Report comment

Amongs all the hubris on both sides I think the fundamental question is not being answered. What should a compensatable injury be? Its a fact that amongst these islands there is a far greater percentage of people involved in RTAs ind England who make a claim than there is in Scotland. Its not because you are less likely to be involved in an accident, and its certainly not because there's a shortage of solicitors willing to get you compensation or 'justice'. Its more that people north of the border simply do see such instances as part of life. So again my question is, as someone also alluded to previously, should an accident that left you with a sore neck or back that you will recover from in a few weeks or months be compensatable? My view is unless it cause real and measurable suffering it shouldn't -but that then requires a change in legal principals that no government would want to touch.

So perhaps the best solution would have been the PI industry to police itself. Aboslutely, someone is in a motorway accident that leaves them in hospital because someone smacked into the back of them at 90 mph, get them the help they need. But by taking on cases such as where (and this is a genuine incident I witnessed) a taxi driver gets out a car laughing 'that'll pay for my wedding!' after a minor prang it not right, its not fair. And the greed of the worst PI lawyers thrived on these types of claims. Every opportunity to get more money from a clam they took it. They bought up CHOs, medical agencies, physotherapists. It was a transparent protection racket.

Pain is subjective, but it is surely wouldn't have been difficult to consider, whether an injury genuinely led to hardship and suffering? But now there will be arbitrary limits so that someone with an apparently more minor injury but which may have caused more suffering will lose out. PI Lawyers, you can blame the ABI you can blame HMG but this happened on your watch. You have no one to blame but yourselves.