Report comment

I'm going to break the cycle of this thread and not click the anonymous option. I realise that some have to do this because their views might not correspond with those of their firms or their clients but surely not all ? Anonymity is not the issue but it would probably aid the debate if people were to put their names to their respective arguments.

Anyway, HDR = housing disrepair.

As regard the "debate" generally, this should never have been about fat cat ambulance chasers -v- tight fisted mendacious insurers (and their solicitors). Both sides have their respective interests and opinions and whilst we probably won't agree / concede much on either side, we can at least respect that both side is entitled to be heard. That is where the problem lies. Here we have major reforms on the horizon and these are not the result of debate or consultation of any kind. They follow one side ie the side of the insurance company. I'm sure that I will now receiving an unprecedented number of thumbs down from that side of the divide but the fact is, they have had their say and they have been given all that they have sought. On the Claimant side of the divide, we have made a good case against the proposed changes (I won't repeat them here) but these have been seemingly ignored. That is the unfairness which has prevailed throughout the process over the last couple of years.

So whilst insurers will maintain that they are right and anyone who dares oppose their views are just plain greedy, they should (if they had any shred of understanding of the concept of fairness) concede that this was an unfair fight.

Bottom line is that we are now facing major changes. There is no more to "debate".