Injury claim referral fees to be banned
Discussion
Be mindful that this won't automatically reduce premiums by £100's, it's just one factor amongst many reasons why premiums are high at the moment.
But I suppose the government had to do something so that it didn't look like they're sitting on their hands.
We won't know the full affect for another year or two though.
But I suppose the government had to do something so that it didn't look like they're sitting on their hands.
We won't know the full affect for another year or two though.
funkyrobot said:
Isn't this a bit of meager step? How about properly addressing the disgusting compensation culture that has arisen which directly affects insurance premiums.
That is something that would have an impact on premiums, no party is innocent ATM policyholder,insurers,body repairers etc etc all have a responsibility.Creating new laws and banning things won't solve the problem there needs to be a change in the way people think, there has to be a social change.
It will help but capping hire car costs needs to happen.
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
Cap hire cars at £100 per day. If they know it will take weeks then hire car costs should come down (say a cap of c£400 per week). Insurers will work with hire car companies so can get discounts etc...
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
Cap hire cars at £100 per day. If they know it will take weeks then hire car costs should come down (say a cap of c£400 per week). Insurers will work with hire car companies so can get discounts etc...
Dracoro said:
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
.
But why should someone who has a nice car lose out if someone else crashes into them? .
If we could stamp down hard on false injury claims that would be a start IMHO. Jailing anyone who fraudulently claims for an injury they don't have would help...
Putting pressure on the courts to stop dishing out stupid sums of money for ludicrous claims...
Jasandjules said:
Dracoro said:
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
.
But why should someone who has a nice car lose out if someone else crashes into them? .
h, why can't they just move on. It's only temporary after all. A decent hatch/saloon is NOT hardship. If they want like-for-like, they pay for it (or get extra cover that THEIR insurance pays for).Dracoro said:
It will help but capping hire car costs needs to happen.
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
Cap hire cars at £100 per day. If they know it will take weeks then hire car costs should come down (say a cap of c£400 per week). Insurers will work with hire car companies so can get discounts etc...
This is a good point. I've seen hire car charges well in excess of a hundred thousand pounds. There needs to be a way of speeding up claims to stop charges like this from escalating. How insurers (and they're the ones at fault) allow the credit hire industry to persist is beyond belief.Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
Cap hire cars at £100 per day. If they know it will take weeks then hire car costs should come down (say a cap of c£400 per week). Insurers will work with hire car companies so can get discounts etc...
Very, very often an insurer will pay hire car charges substantially in excess of the value of the vehicle covered while waiting for repairs to be effected.
Jasandjules said:
But why should someone who has a nice car lose out if someone else crashes into them?
If we could stamp down hard on false injury claims that would be a start IMHO. Jailing anyone who fraudulently claims for an injury they don't have would help...
Putting pressure on the courts to stop dishing out stupid sums of money for ludicrous claims...
Although that sounds nice its impossible. There is no objective evidence of a whiplash that can't be easily simulated by a patient, its all subjective.If we could stamp down hard on false injury claims that would be a start IMHO. Jailing anyone who fraudulently claims for an injury they don't have would help...
Putting pressure on the courts to stop dishing out stupid sums of money for ludicrous claims...
In fact they don't even have to simulate it as its pretty much the norm after an accident. Your proposal would only work if there was an objective test, or if you got together as lawyers and actually stopped trying to claim for any sort of muscle injury no matter how long the patient claimed they were disabled by it. Removing the money from the situation is the only way of removing the lying.
The lying is evident to me as in fifteen years I have seen thousands of people claiming severe neck pain after an accident, that goes on for months. In all that time I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen a patient after the court case, or a patient who admitted to having whiplash and being the cause of the accident.
More recently I am getting people who I suspect may have been coached. A few end up admitting they have been told to come and see the doctor after pretty blatantly leading questions from solicitors. They spew out the answers sometimes without even being asked the questions.
As your previous comment about the cars suggest you consider there is always someone at fault in an accident and that person should pay his way, I think you comments are contradictory, as you encourage the concept of where theres blame theres a claim, and want to reply on doctors to do an impossible task of diagnosing fraud when the symptoms are totally subjective.
julian64 said:
There is no objective evidence of a whiplash that can't be easily simulated by a patient, its all subjective.
