Report comment

Anon at 1:44 - you can't even recognise your own typos. Surely, 'thin' should read 'thing'?

In terms of your actual argument, the hallmarks of a fraudulent claim usually resemble those of a genuine claim. For example, a 'slam on' at the entrance of a roundabout will result in rear end vehicle damage. A genuine hit in the rear accident at the entrance to a roundabout would result in the same damage. Allegations of non-occupancy are largely one-word-against-another, why should the claimant solicitor put the word of the defendant ahead of his client's? In relation to LVI claims, it's not my place to judge my client as a liar or exgerrator - I'm not qualified to make such a judgment.

Your argument that solicitors connive with claimants to pursue fraudulent claims is rubbish. What possible benefit is there to pursuing an obviously fraudulent claim to trial only to have the claim dismissed and significant WIP written-off?