Plans for the Legal Ombudsman to handle complaints about claims management companies will benefit consumers and the legal profession, according to the chief ombudsman.

Proposals to bring complaints about claims management into the scheme’s remit were confirmed at this week’s meeting of the Office for Legal Complaints. Earlier this year, LeO and the Ministry of Justice, which regulates claims management companies, signed an understanding to share information on any breaches of existing rules.

Chief ombudsman Adam Sampson, blogging on the LeO website, said the plans had almost unanimous support from across the legal sector.

He said: ‘For consumers, we are offering the promise of wider access to redress. For the profession, an equalising of the playing field.’ He also said the operating cost of his organisation would be shared more widely. As part of the memorandum of understanding, agreed in January, the MoJ will advise on the rules surrounding regulation of claims management companies.

In return, LeO will supply the MoJ with information about the number of complaints and any trends they may indicate. Meanwhile, a company handling complaints for the Legal Ombudsman has apologised for a change of address that left solicitor firms giving wrong information to clients.

Under the Solicitors Regulation Authority code of conduct, clients must be informed at all times of their right to complain to the ombudsman and ways of doing so.

However, the ombudsman changed its address last year when its previous mail scanning contractor was taken over. Firms should change LeO’s postal address in their terms of business and on their websites to ensure clients’ right to complain is not inhibited. The correct address is PO Box 6806 Wolverhampton, WV1 9WJ.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Please note that Insurance Medical Group (including Insurance Medical Reporting and Physio-link Services Ltd) has a new DX address with effect from Friday, 17^th February 2012.  We would be grateful if you would amend your records accordingly.  Our new DX address is:

DX 715307 Durham 14

All other contact details will remain unchanged.

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Law firms lose almost half of potential new clients by mishandling telephone enquiries and most show ‘zero’ sensitivity to a client’s needs, a ‘secret-shopping’ exercise has found.

Some 33% of calls to firms were disconnected before they reached a legal adviser and 44% of those which were put through went to the wrong person. Hybrid firms, which include alternative business structures and umbrella-branded firms, performed worst, the report found.

The report is based on 100 ‘secret shopping’ telephone calls made to large regional and hybrid firms enquiring about: a property matter, making a will, a business startup or an employment issue. Callers used a ‘multi-point customer experience assessment’ to rate the quality of each firm’s response.

The study was commissioned by Cxinlaw, a business which helps law firms deliver a better client experience and stands to gain from such findings. However, it received the endorsement of Professor Stephen Mayson, director of the Legal Services Institute, who said: ‘Some will dismiss this report as yet another lawyer-bashing survey. That would be a mistake. It shows the stark reality that too many law firms are their own competitors, turning work away and into the arms of others. It also shows exactly what needs to be worked on – not acquiring expensive resources, but changing attitudes.’

Some 45% of callers concluded that they would not engage law firms because of their ‘below average to poor service’ and would also tell others to avoid them. The allegedly poor service is reflected in the finding that 72% of legal advisers ‘scored zero’ or showed ‘little ability to empathise, build rapport or deal with objections sensitively’.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Rapid change in civil litigation threatens to ‘besiege’ claimant solicitors and their clients, according to the outgoing president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL).

David Bott, speaking at the APIL president’s lunch last week, accused the government of ‘recklessness’ in pushing ahead too quickly with reforms of the system. In recent weeks, the Ministry of Justice has announced plans to extend the RTA Portal scheme to include claims valued up to £25,000, as well as to include employers and public liability in the fast-track scheme.

This is on top of measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) bill that will scrap legal aid for most civil cases and overhaul the no win, no fee system.

Bott said: ‘Too much change, too quickly, borders on recklessness, and risks tilting the playing field even further away from injured people in favour of big business and insurance companies, who quite frankly can look after themselves. I urge the government to pause for breath before considering extension of the RTA process.’

Bott said that LASPO will mean claimants lose the 100% entitlement to their compensation and he doubted that loss would be offset by the government’s suggested 10% increase in damages. Ministers have instructed judges to include the uplift in their damages awards once the bill is passed.

‘I have grave concerns as to whether the 10% increase will ever be implemented, or how it could be enforced,’ added Bott.

‘10% is not sufficiently high a figure for it to be obvious that the new settlement is indeed any different from the offers that are currently being made.’

But the outgoing president reiterated APIL was right to look for a compromise solution, dropping its opposition to recoverability of after-the-event insurance, in the face of the government’s ‘dogged determination’ to push the bill through. ‘Anything other than full compensation is not good enough, but a half-way house option may be better than the abyss which injured people currently face.’