I'd go so far as to agree with a guy I knew who was a (very highly regarded) osteopathic surgeon who reckone most whiplash claims are bks - given out by GPs in a similar vein to sick notes.For my own sins and stupidity in motorsport I've been in two crashes, one of which the marshalls took 5 to 10 minures before deciding whether they could/should try to extract me from the car, the other of which totalled the front end of the car (head -on into a tyre wall) and in neither case was there any whiplash, even though other injuries (shoulder) were sustained in the latter.
More recently, I did this:
...to my shoulder in a downhill mtb accident. The impact was shared between the shoulder and the side of my head. No damage to neck, whatsoever.
Dracoro said:
I
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
Because I don't want to drive tin can while I am paying for a depreciating performance car and the associated high insurance costs.Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
I have heard of cases where it takes 3+ months to get the car back. I would find it unacceptable to drive around in a piece of crap for that long.
On the other hand, they are welcome to cover my depreciation while it's in the shop as well put me in something to drive, even if it is rubbish. I will also take some money to cover the reduced insurance premiums that would result from driving a car that is a lower insurance risk for that long.
I even pay extra on my insurance to have a car similar to mine even if the RTC is my fauly as a courtesy car.
sinizter said:
Because I don't want to drive tin can while I am paying for a depreciating performance car and the associated high insurance costs.
But you don't want rising insurance costs right? The reason you have high insurance costs is because you want a performance car replacement at £XXX per day. Do you want to be part of the problem or the solution?Besides, driving a Golf/Insignia/3series/e-class is NOT driving a tin-can, get over yourself. It may take a few weeks (normally not) to get the car sorted. If they know it's going to take months, they should know this EARLY on, plenty of time to sort a much better hire car loan agreement, NOT continuing on this silly daily rate for 3 months.
Personally I will just be glad to get the PI chasers out of the game as far as possible.
The man on the street usually knows little of the difference between a proper Solicitor dealing with numerous complex matters and the 1,000’s of parasitic scum who are not solicitors, or who are headed by one or two bad apples, and tarnish the name of all others.
If only they would move back to making Residential Conveyancing a reserved area as well, with a set scale of fees mandated by the SRA if needs be then we will clear out a raft of deadwood who couldn’t tell a restrictive covenant from a positive one. Many of these people have no idea what they are doing if it moves even an inch off script and often those who do know what they are doing have to effectively take over the other parties job for them to make sure that the deal works. Yet the bucket shops survive because most people have no idea of the legal time bombs they have bought, think that they have had a great deal when all the add ons mean that the reality is they only paid £100 or so less than if they had someone who knew what they were doing and think that the agent recommended X Conveyancers limited because they are the people for the job, not because they pay the agent a £225+vat kick back.
And breath
The man on the street usually knows little of the difference between a proper Solicitor dealing with numerous complex matters and the 1,000’s of parasitic scum who are not solicitors, or who are headed by one or two bad apples, and tarnish the name of all others.
If only they would move back to making Residential Conveyancing a reserved area as well, with a set scale of fees mandated by the SRA if needs be then we will clear out a raft of deadwood who couldn’t tell a restrictive covenant from a positive one. Many of these people have no idea what they are doing if it moves even an inch off script and often those who do know what they are doing have to effectively take over the other parties job for them to make sure that the deal works. Yet the bucket shops survive because most people have no idea of the legal time bombs they have bought, think that they have had a great deal when all the add ons mean that the reality is they only paid £100 or so less than if they had someone who knew what they were doing and think that the agent recommended X Conveyancers limited because they are the people for the job, not because they pay the agent a £225+vat kick back.
And breath
Dracoro said:
Jasandjules said:
Dracoro said:
Yes I know you're used to driving your Aston/etc. but there's no NEED to have a 911 at ££££s per day whilst it takes weeks to get that rare part sorted.
.
But why should someone who has a nice car lose out if someone else crashes into them? .
h, why can't they just move on. It's only temporary after all. A decent hatch/saloon is NOT hardship. If they want like-for-like, they pay for it (or get extra cover that THEIR insurance pays for).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff