Call for ‘sanity’ on whiplash as claim numbers fall
Lawyers have called for a rethink on whiplash injury compensation after the government’s own figures showed that the number of claims fell by almost 24,000 last year.
Records uncovered by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) showed 547,405 claims for whiplash in 2011/12, compared with 571,111 in the previous year, a fall of 4.2%. APIL has also released the results of an independent survey, commissioned by the group, which show almost 40% of people with a whiplash injury have never claimed compensation for it.
The research appears as the government is expected to announce plans for new specialist medical panels to support improvements in the diagnosis of whiplash, and to increase from £1,000 to £5,000 the value up to which claims can be handled by the small claims court.
Karl Tonks, president of APIL, said it was time to ‘inject some sanity’ into the debate. ‘The government appears to have been persuaded by the insurance industry that the answer to rising car insurance premiums lies in tackling whiplash claims, but the government’s own figures show there has been a drop in these claims in the last year,’ he said.
‘Before the government embarks on a potentially damaging reform agenda, it’s critical that ministers have a clear picture about whiplash, and that they recognise that most injured people are genuine and therefore have every right to expect proper access to justice when they need it.’
According to a poll carried out amongst 4,000 members of the public by market researcher Canadean, one in 100 people have suffered a whiplash injury in the past year. One in five have suffered symptoms for more than a year, whilst almost 30% of those who suffered an injury were encouraged to claim compensation by insurance companies.
‘Instead of pointing the finger at everyone else, insurers really need to stop and look in the mirror,’ said Tonks. ‘They need to stop paying compensation without even asking for a medical report. And they need to start sharing the information they hold about fraudsters to help claimant lawyers identify them early in the process.’
Comments
If only common sense prevailed
So what the insurers have been saying isn't factually accurate, well shiver mi timbers that's amazing.
Are these the same insurers who will do all they can to avoid paying out when someone makes a claim against their policy? I don't know if it is just me but it sounds like this is not a very scrupulous industry.
However, it is an industry that seems to have the Government doing whatever it tells it to do. I think the main reason is the united front that they put forward under the ABI. If only solicitors had one big united front justice might be done for the innocent victims who suffer injury through no fault of their own. That would make a pleasant change.
Don't hold your breath
"If only solicitors had one big united front" - this will never happen as solicitors have to act in the interests of their clients, not their industry. What about all the solicitors who act for (and presumably think like) insurers? Would they agree with you about a "united front" do you think?
Incidentally, the inherently fractured nature of the solicitors' profession is also why you see things like bespoke LPC courses for the City and the imminent failure of the Law Society as functioning representative body.
Your best hope is a single representative body for each vested interest, e.g. a Claimant representative body taking in all components of the Claimant side - not just solicitors. Then you might get somewhere.
United Front
I am a solicitor who has qualified from another profession, and not one of your "run of the mill" solicitors. I have found solicitors to be dimwit's when it comes to running their practices like a proper business should be run.
They are narrow minded, in fighting, selfish and arrogant people who have no sense of unity! I should know I employ them.
I am disappointed with the continuous attacks the government is making against solicitors and the professional in general, I came into the profession thinking that my services would help those that are vulnerable and in need, only to find that there is no respect for the profession or what we do. But on the other hand, I think all that is happening with the profession is long overdue.
It is going to be hard to survive in this difficult time, without unity it will be harder, but i rest assured that those who remain will deserve to be here.
You make a good point about
You make a good point about solicitors being individuals but then we tend to have our own clients, our own targets, our own secretaries, our own rooms, etc, so is it any wonder. And if you are a family solicitor and your colleague is a PI solicitor and down the corridor you have a conveyancer, for example, is it not natural to focus on the threats posed by changes being made in one's own field whilst only having a passing interest in the plight of one's colleagues. After all, I think we all must feel under attack to some degree. I do find it quite ironic, however, that you lement a lack of unity amongst solicitors but then chose to go it alone as a sole trader!
United Front
It seems somewhat illogical to my mind to become a member of a profession which you hold in such low esteem . The general feeling amongst the general public is that lawyers are parasites, feeding off other peoples misery and I entirely agree with them . I come from a by gone era when careers were chosen by ones parents . I cannot think of one single day i enjoyed in a legal office . My wife was in sales and marketing and had such fun and made a fortune too . I will never forgive my stuffed shirt father for making me have such a miserable life - all for the sake of saving face . the world is still full of hypocrisy - but there are far too many students graduating with little or no prospect of a job of any decent sort and the scope for would be Richard Bransons is limited . Several years ago I said to a friend - i think by the time I am 70 i will have had enough of life and though i didnt realise it at the time those words were so prophetic - 90per cent of people are zombies anyway
small claims limit
If the government were to raise the small claims limit to £5000 P.I.lawyers would be an endangered species (on both sides of the divide ) and most would go the way of the dodo. I personally doubt that they will go that far and frankly with all the other changes and proposals such as possible extension of portal and non recovery of success fees from opponents this would be like kicking a victim to death when he's already near fatally wounded on the ground.
All those who might say "and a good thing too" lets hope you never have an accident that's not your fault that causes you not only injury but significant financial loss. You will be at the mercy of the insurers because there wont be any lawyers left to get you proper compensation.
Whiplash claims
Perhaps it is time to view the figures in proper context. Yes, a 5% fall in whiplash claims but that could be down to a number of completely valid reasons rather than insurers misrepresenting the problem.
The fact of the matter is that there were still 547,405 claims in 2011/12. That is equal to 1% of the population of the UK making a whiplash claim every year.
And it is not just the insurance industry which is not co-operating. How about tackling the problem at the roots. That means solicitors taking steps to weed out fraudsters.
You still have no idea what a
You still have no idea what a solicitor, or indeed a court, does.
The client goes to a solicitor with a claim. The solicitor advises, on the evidence given by the client, if there is a claim, whether the evidence is likely to be persuasive to a court, and what the likely compensation will be. On that basis the client decides whether or not to proceed.
There is no point at which the solicitor can, or indeed should say that a claim is fraudulent. His job is as above. It is not to decide the truth or otherwise of what the client says-the solicitor quite simply cannot know that. If what the client says is improbable, that is part of the advice as to whether the evidence will be persuasive or not. Whether the claim is valid is for the court to decide. That is why we have courts. Even the court does not know what is "true"-but can only decide on the well known balance of probabilities.
But in any event, there are cases where the most improbable things occur-but are true. Presumably you do not want the victims of these to get compensation, because by your lights there are "fraudulent".
Whiplash culture
One more statistic which shows the growth of the whiplash culture.
Five years ago (2007) there were 430,000 claims for whiplash.
whiplash
A 4% fall is neglible. The rate of claims is a function of the transaction costs of representation and investigation for the two parties and the possibility of obtaining cash - I avoid the use of the word compensation. Other jurisdictions have a far lower incidence of such claims.
The actual level of harm to an individual is likely to be small - the moral harm of exagerating the harm in order to obtain money is significant - and the possibility of fraud substantial.
We must avoid acting like a trade association of claims farmers and try to be objective.
How many of these 547,000
How many of these 547,000 claims were 'captured' and sold on for a referral fee by members of the ABI?
1% of the population
It doesn't surprise me that 1% of the population make a whiplash claim very year, or that other jurisdictions have fewer whiplash claims. England has 60 million people stuffed in to a tiny space, all of whom need to drive everywhere because the public transport system is dire and expensive. Cue tailbacks, frustration, and inevitably, accidents.
France has a similar population but is roughly double the size. Their roads are amazing will kept, many are toll roads which keeps numbers down, and they generally drive with respect for others. You cannot take the number of accidents and apply it as a percentage of population because that does not even begin to describe the reality of driving in the UK.
I am sure there are a load of fraudulent claims every year, just as there always have been with every single aspect of insurance since it was introduced. Sadly, it will always be there. The point Claimant practitioners are trying to make is that simply increasing the small claims limit to £5,000, thereby axing 95% of all cases, is not an appropriate way to deal with the perceived problem; it's like a GP lopping an arm off to treat a broken finger. "Whiplash is a problem you say? Well then let's abolish it good sir!"
Woolf is forgotten
Why is it such a surprise that the number of claims have risen in the last 10-15 years? That was always the plan!
In the late 1990's the Woolf reforms were introduced to allow more people to access justice. Prior to the CPR only the rich could afford to use the Courts and the imbalance of power between individuals and companies (especially insurance companies) needed to change.