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Prime minister David Cameron was accused of sidelining the legal profession before today’s talks about dealing with whiplash cases.

Cameron was due to meet the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and leading insurance firms this afternoon for a much-publicised ‘summit’ over the rising cost of car insurance. He made it clear that a ‘damaging compensation culture’ has been responsible for pushing up premiums and said he wanted to reduce the 1,500 whiplash claims lodged daily.

Despite a letter from the Law Society in January calling for engagement with the profession, only insurers and government ministers will attend the summit. Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘We wrote to the prime minister over a month ago, but it is disappointing that our offer to work with him and his government in addressing public concerns over whiplash claims has been ignored.

‘There are many options to address, from government, opposition, and others, which need proper consideration. Government should not be limiting itself to tea and cakes with one partisan set of stakeholders – the insurers.’ In a press notice ahead of the meeting, Downing Street said whiplash is costing the insurance industry £2bn a year, a figure quoted directly from the ABI.

There is speculation the government will discuss limiting whiplash claims to accidents over 15mph, although it is not clear how these limits will be enforced.

Other measures Cameron will discuss are largely based on policies already announced, including the Jackson reforms and extension of the value and scope of claims to go through the RTA Portal. The government also says it is committed to reducing the £1,200 fee that lawyers can earn from small value personal injury claims.

Cameron added: ‘The insurance industry plays such an important part in all our lives – it is there to help when we are at our most vulnerable and at greatest need. But I want to ensure that we all do what we can to help people through this difficult time.’

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Personal injury firms will become takeover targets as claims managers and brokers prepare for the referral fee ban, according to a report published today by Deloitte.

The business advisory firm predicted that those with the most to lose from a ban will use the new rules on ownership of legal firms to reinforce their business. In its latest insurance market update, the firm said the alternative business structure era had come at the perfect time for companies needing a legal arm to circumvent the ban.

The report said a ban on referral fees in personal injury cases, expected to become law in April 2013, will have ‘significant implications’ for certain insurers and claims managers who rely on them to drive profits.

‘These businesses arguably have the most to lose if they do not act,’ it said. ‘Such businesses will have a choice of developing partnerships with personal injury solicitors, building their own legal capability of acquiring that capability.’

Stephen Ross, insurance partner at Deloitte, said the market was also attractive for private equity investors who want to create integrated claims management business with existing law firms.

He added: ‘Changes to the ownership of law firms and the planned ban on referral fees are likely to lead to a spate of mergers and acquisitions in the insurance industry.’ The Solicitors Regulation Authority is expected to enforce a ban on referral fees, although it is unclear how that will work in practice if law firms and claims managers work under the same umbrella.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Today the Ministry of Justice published further detail about its intention to extend the RTA PI Claims Protocol for claims valued up to £25,000 and the development of a Claims Protocol for Employers’ Liability and Public Liability. This follows on from its consultation in 2010 about the reform of civil justice in England and Wales – Solving Disputes in the County Courts: creating a simpler quicker and more proportionate system.

The Chairman of RTA Portal Co, Tim Wallis said: “RTA Portal Co is ready to be involved, at an operational level, in any developments and amendments to the existing platform as well as assisting in the creation of a new system to support the EL and PL claims protocols. We will continue our dialogue and work with the MoJ as consideration is given to the timing of the extension as well as the scope and requirements for these new rules and services. We further support the Government’s aspirations to produce a full evaluation of the scheme and an impact assessment of the proposed extension.”

See the full statement here

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup
Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Tough new curbs on bogus car-accident injury claims to stop Britain being the ‘whiplash capital of Europe’ are pledged today by Transport Secretary Justine Greening.

Writing in The Mail on Sunday, she proposes to ban claims involving very low speeds, introduce rigorous medical checks and target ‘ambulance-chasing lawyers’ who are making millions of pounds from the racket.

The crackdown comes as an investigation by this newspaper revealed there are an astonishing 5,399 claims-management companies (CMCs), which refer car-crash victims to no-win, no-fee law firms in exchange for cash.

Of those, 707 have been shut down by the Government for malpractice.

Insiders say that Ms Greening is furious the legal establishment has tried to block reforms and protect its rich pickings from the scam, which is sending car-insurance premiums rocketing.

The Prime Minister is to chair a special Downing Street summit on the crisis and Ms Greening will meet key Cabinet colleagues to draw up a package of measures.

The move follows The Mail on Sunday’s campaign highlighting dishonest claims for whiplash injuries and the soaring cost of premiums for law-abiding drivers.

