Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I don't buy the idea that anything like the majority of whiplashes are bogus, as Anon 02:46 implies. I don't deal with bulk RTA or referral arrangements so I appreciate I haven't worked in the kinds of areas perhaps most exposed to abuse, but after getting on for 20 years in general PI I can still count the number of outright bogus claims I have seen in single figures.

But as others have suggested, these proposed reforms don't really solve anything. Somebody who sets out to make a bogus claim is more likely to be able to comply with these extra rules; a lot of people with genuine whiplashes will sit things out, won't go to the doctor unless the pain hasn't gone away, and partly due to the 'compensation culture' image are often the sort of people who won't want to make a fuss by claiming unless the injury proves to be quite long lasting.

There is an issue about people being encouraged to make claims, and anyone who has done PI will have heard anecdotally about accident victims being made to feel almost as if it is more trouble not to make a claim, even for a trivial injury.

I don't claim any great insider knowledge, but I had a look at the statistics for claims, and in particular the timing of the increase in the number of claims - http://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/cold-calling-insurers-and-the-compensation-culture - see in particular the graph for the numbers of RTA and non-RTA claims over the years.

There has been a fairly big increase in RTA claims since 2004 when referral fees were first allowed. There has been no significant rise in non-RTA cases, which begs a few questions.

If RTA whiplash claims are being driven by fraudulent claimants deciding to make bogus claims, why isn't it happening in non-RTA claims too? Surely a soft tissue injury like a twisted ankle or a shoulder strain - or even a whiplash - is as easy to fake in a workplace claim as in an RTA?

If it's no win-no fee lawyers encouraging people into risk-free litigation, why is it only happening in motor claims? Especially before 2013 solicitors used to make more money from non-RTA cases in the fast track, wasn't this the more lucrative gravy train to climb on board?

If whiplash claims are too high, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have (although not one I would necessarily share). But it seems to me that assuming the fault lies with rapacious claimants, fibbing our beloved insurance industry into oblivion, misses the point.

People don't seem to be inventing claims in other areas of law, as defendant insurers believe they are in RTA, so there doesn't seem to be any sort of ingrained dishonesty about the British public.

Solicitors advertise and promote themselves to RTA victims and non-RTA victims alike. The only difference seems to me to be the claims farming and third party capture-type activities that go on when the insurers, repair shops etc get their hands on the details of the parties involved.

Of course it needs a client solicitor to take these cases, but it seems to me that far more could be done by the defendant insurers putting their own house in order. Making claiming harder does nothing to do that, and will harm far more genuine claimants than it will hinder fraudsters.

Your details

Cancel