Report comment

The difficulty is that the rules introduced with good intentions (see also the road to hell) have produced what were reasonably foreseeable outcomes.

The rules were poorly thought through and used an improper sledgehammer to crack a nut: this did little to root out fraud and in many ways has made it harder to detect and prosecute.

There will always be those who are less than honest and prepared to conduct malfeasance for return: this is not limited to the claimant sector and for those who suggest otherwise please google 'autofocus litigation'.

I have in recent months grown sick of reviewing files where defendants allege that the collision did not occur as the damage was inconsistent with their client's account and produce desktop reports which are as flaccid as a three day old croissant and about as much use as a Ladybird book. Note this is not to say that a proper forensic investigation report is likely to be germane and good evidence.

These folk and those firms that use them in volume and are willfully blind to the conduct should be intervened into and a prosecution follow: but do not tar the whole industry with the misconduct of a few.