PM’s ‘summit’ on whiplash excludes legal profession
Prime Minister David Cameron has been accused of sidelining the legal profession in talks about dealing with whiplash cases.
Cameron met with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and leading insurance firms on Tuesday for a much-publicised ‘summit’ over the rising cost of car insurance.
The prime minister made it clear that a ‘damaging compensation culture’ has been responsible for pushing up premiums and said he wanted to reduce the 1,500 daily whiplash claims.
But despite a letter from the Law Society in January calling for engagement with the profession, only insurers and government ministers attended the summit.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘We wrote to the prime minister over a month ago, but it is disappointing that our offer to work with him and his government in addressing public concerns over whiplash claims has been ignored.
‘There are many options to address, from government, opposition, and others, which need proper consideration. Government should not be limiting itself to tea and cakes with one partisan set of stakeholders - the insurers.’
In a press notice ahead of the meeting, Downing Street said whiplash is costing the insurance industry £2bn a year, a figure quoted directly from the ABI.
Following the meeting, Cameron said the insurance industry had committed to adjust premiums to reflect any reductions in legal costs created through the Jackson reforms of civil litigation.
The government vowed to reduce the current £1,200 fee that lawyers can earn from small value personal injury claims - with insurers again promising to pass savings onto customers.
On whiplash, there are plans to raise the threshold for accidents through a minimum speed requirement and to require improved medical evidence of injuries following an accident. However, there were no details released, with Downing Street simply predicting progress ‘in the coming months’.
Cameron added: ‘The insurance industry plays such an important part in all our lives - it is there to help when we are at our most vulnerable and at greatest need. But I want to ensure that we all do what we can to help people through this difficult time.’
Comments
‘The insurance industry plays
‘The insurance industry plays such an important part in all our lives - it is there to help when we are at our most vulnerable and at greatest need"
Really, I'd laugh if the consequences of his actions weren't so serious.
So the Law Society, our
So the Law Society, our "representative" body, is so effective it isn't even invited to discuss legal matters.
The Society is totally pathetic, and it is unsurprising it is treated with such contempt.
Insurance donations
Remind us again how much has the insurance industry donated to the Conservative party since 2010?
Compensation culture or outright fraud culture?
"He made it clear that a ‘damaging compensation culture’ has been responsible for pushing up premiums and said he wanted to reduce the 1,500 whiplash claims lodged daily"
Interesting - is this the same compensation culture that Mr Hudson claims does not exist? Perhaps he is right though - I prefer to use the term 'outright mass fraud' to describe this behaviour. After all - fraud is the word used to describe trying to obtain something which you are not entitled to.
.........................
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/news/view=newsarticle.law?NEWSID=442398
Law Society slams insurance industry report
Monday 05 September 2011
The Law Society has stated that claims the country is in the grip of a 'compensation culture' are a myth.
.........................
Anyway - perhaps he did not receive an invitation because he and the legal profession are considered part of the problem rather than the solution. Quite funny too - Hudson rebuffed by the Information Commisioners Office recently on another matter and now the Prime Minister. Who next I wonder.
He had better pull his socks up and shape up his attitude. Times are changing.
Yep, the same 'compensation
Yep, the same 'compensation culture' that gov advisors Young, Jackson and Loefstedt found no evidence of either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-if-only-we-did-have-a-compensation-culture-6145049.html
I thought the law was there
I thought the law was there to help us when we are vulnerable and at greatest need.
Compensation Culture
Well, it is an interesting debate I guess. What is a compensation culture? How widespread does such behaviour in society have to be for it to be fairly categorised as a 'culture'.
The Prime Minster has also been talking about the 'drinking culture' in this country. Whether you agree with that description or not, I suspect would largely depend on your experience or interests. I guess any doctor in an A and E Dept would probably describe it as such. Wetherpoons would probably beg to differ.
The ABI which represents insurers, which insures nearly all of us in some way have referred to the compensation culture. I guess they would be in a position to know although I accept they are hardly going to be neutral in any debate. On the other hand, The Law Society deny it exists at all - perhaps because it is sensitive to accusations that some of its members sponsor weak or false compensation claims.
Could it be that this less than constructive attitude is the reason The Law Society did not receive an invitation to the talks?
Where is the evidence for the Law Society to make a statement that the culture does not exist? Do they have facts and figures to support this?