The Transport Secretary is to study laws in Germany, where whiplash claims are banned for accidents at speeds of less than 6.25mph.

It is understood Ms Greening will also consider calls to create a criminal offence of deliberately causing ‘accidents’ in order to claim for whiplash injuries, with the threat of jail if found guilty.

Ms Greening says: ’The Mail on Sunday is absolutely right to campaign on the spiralling cost of motor insurance and has already highlighted a near- epidemic in whiplash injury claims fuelled by ambulance-chasing lawyers.

‘Sadly, Britain is now the whiplash capital of Europe, with more than 1,500 claims each day.’

Driving has never been safer, she says, with a big drop in deaths and injuries on the roads, yet insurance premiums have soared.

Ms Greening is to call a meeting with Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Business Secretary Vince Cable, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and Home Secretary Theresa May to discuss her plans.

And Mr Cameron will ‘convene a summit looking at all aspects of the insurance industry’, she said.

CMCs began to appear in 2004, after the Legal Services Board – which oversees rules governing lawyers – lifted a ban on law firms paying referral fees to anyone bringing them a customer. By 2007, there were 500 of them across Britain and that figure has since increased tenfold.

The Ministry of Justice, which regulates the industry, said companies had been shut down for faking car accidents, cheating customers out of compensation money, and pressuring accident victims via phone calls and text messages into making claims.

A Ministry spokesman said: ’Claims-management companies are subject to strict rules of conduct.

‘We have made it very clear to businesses that we will not accept any malpractice or attempts to take advantage of consumers.’

Experts have said that some CMCs pay insurance firms and repair garages a fee to hand over the personal details of car-accident victims, whom they then pester to make claims that are often false and exaggerated.

Some CMCs also pay offshore advertising companies to randomly bombard millions of Britons with text messages urging them to call a mobile phone number if they have been involved in a car accident.

A typical case is that of Barry Peacock, 67, and his wife Patricia, 54, from Middleton-in-Teesdale, County Durham, who were pressured to make a whiplash claim because of ‘relentless’ phone calls from CMCs.

The calls and texts began after Mrs Peacock’s Ford Fiesta was slightly dented by another car in a minor accident.

Mr Peacock, a former Metropolitan Police officer, said: ‘We just used to hang up on them, but the calls never stopped.’

Eventually, the couple applied for compensation for whiplash injuries and they received £250, even though Mrs Peacock insisted she was not injured.

Labour MP Louise Ellman, chairman of the Transport Select Committee, said: ’Claims-management companies are a major problem.

’They are the worst part of this merry-go-round of lawyers, insurance companies and brokers, after someone has had an accident.

‘There needs to be a clampdown.’

Most CMCs do not manage any accident claims direct, but merely refer a car-accident victim to a law firm in their database.

They then receive a referral fee from the law firm, which could be anything up to £1,800.

One of the biggest CMCs in Britain is called National Accident Helpline (NAH), which is advertised on daytime television and the internet.

The business has grown out of a single office in Kettering, Northamptonshire, to an umbrella body that refers clients to almost 130 law firms throughout Britain.

Before the ban on referral fees was lifted, the company’s annual profit was £284,204.

A year later, that figure had rocketed to £2âmillion and by 2010, its annual profit was £10âmillion.

However, a spokesman for NAH said it was not based on a ‘referral model’.
Instead, member law firms pay an annual fee based on how many customers from their area call NAH for assistance.

Chris Fisher, 28, is the director of Blue Ocean Claims, a CMC based in Manchester.

The former car mechanic, from Wigan, Lancashire, said his company’s turnover was now more than £100,000 a year.

Mr Fisher said: ’I agree it has become a tarnished industry, with so many dodgy things going on. But I try to do everything above board.

’All of these CMCs are now fast moving into getting people to claim money back from payment protection insurance they have taken out.

‘Everyone knows the Government is going to ban referral fees, so they are moving out of the industry.’

Parliament is currently debating the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is proposing to make referral fees illegal.

Last year, four men were jailed over a ‘crash-for-cash’ scam in which they staged car crashes and filed fake insurance claims, which they handled via CMCs they had set up.

They netted more than £1.17million for themselves after faking more than 120 accidents in London between 2005 and 2008.

Original Article: The Daily Mail

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

With so many families tightening their belts, there is a growing feeling of deep unfairness about motor insurance premiums.

Cars are a necessity for most people, an essential part of everyday life that allow us to get to work, do the school run, or visit our relatives.

But it does not seem to matter how experienced or careful a driver you are, the chances are that insuring your car is costing more than ever before.