It would seem that the Tories are seeking to re-dress the current balance in favour of their big-business chums. Not in the least bit surprising but disappointing nonetheless
Gravy train slows
Yes, here we are again - another article here at odds with the views of the vast majority of the non-legal sector of society, but by a strange coincidence, proposing what would be in the interests of lawyers. That is to say, more claims, more money for lawyers.
These claims are nonsensical. Do you even know what whiplash is? It is a pulled muscle - how does that deserve damages? Also, the injuries cannot be proved, and even if they could compensation should only be for loss of earnings at best. Anything else opens the door for spongers... as we have seen all too clearly.
The fact that there has been a fall in the short term has NOTHING to do with how this problem is dealt with in the long term. To suggest otherwise is an exercise is self interested delusion.
"Anon" describing the current process = lol
It's an exercise in futility to describe what happens now when people are proposing to change the process.
Lawyers should be responsible for seeing justice done, getting at the truth and yet they put forward many claims that they know to be false. Furthermore, they actively recruit clients - I had 3 text messages today about my PPI problem (I don't have one) and "my accident" (I didn't have one of those either).
And much of this is done on the basis that if they swamp an insurance company's claims dept with enough claims then they will not have the means to defend them all in court, they will "settle" (as in "buy off") a large number of such claims.
Shameful behaviour, please don't waste anyone's time trying to justify it. You are in favour of preserving the status quo because you make money from it. Period.
Texts
Chris : "Furthermore, they actively recruit clients - I had 3 text messages today about my PPI problem (I don't have one) and "my accident" (I didn't have one of those either)."
Those texts were from lawyers were they? Or actually claims management companies? It's really very easy to tell the difference.
Defending the Indefensible.
Submitted by anon on Fri, 07/09/2012 - 08:58.
You still have no idea what a solicitor, or indeed a court, does.
The client goes to a solicitor with a claim. The solicitor advises, on the evidence given by the client, if there is a claim, whether the evidence is likely to be persuasive to a court, and what the likely compensation will be. On that basis the client decides whether or not to proceed.
There is no point at which the solicitor can, or indeed should say that a claim is fraudulent. His job is as above. It is not to decide the truth or otherwise...........
....................
Yes - so according to Anon I have no idea what the role of the solicitor is. He seems to be saying that their role is just to take on cases and run with them whether they are fraudulent or not. Well, that is Anon's view anyway and as the commentator (Chris) above observes, not one which a member of the public (or indeed the regulator for solicitors) would agree with. As Chris says, it is all about money and self preservation.
I have one question for Anon. If a solcitor does not do a few basic checks to see that a case is not fraudulent why does Karl Tonks (in the article) complain that insurers do not share information with solicitors about fraudsters to help them identify them. Surely (according to Anon) - it is not the job of a solcitor to identify fraudsters and therefore insurer's would be wasting their time.
From the article: - Karl Tonks
"And they need to start sharing the information they hold about fraudsters to help claimant lawyers identify them early in the process."
seems
Kelly "He seems to be saying that their role is just to take on cases and run with them whether they are fraudulent or not. Well, that is Anon's view anyway..."
Notice how contributor Kelly works by her use of the word 'seems'. She puts her own opinion into the mouth of the contributor she seeks to impugn and then states her opinion is actually theirs.
Instead of writing your view on the basis of what someone 'seems' to say why not comment on what they ACTUALLY say?
By the say, if a client is sat in front of a lawyer and provides a statement as to what happened in an accident, signs a statement of truth (having been told what this means) etc, what "few basic checks" is Kelly suggesting the lawyer (whose duty is to his client) conducts?
The future if bright (except for lawyers)
This is UK 2012
Claims management companies being closed down on mass for swamping insurers with spurious and fraudulent claims.
Lawyers being regularly disciplined by their regulator for scattergun and vexatious litigation designed to make money without regard to the merits.
The above are under fire and this will continue until they change their behaviour and act responsibly. Mainly decent legal professionals now have to make up their mind whether they are going to keep defending these people - or end up being tarred with the same brush. The reason the legal profession is becoming increasing sidelined by the government is because of the reluctance to change and criticise the culture of dishonesty and greed displayed by a significant minority of offenders in this profession.
Think about it. Read this forum and the attitudes, comments and abuse by members of the profession. Then think why it is in the mess it is.
