When to involve solicitors after a collision?

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

Read it again spen.

I never even implied that the OP has staged the accident, so how is what I said possibly offensive to anyone other than the scammers who DO stage accidents? I'm certainly not equating the OP with a fraudster. Only you have done that. I was discussing why insurance premiums have gone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8597452.stm
http://tvnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/08 ... -rise.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation. There were up to 30,000 staged accidents in 2009. So it's a real and serious problem, as are the number of vexatious litigants.

And as many PI claims are for minor injuries, the defendant doesn't get it's costs back (small claims track), and therefore it's usually easier to pay than to fight. Ditto the costs of fully investigating the claim. So insurance companies never really know how many fraudulent claims there are, and many of the injuries claimed will have little or no outward signs.That's not to mention the ambulance chasers and cowboys, who know full well that that is the case and often text or call those who have been incolved in accidents to persuade them to cliam. Some of these practices are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.

I'm not sure that involving a solicitor in this case is necessary or not however somehow seeking to tar claims for conmpensation as false and a reason why "no win no fee" should be stopped is completely spurious.

After my accident which was completely the drivers fault (and he admitted fault early on) I didn't know where to turn to get cash for my written off bike and medication. The driver sais that he "could only afford a couple of hundred quid". I turned to RJW and they were brilliant.

As someone pointed out earlier, if I had been driving, the bill to his insurer would have been far higher as there would have been quantifiable costs and bills to pass on. Just because my body rather than a metal vehicle casing, why should I be compensated for someone's idiocy?

Not all claims for compensation are "spurious" - but they are increasing in volume and cost, even though accidents are going down. Why do you think that is? Because more people are getting injured (even with safer cars)? Or because more people are claiming when they previously wouldn't? Or when in fact they have no case but someone tells them they can get a few quid for no outlay to themselves. I mean, who would turn that down? what in fact these compensation cowboys do is undermine those who claim for legitimate and serious injuries, by making them feel part of the "compensation culture" when in fact they are not. It is not in anyones interest to encourage or allow spurious claims. Except the lawyers, of course!

The difference between a claim for damage and a claim for injury is that damage is easily quantified in money terms. A bike costs a set (and known) figure to replace. Bodily injury is valued on a much more loose system - because there is no "market" for bodily injury, and money cannot fix the injury itself. There is caselaw and guidelines but injury - of it'sefl - has no "value". The figure for compensation cannot be calculated in monetary terms intrinsically. So the compensation doesn't go directly to fixing the problem (I'm escluding cost of care and medicines here, which obviously do have a real and evident cost). Which begs the question - what is the purpose of paying the compensation? Is it to "feel better", and if so, is it effective? Or is it to punish the driver? In which case it's not particularly effective, because their insurance company pays. I don't think there is anyone who is seriously injured who would rather have the money than the injury. I'm not sure it's actually possible to adquately compensate someone for serious injury using cash. Equally I don't know what alternatives there are, short of seriously injuring the driver who caused the crash. Would that be preferable?

bails87

Can I just point out that I'm not offended!
thanks for defending my honour though
I don't see how my injuries would be worth more than £1000, I spent an hour and a half in a&e, had a couple of nights of disturbed sleep due to rolling over into bruises and at the moment I'd guess a week of no running, swimming or cycling. So that kind of rules out taking legal action, which I think would be unnecessary anyway...hence the question in the OP.

I'll see how it goes with the insurance company. And I've now joined BC so I've got my legal team ready and waiting for next time!

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

Read it again spen.

I never even implied that the OP has staged the accident, so how is what I said possibly offensive to anyone other than the scammers who DO stage accidents? I'm certainly not equating the OP with a fraudster. Only you have done that. I was discussing why insurance premiums have gone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8597452.stm
http://tvnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/08 ... -rise.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation. There were up to 30,000 staged accidents in 2009. So it's a real and serious problem, as are the number of vexatious litigants.

And as many PI claims are for minor injuries, the defendant doesn't get it's costs back (small claims track), and therefore it's usually easier to pay than to fight. Ditto the costs of fully investigating the claim. So insurance companies never really know how many fraudulent claims there are, and many of the injuries claimed will have little or no outward signs.That's not to mention the ambulance chasers and cowboys, who know full well that that is the case and often text or call those who have been incolved in accidents to persuade them to cliam. Some of these practices are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.

I'm not sure that involving a solicitor in this case is necessary or not however somehow seeking to tar claims for conmpensation as false and a reason why "no win no fee" should be stopped is completely spurious.

