Report comment

I can only speak for my own experience, but a few years ago I was working for a large claimant PI firm which took over the case load of another PI firm. The department I was in at the time was a mix of fast track and multi track, and cases came to us fairly organically, mostly local clients. Hardly any cases were fraudulent, although there were the occasional exceptions.

A lot (and probably the majority) of the cases from the other firm were the result of cold calling or similar, where people's details had been harvested by insurers, vehicle repairers etc.

There were notably more claims in that case load that were either fraudulent or at least suspect. They tended to melt away when the insurers challenged them.

However, the biggest impression I got was that a lot of the clients did have injuries, albeit generally minor ones, and they had been pressed into making claims when ordinarily they wouldn't have bothered. They tended to be fairly uninterested in their cases, and said they had only gone ahead because someone had called them up and told them making a claim would be worthwhile/easy/profitable etc.

I'm sure cold calling does bump up fraud, and I have no reason to doubt what people say about the dodgy practices surrounding credit hire and similar, but my strong impression is that the biggest effect of cold calling is in making those with genuine but minor claims go ahead when they would not have done so without encouragement.

RTAs provide a breeding ground for cold callers. Those involved in accidents give their details to insurers, garages, recovery companies etc almost immediately following a crash. That isn't so when someone has an accident at work, trips in the street, or has some other public liability mishap.

If claims were driven by fraud, you might expect that this would drive claims across the board. If someone wants to fake an injury, why not claim against their employer, or their local council? If anything, there is more in it for the CMCs and solicitors to encourage claims for EL and PL because costs are higher.

But while RTA claims have risen since 2004 (when referral fees were first allowed, and hence when CMCs started making serious money), EL and PL claims have remained flat.

The CRU figures for claims notified to insurers are:

RTA
2000-1 - 401,757
2003-4 - 374,761 (pre-2004 minimum)
2012-13 - 1,048,309 (the peak)
2015-16 - 981,324

EL
2000-1 - 219,183
2003-4 - 291,210
2012-13 - 91,115
2015-16 - 86,495

PL
2000-1 - 95,183
2003-4 - 91,453
2012-13 - 102,984
2015-16 - 92,709

That is why the cold calling issue is so important. Whether it causes fraudulent claims or genuine but reluctant claims, cold calling is overwhelmingly a feature of RTA PI. The £1,000 small claims limit, the availability of legal advice paid for by the defendant, and the level of available damages has done nothing to change the overall landscape of PI in other areas. There has been no boom in claims numbers due to any laxity in the system, and apparently no boom in fraud in EL or PL.

What makes RTA different? Cold calling and referral arrangements. If the aim is to reduce RTA claims in general (rather than simply to reduce RTA fraud), APIL's targeting of cold calling targets the right thing.