Kelly : "Lawyers being
Kelly : "Lawyers being regularly disciplined by their regulator for scattergun and vexatious litigation designed to make money without regard to the merits."
What lawyers are being "regularly" disciplined? Names? Details? Statistics even would do.
Kelly : "The reason the legal profession is becoming increasing sidelined by the government is because of the reluctance to change and criticise the culture of dishonesty and greed displayed by a significant minority of offenders in this profession."
Ah - if only we would change (how?) and criticise a culture it'll all be ok again. Thanks Kelly. Now you've solved that what are you going to do for the rest of the day?
Texts
Chris : "Furthermore, they actively recruit clients - I had 3 text messages today about my PPI problem (I don't have one) and "my accident" (I didn't have one of those either)."
Those texts were from lawyers were they? Or actually claims management companies? It's really very easy to tell the difference.
@ chris These claims are
@ chris
These claims are nonsensical. Do you even know what whiplash is? It is a pulled muscle - how does that deserve damages? Also, the injuries cannot be proved, and even if they could compensation should only be for loss of earnings at best. Anything else opens the door for spongers... as we have seen all too clearly.
Assuming that we simply disregard years of clinical studies and the findings of many eminent medical professionals, in your legal world please differentiate between say 2 parents and 2 kids in the same vehicle hit by a drunk driver
Parent no 1 -front seat passenger killed in impact
Parent no 2-driver- cut out of vehicle with multiple injuries but was the main carer and not in employment
Kid 1- minor injuries 'whiplash'
Kid 2- no discernable injuries but psychological problems after witnessing the death of parent 1
Using your logic, how would you 'compensate' the kids, or are they just 'spongers'? -they won't have a loss of earnings- would you like to send some flowers instead?
Another 'non argument'
The above post is typical of modern Britain - an emotive argument in place of logic and common sense.
In all of your scenario there is only one "victim" that fits the issue under discussion, the person you have labelled "Kid 1". The remainder are nothing to do with whiplash claims whatsoever. You have simply wrapped Kid 1's minor injuries in the emotive situation of others who are much worse off.
Also, you put forward a scenario where a serious crash has occurred, so that you have people thinking of whiplash in the context of a serious accident, whereas many whiplash claims in the modern world involve tiny impacts, from which we can construe, without being world class statisticians, that the upward surge in "whiplash" claims are simply a way of milking the system.
And the government has seen that, has been convinced by the overwhelming argument, and has chosen to act (for once).
So in the context of this discussion, the question simply amounts to nothing more than what financial amount should be given to "kid 1" - or more precisely, to a person who claims nothing mnore than "whiplash". The rest is window dresing.
So. What exactly are the injuries? What is the level of impairment or disability and for how long? The term "whiplash" is useless, it can be anything from a pulled muscle to... more serious soft tissue damage - or even purely fictitious. And even when it's "more serious" it isn't necessarily debilitating/incapacitating.
If it amounts to a sore neck for a few days then the answer is quite simply that there is no payment due. Just how much money do you REALLY think that is worth???
If it is genuinely more serious then we start to move in the realms of the mediacally verifiable injury, such as torn blood vessels. Nobody is worried about those, they are absolutely fine.
What we are concerned with is that so many of these claims are unproven, unproveable and by sheer weight of numbers, uncontested. People take advantage of that - that is wrong and it has to change.
Cars are getting safer - headrests prevent the head going too far back in almost all modern vehicles - so you would expect the ratio of such claims to drop in proportion to the number of accidents. Therefore, when they skyrocket instead, we know that something is wrong in modern Britain.
We've gone from Land of hope and glory to Land of hops and stories.
Lawyers in trouble.
Submitted by A solicitor on Sat, 08/09/2012 - 09:07.
Kelly : "Lawyers being regularly disciplined by their regulator for scattergun and vexatious litigation designed to make money without regard to the merits."
What lawyers are being "regularly" disciplined? Names? Details? Statistics even would do.
.........................
I know of several law firms which have been disciplined for such behavior and I have previously mentioned them on here as details are in the pubic domain. Four examples of wrongdoing with varying degrees of seriousness which come to mind are ACS Law, Davenport Lyons, Gallant Macmillan and Tilly Bailey Irvine. There are also offenders who have so far gone unpunished and possibly also some currently under investigation for similar breaches.
