Report comment

I recall when the Lord Chancellor appointed Lord Woolf, to review the rules of civil procedure with a view to improving access to justice.

The main purpose was for him to try and reduce the costs of litigation and removing unnecessary complexity.

Matters have since gone further when he started changes.

i also recall reading a shocking article around that time by an insurer, regrettably I cannot pinpoint it but their stance was simple, if people had accidents they would appreciate it more by giving the person who was injured gifts, so if a female had her arm taking off in an accident, don't worry about it, have a bunch of flowers on the other hand if you were a male have a box of chocolates. Seriously !

The whole purpose of the initial changes was for insurers to pass savings onto us, that is savings to us the joe public. I have never had a insurance premium go down in all the years I have had insurance the only time it has gone down is by me shopping around. How therefore does that show that the initial insurer is saving you money when the next year it increases? Ridiculous !

It is all well and good providing stats to MP's but I am not certainly being provided with any discounts on my insurance and I would be very surprised if anyone else has.

Because of these changes it is us the joe public who lose out if you a genuine claim.

The only time you know about fees is when you have an accident yourself.

The costs of you being represented due to these changes and the other potential changes will have a severe impact on the compensation you receive with deductions of success fees and ate premiums already, standard costs of which were initially paid by insurers but the shortfall has to be paid more by the joe public. So were is that actual saving to you from your insurers?

Whilst the insurance industry is trying to combat fraud, they need to look at their own due diligence on what checks they should carry out in trying to combat fraud, an innocent person could have an accident against their policyholder who is inspected of fraud and that poor person is wrapped up in prolonged investigations, my point is that the insurers need to be looked at what systems they have in place instead of prolonging matters out, increasing costs and be more open instead of blaming Solicitors.

The overriding objective is for parties to be on a equal footing, you ask an insurer on what basis they make such enquiries and the door is closed quickly in your face from a high majority with also due to data protection being thrown at you. You inform people that we provide information but regrettably you do not openly - does this not add to increasing the costs? Surely it must do !

Solicitors have seen a dramatic drop in their fees with numerous Courts being closed and a high hike in Court fees, which places extra burden hence why their clients need to pay success fees out of their damages. Limiting the compensation you receive and reducing Solicitor fees further, is only going to increase further charges to you being represented. You therefore lose out on what is offered to you before deductions.

We live in a society we have accidents , were human we pay insurance. That is what it's for taking it away from genuine people is an absolute disgrace when no benefits of savings have been provided thus far. It will be interesting to see what turnover these insurance companies have. Wake up