After my accident which was completely the drivers fault (and he admitted fault early on) I didn't know where to turn to get cash for my written off bike and medication. The driver sais that he "could only afford a couple of hundred quid". I turned to RJW and they were brilliant.

As someone pointed out earlier, if I had been driving, the bill to his insurer would have been far higher as there would have been quantifiable costs and bills to pass on. Just because my body rather than a metal vehicle casing, why should I be compensated for someone's idiocy?

Not all claims for compensation are "spurious" - but they are increasing in volume and cost, even though accidents are going down. Why do you think that is? Because more people are getting injured (even with safer cars)? Or because more people are claiming when they previously wouldn't? Or when in fact they have no case but someone tells them they can get a few quid for no outlay to themselves. I mean, who would turn that down? what in fact these compensation cowboys do is undermine those who claim for legitimate and serious injuries, by making them feel part of the "compensation culture" when in fact they are not. It is not in anyones interest to encourage or allow spurious claims. Except the lawyers, of course!

The difference between a claim for damage and a claim for injury is that damage is easily quantified in money terms. A bike costs a set (and known) figure to replace. Bodily injury is valued on a much more loose system - because there is no "market" for bodily injury, and money cannot fix the injury itself. There is caselaw and guidelines but injury - of it'sefl - has no "value". The figure for compensation cannot be calculated in monetary terms intrinsically. So the compensation doesn't go directly to fixing the problem (I'm escluding cost of care and medicines here, which obviously do have a real and evident cost). Which begs the question - what is the purpose of paying the compensation? Is it to "feel better", and if so, is it effective? Or is it to punish the driver? In which case it's not particularly effective, because their insurance company pays. I don't think there is anyone who is seriously injured who would rather have the money than the injury. I'm not sure it's actually possible to adquately compensate someone for serious injury using cash. Equally I don't know what alternatives there are, short of seriously injuring the driver who caused the crash. Would that be preferable?

I think the reason that there are more claims nowadays is that more people can actually afford to fight for compensation! If you're up against a major insurance company with its in house lawyers and know that you have to stump up front for your own lawyers (and possibly the insurance company's costs too) then the cost becomes potentially prohibititive.

I'm certainly not saying that people don't "have a go", but people have always done that with insurance claims. I've heard plently of stories of people being burgled and then inflating claims on their contents insurance, does that mean contents insurance should be abolished?

As to the purpose of compensation, I suppose its to recompense someone for the inconvenience and suffering caused but, certainly it's hard to quantify.

snailracer

Surely, personal injury claims are artificially low because the NHS is "free"? Which means the general taxpayer is subsidizing motoring.

dilemna

snailracer wrote:

Surely, personal injury claims are artificially low because the NHS is "free"? Which means the general taxpayer is subsidizing motoring.

In RTCs the NHS can recover it's costs via the claimant's personal injury claim as a co-claimant if you like, from the insurer of the party who is held to be liable for the collision invariably the moton. So the taxpayer does not subsidise motoring. However there are occasions where a moton is uninsured so the NHS cannot always recover their treatment costs. Also some people are private BUPA patients.

mybreakfastconsisted

dilemna wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Surely, personal injury claims are artificially low because the NHS is "free"? Which means the general taxpayer is subsidizing motoring.

In RTCs the NHS can recover it's costs via the claimant's personal injury claim as a co-claimant if you like, from the insurer of the party who is held to be liable for the collision invariably the moton. So the taxpayer does not subsidise motoring. However there are occasions where a moton is uninsured so the NHS cannot always recover their treatment costs. Also some people are private BUPA patients.

The last figures I saw showed that the cost of injuries and damage caused by uninsured drivers was £400 million a year. With the recession it's likely these costs will rise, it's estimated that in parts of London like Tottenham 1 in 8 cars on the road is uninsured.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

I think the reason that there are more claims nowadays is that more people can actually afford to fight for compensation! If you're up against a major insurance company with its in house lawyers and know that you have to stump up front for your own lawyers (and possibly the insurance company's costs too) then the cost becomes potentially prohibititive.

I'm certainly not saying that people don't "have a go", but people have always done that with insurance claims. I've heard plently of stories of people being burgled and then inflating claims on their contents insurance, does that mean contents insurance should be abolished?

As to the purpose of compensation, I suppose its to recompense someone for the inconvenience and suffering caused but, certainly it's hard to quantify.

Fair enough - I think it's because they are encouraged to, and as there is no risk, they do. On the insurer's part, they receive a claim, estimate the costs to defend are higher than the claim, know they will not get those costs back (win or lose) so payout because it's the cheaper option. And then we get into the vivicious circle we're in now, of ever spiralling costs, but with possible fewer victims (bearing in mind car safety and a reduced accident rate).