Likewise, there are other large firms which have pursued vexatious and spurious claims. In my view, the smaller scale and the nature of these proceedings (see examples below) would not prompt the regulator to intervene on the basis of SRA code breaches. They do however give a flavour for the type of nonsense some solicitors take forward.
Examples
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/2838.html&query=lonzim+and+v+and+sprague&method=boolean
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/924.html&query=dee+and+v+and+the+and+telegraph&method=boolean
Finally the SRA website which is updated daily. Scroll down the never ending list and you may pick out quite a few other cases of wrongdoing.
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/recent-decisions/recent-decisions.page
In my view the above cases are similar in some ways to fraudulent and suspect whiplash cases which are taken forward - without any care whatsover for the merits. A culture which is still widespread but will be driven out of this profession.
Happy reading.
You been file sharing and got
You been file sharing and got a letter from one of those 4 firms? You rarely write a post without using the word vexatious. Come on - declare your interest here.
Not exactly rife this vexatious litigation is it based on your evidence? 4 firms engaged in the same activity and some other unpunished offenders and "possibly" some under investigation. And 2 whole cases as well.
Nope
ARG
Not been file sharing or on the receiving end of those letters. However, I do know people who have and also others on the receiving end of nonsense libel litigation.
Anyway - how many did you want me to list? I gave six examples. All the other offenders can be found on the SRA website link I posted and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal site. As for others which have gone unpunished or are under investigation - there are some but to name them here would probably be frowned upon as, so far, they have not had the opportunity to answer to any alleged breaches.
By the way - just noted your location. You don't happen to work for Tilly Bailey Irvine do you?
work
Nope.
Well I am not convinced by any of it least of all the vexatious campaign. Far bigger problems most notably the so-called regulator.
Whiplash - some facts to dispel the fiction
The insurance industry (who also run healthcare in the UK and elsewhere) appears to have succeeded in convincing people that whiplash is, as Chris above falsely states 'a pulled muscle'. In very minor cases it may be but it can also cause serious morbidity and death even when caused during a RTA at fairly low speed; none of you seem to have any medical knowledge, this is extremely shocking if you are solicitors acting for people in personal injury cases because you and your client will be at the mercy of 'experts' and will have no idea if medical reports tell the truth, worse: your clients may not even have had the correct tests that would show up injuries caused by whiplash. It appears you do not know, or else you must think the brain is a pointless waste of space, so I'll explain: all the veins and arteries feeding blood to the brain and returning it to the heart pass through the neck as do many vital nerves, and so does the spinal cord which as everybody knows is the information superhighway between the brain, which controls the whole body and the body it must control; a sudden deceleration as in a car crash causes the heavy head to very quickly flex the neck too far in any direction (usually at least 2 directions, snapping back the opposite way once it reaches a point it can go no further) this in turn stretches and tears muscles, ligaments, veins, arteries and nerves, possibly also the spinal cord and cervical vertebrae may be fractured. The brain itself suffers shear injury which causes neuronal death because it has the consistency of blancmange floating in cerebral spinal fluid and it bounce around inside the skull; the brain if also full of veins arteries and viaducts for CSF and any of these may be torn and can cause death. I could go on but I hope you've got the picture now: all these injuries are 'invisible' from the outside and are often missed because doctors are not taught the correct tests they should do when a person has suffered for example a car crash. Many supposedly 'psychiatric' results of RTAs (sometimes called 'psychological trauma' or even the fallacy of 'PTSD' which is a cover for neurological injury) are actually signs of brain and neurological injury. Sadly and shockingly the UK appears reluctant to recognise these serious injuries (including, as well as death, venous and arterial dissection which starves the brain of oxygen, thrombosis, heart, visual and breathing problems, endocrine disruption - the brain controls all processes required to stay alive remember) so one must wonder why? Might the GMC (tasked to train doctors and ensure patient safety/standards) not choose to train doctors correctly to search for and diagnose these 'hidden' injuries because the UK can't afford the cost of a higher (but appropriate use) of CT/MRI and the high cost of care for these injuries and then maybe a lifetime of disability which requires services which aren't there? Or might it have something to do with the insurance industry (which works closely with government) wishing to escape liability and make more profit? Or perhaps it might be due to the power of the pharmaceutical companies requiring markets for their drugs: the psychiatric lobby in the UK even convinced NICE that ME/CFS (a set of neurological injuries/diseases) is 'best treated' as a psychological problem and sufferers given drugs, CBT and 'graded exercise therapy', is it a coincidence that the insurance industry backed this because many policies refuse to pay for psychological problems but neurological ones costs big bucks? Or is it for all these reasons (and maybe more) that whiplash is treated, as Chris here did, as a 'fraud' and undeserving of damages payments? If these injuries were very visible with lots of blood and gore nobody would get away with this systemic misdiagnosis, neglect and maltreatment of what can be life-changing injuries that nobody 'sees' unless they use the right technology to look and use good experts to explain the images/tests. So yes, there are tests and anyone who think anyone can say they have whiplash injuries shouldn't be involved in either law or medicine. Look for the evidence but remember absence of evidence is not the same thing as absence of evidence, there are often many reasons why it might be inconvenient to look for the evidence.
