Report comment

I agree with Dominic Cooper at 00.41 GMT 12 December 2017.
As a locum I've worked in a number of firms where corners are cut and CNFs are not sent out to clients in advance of being sent in the Portal to third party insurers.
I don't think, though, that Claimant's solicitors can be criticised for the simple fact of "signing" the statement of truth on the CNF as with all Portal claims there is no "signing" as such as the form is sent electronically, provided that they have gone down the proper route of sending a draft to the client and then getting formal confirmation that the contents are agreed.
The Dominic Cooper example of one PI firm running portal claims "from eight cousins of the same family who got crashed into by five different Latvian builders on different occasions at 3.30am all driving the same car, and all insured with the same insurer" is not too far removed from what sometimes happens in the real world with those firms who I know are already in the target sights of insurers and their panel fraud solicitors. Those firms may have turned a blind eye to multiple claims or even been complicit in them and it is those firms who will get caught out or find all of their clients' claims are rated as suspicious from the outset.
That is why I think the whole issue of fraud and redrafting rules and regulations so that genuine Claimants do not recover compensation for genuine injuries is unwarranted. An insurer and its chosen fraud solicitors already have the tools at their disposal to uncover these dishonest claims and take all necessary steps to firstly not pay out and secondly bring contempt proceedings.