With the Government's own
With the Government's own advisor concluding that the compensation culture is a 'myth rather than reality' surely the onus shifts to them to justify why they are proposing changes which will affect the ability of genuine claimant's to seek redress for injury - while at the same time handing a windfall to the insurers.
Of course the ABI will say a culture exists - how else will they stir up the press and lobby the government to make changes if they didn't?
Insurers and lawyers are both
Insurers and lawyers are both impartial in the debate. When it has been looked at indepedently it has been determined there is no such "compensation culture". The insurers claims there is, despite government advisers claiming the opposite, yet they are invited, the Law Society position mirrors that of the independent advisors, yet they are not invited. I can't see how mirroring the position of the government advisers can be described as a "less than constructive attitude" to justify their exclusion.
Look at the links posted above for the links to the impartial reviews which showed it does not exist.
You do not make any request for insurers to prove it does exist, but instead ask the Law Society to prove a negative.
Solicitors - useful role to play?
This is an extract of the reaction to the ABI report by the Law Society.
...........................
Monday 05 September 2011
The Law Society has stated that claims the country is in the grip of a 'compensation culture' are a myth.
The Society is responding to a report from the ABI (Association of British Insurers) that said Britain has a 'have a go' compensation culture.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said today's report by the ABI pumps up the myth about a so-called 'compensation culture' and is entirely self serving to the insurance industry:
'While we agree with the ABI's report that there can always be improvements to the system – and we believe in particular that claims management companies have no useful role to play in the system.
...............................
So, did the LS comment in such a way because it fundamentally disagreed with the report - or was it because it thought its own interests would be damaged if the report was accepted as well researched and substantially correct?.
Well, you may well be mistaken for thinking that The Law Society had honourable intentions and were merely concerned about genuine claims not being paid out.
Until of course when we read this bit again......
"and we believe in particular that claims management companies have no useful role to play in the system"
So they take a swipe at the insurance industry and at the same time take the opportunity to agree on the parts of the article which are financially beneficial to them. CMCs have 'no useful part to play' according to the LS because, lets face it - they are competitors. Perhaps CMCs could quite easily say that solicitors have no useful part to play because they are far too expensive and no more effective than them in pursuing insurance claims.
CMCs can't pursue it without
CMCs can't pursue it without solicitors, they are just middlemen.
Once again, that compensation culture is a myth is accepted by independent review.
Insurance prices won't come down, there will just be different excuses for why they go up.
Kelly, have a read of the
Kelly, have a read of the preface to Young's report, that of Jackson and that of Loftestedt.
They are neither PI lawyers (in fact they have a profound distaste for them) nor are they insurers (though they were extensively lobbied and 'aided' by the insurers in compiling their reports. All conclude compo culture a myth.
Yet, you prefer to quote the Association of British Insurers?
CMCs
David
The article I highlighted mentioned CMCs in general terms. CMCs might be middlemen in relation to certain types of claims, but in a whole range of insurance claims and disputes they act completely without solicitors.
This article is not about
This article is not about CMC's it's about the Govt having tea and biscuits with big business (that has paid them £5m + post election) while completely ignorning those that represent injured individuals who will be losing out.
Should donations entitle the insurers favour? Of course it shouldn't but when you can do it under a hyperbole of fighting mythical fraudulent claims holding us to ransom c/w compensation culture -and the PM pretending to be helping out families with their insurance bill - then what does that matter.
Cameron is a crook, all he
Cameron is a crook, all he wants to do is look after the Eton boys and screw the country while lining his own filthy pockets.
Democratic BigSociety
And so far we were thinking it is a democratic system wherein Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and Press all work to achieve public good. Rule of law is there to secure freedoms, representation, equality, and justice. Never mind jury is out on this one too.
Reduced premiums, I should Cocoa
Jack Straws Bill attempts to do away with whiplash injury claims, whiplash it is a myth according to him. So too is the "compensation culture", a glib phrase that trips lightly off the tongue and loved by the Press as it suggests something for nothing.
The saving of £2bn to the insurance industry will reduce car insurance premiums at a stroke, pull the other one.....profits will increase. Any one for lobbying......
Get insurers to put their money where their mouth is!
The number crunchers employed by insurers must have some idea of the cost implications with all these proposals in order to look at contingency planning, so let's just assume for one moment that a moderate saving of £500m could be made by taking out referral fees and whiplash injuries; what reduction in insurance premiums would this lead to (no ifs or buts)?