And Chris, who wrote: 'and even if they could compensation should only be for loss of earnings at best' is obviously not a lawyer or he would wish to get fair 'compensation' (it can never compensate of course so damages is a better word) for a life perhaps destroyed by cervical and brain injury; loss of earnings is but one head of damage, costs of care for life can cost millions, add on adaptations to home and car, loss of amenity, pain and suffering, medical care and so on - death costs far less - and you might see why insurers are desperate to bury these injuries, deny them and refuse access to justice; when you factor in all the other groups' interests served by this policy you might not believe nor write such nonsense.
Ever heard of paragraphs,
Ever heard of paragraphs, Jenny?
Paragraphs - and where the problem lies.
That is the sort of silly remark I think Chris was referring to. Anonymous contributors hair splitting, being picky and producing weak arguments and comments which add nothing to the debate. Incidentally I think his very good post (aside from describing whiplash cases as 'pulled muscles') appears to have been removed.
Jenny has disagreed with Chris on this specific point and she has provided a very useful insight which everyone can learn from. My view is not that whiplash claims are all trivial and not worthy of claiming. Not being from a medical background, I have to accept the established medical opinion that whiplash is a consequence of many road traffic accidents and can lead to pain and suffering, time off work and a financial loss. Therefore I think claiming for genuine whiplash is justified.
However, Jenny has touched on the fact that whiplash is one of those conditions (perhaps like back pain) which is not visible to others and doctors often do not carry out the correct and proper tests to reach a precise diagnosis. It is this that makes it open to abuse and fraud by people claiming whiplash when there is none. A similar situation which has been in the news lately is the government crackdown against people claiming state benefits who overstate or misrepresent their medical condition when in reality they could go back to work. Without any form of co-operation between the legal profession and insurance industry over whiplash claims, solicitors and claims handlers have to rely to a large extent on medical reports which can also be fraudulent.
In my opinion, it is up to solicitors to report instances of suspected fraud to the police - rather than representing these people or turning a blind eye and then criticising the insurer who turns the claim down when there is evidence of fraud - citing lack of evidence. There needs to be proper co-operation between the legal profession and the insurance industry to prevent and discourage fraud at its roots. That is unlikely to happen however because that will reduce the number of claims and profit for solicitors.
The comment by Anon that solicitors have no responsibilty in detecting and acting on fraud shows the mentality which still exists - in 2012. These are the facts and hence why the government is finally intervening to tackle where it believes the problem lies. You might not like what the government are doing or believe it is targettng the legal profession unfairly. However, the government clearly believes the legal profession in its current mindset is part of the problem than the solution. I cannot disagree based on what I read here.
Firstly, the remark about
Firstly, the remark about paragraphs is not silly. It may well be sarcastic, obviously for emphasis, but certainly not silly. Without paragraphs the piece is practically unreadable, which is a pity because it actually makes very good points. But I had to plough through it to get them.
Secondly (see how the paragraphs thing works-with use of sarcasm for emphasis), the comment by anon quite simply set out the process a solicitor goes through when presented with a client who has a claim. The client, and only the clients KNOWS what the truth is. The solicitor does not and cannot. How could he? He advises as to whether what the client says is likely to succeed in court. This is called professional independence.
Thirdly, what you propose would make the legal profession effectively subject to the control of the state. Do you really want that? Ever heard of the Birmingham Six? Under your system they would not have been able to get proper independent representation-because the state would have control of th legal profession. Be careful what you wish for-you just might get it. And as far as I can see we're heading down that road apace.
