Report comment

Anon @09.51
You question "why a hearing is needed".

I would have thought being able to hear the evidence and determine whether the case meets the thresholds for granting PAD would be a good enough reason. But obviously not. Presumably a certificate by the CMC / Credit Hire Company / Claims Handler saying "gizzus the £500 lad" is an adequate substitute for a reasoned decision of a judge after a contested inter-partes hearing.

Incidentally why do you assume that I: a) have never dealt with insurance companies; and b) have an axe to grind with PI lawyers?

I do actually act for claimants in personal injury matters. I have no problem with PI lawyers, apart from those who run / own the CMC outfits and factory firms that caused this mess in the first place.

Apparently, according to the comments above, this is all down to a conspiracy between evil tory lapdogs and their ABI insurance paymasters to make more profits for insurers. Why then, are there no restrictions being proposed on other types of claims? Insurers would make billions if, say, they didn't have to pay out on burglary claims under £1,000; or if the limitation period for property damage claims was reduced to six months; or if there were a cap on all claims of £50,000.

But those things aren't hapenning and are never going to happen because most honest ordinary people have no problem with paying for insurance to stop burglaries, etc.

Most people, however, do have a problem with paying insurance for somebody who bruised their finger in a rear end shunt getting £1,500 and six courses of physiotherapy.