Report comment

It always intrigues me when claimant lawyers, or others with a vested interest, claim that the compensation culture is a myth. Such claims are normally 'backed up' by reference to statistics of fraud. But why would any intelligent person place any reliance on such statistics? Surely those are only the cases that get rejected or proven as fraud? All those claims where there was a genuine collision, but the Claimant either fabricates or exaggerates his or her injury, will inevitably sail through with a payout, and end up in the 'non-fraud' column.

I make these comments as someone who has been involved in the medical reporting side of this industry for many years, and have seen countless reports on people claiming months of symptoms following the most innocuous of accidents, (especially from claimants in certain geographical locations). Of course there are genuine claimants, but Joe Public knows accident=claim=compo, and this has been exploited by many in this industry for years (we're not the whiplash capital of Europe for nothing). The people that deny this is the case are always those with an interest to protect.