Brain injury, fraud and doctors
I'm sorry no paragraphs, I've got a brain (and cervical spine) injury, I do the best I can but know it isn't good enough; perhaps I should sit around doing nothing instead of pushing myself and trying to do things that were easy before my injuries?
I'm sad people have fallen for government propaganda about people pretending to be disabled in order to get disability benefits, where is the evidence? As a disabled person with 'invisible' injures and disabilities (in other words hard for outsiders to see or understand) I know that even doctors haven't got a clue about acquired brain injury (ABI), fail to diagnose it correctly or in a timely fashion and usually decide (because there is no blood or outward sign of injury) that the strange and scary symptoms are 'anxiety' or 'depression'.
The DWP's work capability assessment fails to address many neurological problems, the doctors (or insurers) who wrote it and the government which contracted them should be blamed rather than Atos.
It worries me greatly that government is considering creating 'new specialist medical panels to support improvements in the diagnosis of whiplash' when they already provide doctors (the NHS) who should be doing just that already but don't. Who knows but maybe as many cases are missed (misdiagnosed as a purely 'psychiatric injury' by doctors as mine was) as are fraudulently claimed?
Someone I know who was an NHS nurse claimed against her Trust (helped by her union) for a slip on a wet floor (she bumped her knee) and received £30,000 (20 years ago, a lot of money then) because she 'might develop neurological problems' - she never did. Perhaps government might like to investigate the huge number of fraudulent claims by NHS staff for things like 'trips and falls' rather than targeting whiplash - or perhaps it wouldn't or it would already have done so; it must be an accepted 'perk' that low-paid staff use in great numbers to boost their wages and government is happy about this. Targeting fraud and waste within the NHS would save the NHS many millions.
The "paragraphs" comment was
The "paragraphs" comment was not a personal criticism, just an observation. When faced with a "block" of text, many people don't bother to try to read it. Sorry-just a fact of life. And naturally you should live your life as you choose-making comment founded on experience seems a good way.
Your comment is particularly appropriate as an answer to Kelly who seems to believe that solicitors connive with uninjured fraudsters to gain from insurers-and that solicitors should know the extent or non-existenc of an injury even when doctors cannot.
Kelly Matthews has been
Kelly Matthews has been posting on here for circa 12 months.
Her / his obsession with solicitors stems with having posted comments on an online blog against someone. The someone threatened legal action. The blog posters told the someone to get stuffed (to put it politely) and that he could never get their details etc.
Then a few months later, it transpired that the someone had obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order against the website, and found the IP addresses, and then against the internet providers and found real names and addresses. The someone did commence legal action and used a solicitor (a big city firm Legal 200, incidentally - not the High Street firms which Kelly Matthews usually attacks)
The someone lost his case. The someone would never have had a chance of taking the action, had he not had the benefit of legal representation through a CFA.
Hence Kelly Matthews' position which is that all litigation which could, or may lose, should be considered vexatious with (and this is a genuine post by Kelly) the claimant being imprisoned. Further the position that CFAs are abusive and (although I have never understood this) subsidised by the taxpayer.
Another person (in another context) posted about the Legal Ombudsman. It's all the same thing really - facets of the same coin. That poster referred to the "infant world". This is the world where Jack sat on the Mat, and the Happy Cat came and sat down too.
This is the world where the only claims brought are those which all parties agree should be brought. There are no abuses, there are no injustices. There are no defendants who are unfairly lose, no claimants who unfairly lose.
No client gets upset - because every client always gets what they want.
No opponent gets upset - because "justice" occurs, and the *RIGHT* (TM) answer is always found.
It's like when I try to explain about my job to my four year old daughter, and explain what a court is and what a judge does. The judge tell the naughty people off and makes sure everyone follows the rules.
The problem is, instead of telling these people to get real and grow up, we pander to them. And the result of pandering is monsters such as Leo and the Consumer Panel, the Legal Services Board, the LSC, the SRA, etc.
thanks
Many thanks DomCoop. I asked Kelly Matthews to declare his / her interest. Having read your post I now understand what underlines every posting he / she puts on here.
Every contribution hereafter from Kelly can be judged appropriately.