I'm not suggesting getting rid of insurance - but if the payouts for burglaries increased dramatically, and your premium rose 40%, wouldn't you begin to question why?

I understand the purpose of compensation, what I'm not sure about is how effective it is when it comes to minor bodily injury.

snailracer

dilemna wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Surely, personal injury claims are artificially low because the NHS is "free"? Which means the general taxpayer is subsidizing motoring.

In RTCs the NHS can recover it's costs via the claimant's personal injury claim as a co-claimant if you like, from the insurer of the party who is held to be liable for the collision invariably the moton. So the taxpayer does not subsidise motoring. However there are occasions where a moton is uninsured so the NHS cannot always recover their treatment costs. Also some people are private BUPA patients.

How often does that actually happen, though? AFAIK most accidents, even where there is injury, do not progress to the claims stage.
I thought BUPA treatment was very narrow in scope, for example do they even operate A&E's?

bails87

Just as a follow up to this, I had my injuries 'assessed' by a doctor a couple of weeks ago, still waiting to hear back from the insurance company about that.

But I had a cheque for all the bike damage, a frame inspection and a new helmet sent out two weeks after the collision. It seems they posted the cheque on the same day that I emailed them the list of damage. I didn't use any templates or anything, just a list of what was damaged along with scans of receipts and photos of the damage.

I haven't involved a solicitor, just dealt with it myself. I basically got a call from the driver's insurance company saying "our driver hit you, he admitted total fault. So send us a bill and we'll pay it". As well as the offer of physio and a medical examination/valuation of my injuries.

I also got a letter from HMRC or DWP. It seems that when a personal injury claim is made, they're notified and then they get in touch with the claimant and ask what NHS treatment you received, to claim it back off the insurance company.

turnerjohn

bails87 wrote:

Just as a follow up to this, I had my injuries 'assessed' by a doctor a couple of weeks ago, still waiting to hear back from the insurance company about that.

But I had a cheque for all the bike damage, a frame inspection and a new helmet sent out two weeks after the collision. It seems they posted the cheque on the same day that I emailed them the list of damage. I didn't use any templates or anything, just a list of what was damaged along with scans of receipts and photos of the damage.

I haven't involved a solicitor, just dealt with it myself. I basically got a call from the driver's insurance company saying "our driver hit you, he admitted total fault. So send us a bill and we'll pay it". As well as the offer of physio and a medical examination/valuation of my injuries.

I also got a letter from HMRC or DWP. It seems that when a personal injury claim is made, they're notified and then they get in touch with the claimant and ask what NHS treatment you received, to claim it back off the insurance company.

Glad to hear your not badly injuried...it could have been far worse !

I was hit a few years ago...very very similar to you...guy pulled out without looking, I had loads of witnesses and he admitted fault there to everyone; including the police. I was pretty badly smashed up (bike was totalled) and went to hospital for checks; knackered my AC shoulder joint (although luckily not broken). I went through his insurance who were great and paid for the bike / clothing etc... and for 8 cases of physio...all well and good but my shoulder is still not right (been told surgery is the only option and that may not sort it fully)...anyway insurance offered me "X" armount at the start...now knowing nothing about claims etc I left it till my second dose of physio...after which they increased the amount by a little but started to bug me with wanting to close the case down....as my shoulder was still not right I contacted C.T.C as I'm a member and get free legal advise and solicitor cover if needed. The solicitor had a few questions but they said the insurance amount wasn't enough and they took on the case....that was a year ago and still no resolution...partly due to the NHS loosing all my records !!!
Anyways its still ongoing due to my shoulder still being painful; wish really they would just get on with it and sort out the amounts; my point being that going via solicitors can be very long winded and time consuming; I've no gripe with the guy who hit me as he was a decent gent and a nice guy; its just with an ongoing injury I'll never know when / if it will heal up and thats the issue....luckily you seem to have come out of it ok !

nation

bails87 wrote:

I also got a letter from HMRC or DWP. It seems that when a personal injury claim is made, they're notified and then they get in touch with the claimant and ask what NHS treatment you received, to claim it back off the insurance company.

Was just about to post that this is what happens in these situations.

Also, regarding statistics about claims costs and rates, bear in mind that the whole system for low-value personal injury claims as a result of RTAs changed in April 2010, so you have to be very careful comparing recent stats with older.

The result has mostly been: compensation to the victim per claim is pretty much unchanged, legal costs per claim have been dramatically reduced, but the volume of claims is much higher relative to the number of accidents taking place. At least, that has been the experience of the insurer I work for.