Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

@ Anon 08:36.

Agreed. And from what I found out the PI industry is a particularly odd one with three formats; legitimate claimants, opportunistic fraudsters and “organised” fraudsters. Trying to tell one from t’other in soft tissue claims is pretty much impossible, therefore a prime target for fraudsters and opportunists. All said, I do not believe PI claims are as ‘rife’ with fraud as many insurers will claim.

And I hope no individual on here takes this as any personal criticism, but I have often read comments here where things are alleged or inferred, and another reader asks for references or evidence to be cited or provided; what I am not seeing is conclusive evidence that the government are “In the hands of their insurance paymasters”. This, to me, seems unhelpful, dismissive and divisive, when I believe better cooperation could have helped prevent LASPO in the first place or, at least, kept the govt out of the hands of insurance paymasters.

To make myself very unpopular, I also have to agree with insurance man, albeit differently phrased; there does seem to be a sense of entitlement where people are unhurt in an RTC. I’d challenge most people who know someone who has been involved in a low velocity RTC where they have been at fault, and not believed a subsequent PI claim to be dishonest.

Dishonest people and soft tissue injuries that cannot be “proved” make the who situation a matter of opinion as there is no way to accurately measure legitimate and false claims. And my opinion is that the lack of ability to measure is what has led to RTA Law being exploited but, by how many, is anyone’s guess.

Your details

Cancel