Full of sound and fury...
signifying... the usual.
Trying to paint Kelly as some sort of Utopian, along debating society lines, is futile. That is not what she is saying at all and I'm sure you know it.
Everyone (even the government) knows that there are clearly spurious claims for injuries and disabilities that cannot be medically verified. The level of such claims has risen in proportion to the population and yo the number of accidents over the years.
That is why the government are finally taking action. You claim that there was a fall last year for the first time in a long time - I haven't seen those staistics, but have they fallen back to reasonable proprortionate levels as in, say, 1960? No.
This isn a society where spongers understand every way to milk the system. One way is by overloading insurance companies with more claims than they can contest, with the expectation of an uncontested payout if the claim is below a certain level.
We all know that is happening, debating tactics aimed against posters' credibility will not alter peoples' perception of the legal system in any positive way (nor will having posts removed). The only real debate is not if the system should be changed, but how it should be changed.
Insurers
Chris -
Your defence of insurance companies (however unintended) in suggesting solicitors / "spongers" obtain payments by overloading them with more claims than they can contest is wildly misplaced. Having spent 20 years in the insurance industry I can tell you they have gained enormously from referral fees.
They are far better resourced than claimant solicitors. They are also cynical and calculating beyond belief (one department next to miine had a massive cebration in a local wine bar when a claimant died as the payout was a pittance ompared to if she had survived as a severely disabled individual.
I am so glad I have now retired and left the lot of them to it.
You are misunderstanding, as usual
I am not defending the insurance industry, intentionally or otherwise, I am defending their customers - high volumes of spurious claims affect premiums.
I also know the insurance industry very well and they are certainly not well resourced in dealing with whiplash. It's not only whiplash - every time there's a storm there are whole heap of claims at the "under £1,000" level from people who know that there won't be time to investigate them all.
Whiplash is simply one of the major factors and needs to be sorted out.
If you really understand the motor insurance industry then you would know that it pays out in claims approximately 105% of what it takes in in premiums when interest rates are at normal levels. Their profit margins are wafer-thin due to the competitive nature of the market.
Care to make a grab for any other straws?
Chris not sure who you are
Chris not sure who you are directing your utopian comment at. I am simply grateful I now understand the basis for almost every one of Kelly's posts now thanks to that explanation from DomCoop.
What?
Well I'm not sure who you are "ARG", but it doesn't really matter - the merits of an argument are all that matters in discussion. If somthing has happened in Kelly's life that leads to an interest in the issues under discussion here then... so what?
What she is saying is correct - that's all we need to know. Arguments are not refuted by scorn, you and Domcoop should be ashamed of yourselves.
ARG Hartlepool
ARG from Hartlepool
Almost the entire post from Domcoop is nonsense. He has basically picked up one or two facts from information and judgements I have posted about some libel cases some time ago and deliberately distorted and misrepresented my views and those of top High Court judges. His interpretation of the cases is laughable and his view on my involvement is completely incorrect. I have told him that I am willing to discuss the cases on the relevant forum but only when to reads and understands the judgements properly and debates them sensibly
And I have posted on many, many other articles if you read this site, so to suggest my posts are all connected to the above is again completely inaccurate.
He is right about one thing though - I have been here for a year and I think he resents my presence because I may have knocked him off his perch in terms of quality of debate and reasoned arguments - not that many posts he has made recently could be said to be reasonable.
Interesting he labels the organisations he has listed as 'monsters'. According to him, members of the public (such as myself) the media (especially the Daily Mail), the regulators, ombudsman and top judges are all wrong. He would have you believe that he and his often abusive, nit picking band of anonymous followers here are victims of a witchunt against the profession. In truth, it is more like he realises that his opinions are being picked apart day by day here and he is increasingly coming across as bitter and irrelevant.
To be honest, it does not concern me how you judge my posts. I suspect my views do not accord with the majority of solicitors who read this site. After all - why would they when my views support change and reform which are contrary to the financial interests of you all. I am just happy that the majority of the public, the media, the government, your regulators, the legal ombudsman and the judiciary seem to share many of my opinions.
Think you've been
Think you've been "outed"!
And Dom certainly doesn't come across as irrelevant.
I think you've been outed
Unable to make any headway on the factual/logical argument, you turn in desperation to the emotional and then to the derogatory. Shame.