Report comment

13:54 the Haven issue precisely illustrates the need for claimants to receive advice and support.

Haven thought they could ignore the involvement of solicitors and they only possible conclusion is that they did so to reduce the bill to them. There was no altruistic motive here. This is despite them being on notice. I recall Quinn and other insurers doing the same 10 or so years ago.

So, an insurer tramples all over the process yet it is used as evidence that removing lawyers is a good thing. Hmmmm.

Then consider the standard defences trotted out by all and sundry. Look at the amounts of times the most minor inconsistency leads to allegations of fraud. That will just ramp up to be used in most claims where someone does not go to their GP.

Look at the actions of insurers claiming between themselves in respect of repair costs. Look at how they squeeze repair costs, defendant solicitors and pretty much everyone else. Look at insurers being claims farmers/CMCs in their own right yet arguing that these are bad things. Hypocrisy in action. Look at how renewal premiums are several £100s above what you can get cover for elsewhere.

The problem is that the insurers have generally shown themselves to be as dishonest as some claimants are supposed to be. I could name some claims handlers I have dealt with who have the highest integrity and that in turn reflects the principles of their employers, but these are very much the exception.

If there was a cast iron guarantee that claimants could get what they deserved without legal representation then I'd support it.