawyers. I obviously mistyped figure it should obviously have said finger is response to your childish picture as I explained at length! I would have thought that was obvious if you had bothered to read the rest of my posts. al false claimers? my sister got into a scrape a while back where another driver was a bit slow on the brakes and "nudged" the back of her Audi (seriously the insurance company didnt even consider placing the damage into a write off category as it was silly easy to repair cosmetics) however my sister decided that she had a opportunity for a cash gain and started screamin about how her neck was immovable and apparently kicked up so much of a stink that two paramedic cars, several rozzer mobiles and a ambulance ended up attending a very minor accident. She later returned home with a neck brace on. long story short..... she was still planning on going on a skiing holiday planned for two weeks later (despite being incapable of performing even simple everyday tasks due to her injury) and continuing her claim of temporary disability..... ....right upto the point were I warned her that being a money grabbing lying bint would see me become a honest grassing c*nt to the appropriate insurance group. she strangely hasnt talked to me since? I really do respect you for being prepared to take such a stand. However in the context of this thread does it not say more about the people wanting to make a claim rather than the lawyers who might have become involved? al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trig Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Thanks for explaining a bit more about the lawyers/solicitors side of things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eetaylog Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 I really do respect you for being prepared to take such a stand. However in the context of this thread does it not say more about the people wanting to make a claim rather than the lawyers who might have become involved? al No, because in actively seeking (and blatantly encouraging people) to seek compensation for accidents that could easily have been avoided if said person had used common sense, the lawyers themselves become just as guilty of immorality imo. I am obviously not only referring to car accidents now though. I obviously mistyped figure it should obviously have said finger is response to your childish picture Oh, and spare me the above please. It was obviously to be taken tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now