Until insurers start to be open and give indications as to premium reductions no one will believe anything they have to say; could insurers become the new bankers or are they already there?
It has been said (by Jack Straw I think) that whiplash claims should be assessed by medical experts not instructed by claimants; is he suggesting that all claiment medical experts that advise on whiplash claims have been acting improperly (failing in their overriding duty to the court), and if they have, why haven't they been reported to their regulators?
Mr Straw seems to relish name calling lawyers, claims farmers and GPs who work on the opposite side to the one he is on, but has he actually followed up his supposed concerns with regulators so appropriate action can be taken?
Insurance premium savings
I used to work for an insurer a long time ago and although not involved in underwriting I heard a few stories about how they rate premiums for car drivers.
A person's occupation is quite a big factor. I heard that fisherman are the highest risk rated because they have been known to have accidents when they return from long spells at sea and have difficulty getting used to driving again.
Anyway one day I had an 'in touch day with the company underwriter. I sat their looking at the various loadings and noted that solicitors and teachers were high too.
I asked the underwriter what risks factors caused this. He answered that it was not so much risk based on car driving but because more people from these occupations are known as 'serial whingers and complainers' and often tie up alot of resources in dealing with their complaints.
So, stop whinging folks and you may get a slice of that 2 billion after all.
Fighting for your rights!
Insurers that put up a fight when dealing with claims should not complain (by imposing higher premiums) when they come across a sector of society that is able/willing to fight back; are you seriously suggesting that premiums would come down in return for people giving up their right to be heard?
These are the same insurers that have just been fined £millions for forging signatures on documents sent to the FOS; I wonder how much premiums could have been reduced by if they hadn't had to pay such fines?
Lots of talk about whiplash
Lots of talk about whiplash as though that is all it will have an impact on. The changes will mean if someone is drunk and crashes into you and breaks your back, you will get less compensation (one way cost shifting). If your child is knocked off their bike by someone on a phone and has to have a limb amputated, they will get less compensation (one way cost shifting). The insurers for the person who caused it will get to keep more money. But it is a lot easier to sell it when you imply that it will only affect whiplash.
Double standards.
Anon - 16:11pm
My previous post was partly humour as most would have appreciated.
However, you say that insurers should not complain when they come across people willing to fight them. I suppose that rather depends on whether the people picking that fight are insurance fraudsters or not. I think they have every right to complain when many people, including some within your profession, regard insurance fraud as 'fair game'.
You then point to wrongdoing on complaint cases sent to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the fines imposed as a reason for premiums not going down.
Perhaps with all that considered, your chief, Mr Hudson might set an example in future by not wasting £150,000 of your money to shut down consumer websites which complain about the legal profession. And if you want examples of wrongdoing on a mass scale look no further than the disciplinary decision section on the Solicitors Regulation Authority website. But I suppose the numerous legal offenders listed there will simply absorb their fines and would not dream of passing those on to their long suffering clients.
DON'T ASSUME....!
Who said I was a solicitor (I am not), and Mr Hudson is not my Chief; aren't others with an interest in the debate also able to contribute without being labelled as being on one side or another?
I don't like double standards any more than you do but you can't use this as a reason for maintaining the status quo!
Disciplinary decisions
In fact, Kelly, most of the people whose names appear in the disciplinary section of the SRA website will struggle to continue practising. A conviction in front of the SDT usually makes it very difficult for a solicitor to find employment or affordable professional indemnity insurance cover. The fine and/or any costs order may well result in the solicitor being bankrupted. Even if the SDT does not impose conditions on the solicitor's practising certificate, the SRA may well do so in the light of the conviction before the SDT. Again, that will damage employment prospects and have an adverse effect from the insurance point of view. If you think these solicitors simply get fined, walk away and continue glittering careers, you're mistaken. Unlike defendants in criminal prosecutions, they will not get legal aid to pursue any appeal and, in any event, appealing tends to be pointless, because even a successful appeal rarely results in a costs order against the SRA: in other words, appealing (even if the solicitor has good grounds to do so) can be financially disastrous for the solicitor.
Your point about suing Kordowski is a valid one. Wasting money on that exercise demonstrated a lack of judgment on the part of the Society. The Society can now reflect upon whether the funds which it wasted on that (which were presumably derived from practising certificate fees) could have been better spent helping both the profession and the public by challenging mortgage lenders' attempts to restrict a consumer's freedom to choose his own solicitor.