I know good drivers whose premiums have doubled recently for no apparent reason and I am sure many readers will do, too.

The average insurance bill today is £410 – a 17 per cent rise on last year.

But if you are the wrong age or live in the wrong postcode, it gets even worse.

Young people had to cough up for a 51 per cent rise last year, bringing average premiums to £2,500 for a young man and £1,400 for a young woman.

There is no getting away from it: the cost of car insurance is bearing
increasingly little relationship to the real world, where motorists act more responsibly than ever and accidents really do happen less often.

If we look at the facts, driving tests have never been more rigorous and driving has never been safer.

Fresh road safety figures out last week show that while people are sadly still killed and seriously injured on our roads, the number of victims fell to 1,900 last year from 3,450 a decade before.

With this in mind, it would be reasonable to expect premiums to come down, or at least hold steady. But the cost of cover continues on a relentless climb.

We are already taking some solid steps to reduce the cost of insurance and make the system fairer for motorists.

We have cracked down on uninsured driving, which puts at least £30 on the price of each premium, by making it illegal to own an uninsured car.

This – combined with the welcome fall in road casualties – should be reducing insurers’ costs, enabling savings to be passed on to customers.

And yet this has clearly not happened. So it is time to get to the bottom of it.
Earlier last week, the Government announced measures to transform the levels of customer service provided by garages.

We will work with the industry to drive up standards and the quality of work by supporting the development of industry codes and better information on the performance of garages.

Mystery shopper tests will also help to improve standards and protect consumers.

These will mean better quality and longer-lasting car repairs and tackle the problem of garages that overcharge simply because a repair is covered by an insurance policy.

We also recognise the link between premiums and referral fees in personal injury cases.

These occur when cases are passed between claims management companies, insurance companies and law firms, all of which charge each other a fee for ‘referring’ the claim up the line.

The raft of fees means a windfall for everyone involved in the complex chain of charges – except ordinary policyholders who are left to pick up the bill.

This is why we are banning such fees and reforming ‘no-win, no-fee’ arrangements to tackle soaring legal costs.

The Mail on Sunday is absolutely right to campaign on the spiralling cost of motor insurance and has highlighted a near-epidemic in whiplash injury claims fuelled by ambulance-chasing lawyers.

Sadly, Britain is now the whiplash capital of Europe, with more than 1,500 claims a day.

From texting and cold-calling drivers involved in accidents, to running high-profile advertising campaigns, lawyers are encouraging people to claim for whiplash injuries sustained in the most minor of incidents – which barely damage the car’s paintwork, never mind its driver.

The scent of easy profits has made this a growth industry. Some estimates suggest a doubling in the past year in the number of firms offering claims management services and ‘no-win, no-fee’ legal representation.

The seemingly ever upward trajectory of premiums raises some serious questions. Can we learn lessons from places such as Germany where there is a minimum speed limit below which whiplash cannot be claimed?

Can anyone ever suffer whiplash if their car is nudged from behind at 3mph? Should claimants be required to provide more than one medical opinion to prove they have suffered whiplash?

How can new technologies be developed by motor manufacturers and insurers to help bring down the costs of insurance? Is there enough competition in the motor trade, particularly with respect to expensive car parts, to bring down repair costs?

As Transport Secretary, I believe it is time to confront these issues head on and I’m determined to take a serious look at what can be done.

The first challenge will be to get the insurance industry to acknowledge that everybody has a collective responsibility to tackle this. It is not good enough to agree there is a problem, but then claim it is everyone else’s fault.

But I also know it is going to take more than the Department for Transport acting alone to sort out these questions.

That is why, in the coming months, I will be getting together with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Health and the Home Office to work jointly in finding some real solutions.

The Prime Minister will soon convene a summit looking at all aspects of the insurance industry and I want to make sure motor insurance is centre stage of any new thinking.

I am also keen to know the sorts of challenges being faced by insurance policyholders up and down the country and will keep a close eye on the experiences of Mail on Sunday readers to inform our work.

These are testing times and the public’s sense of fair play will not tolerate unwarranted, and increasingly unaffordable, increases in premiums. Car insurance firms must take a hard look at their prices and start treating customers fairly.

Premiums are not simply the price of an insurance policy, they are a contract of mutual responsibility and insurers must live up to their side of the bargain.
It is time for them to get a grip and put their houses in order.

Original Article: The Daily Mail

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

The deal has been signed to set up an Insurance Fraud Register (IFR) in July that “will deliver a serious blow to insurance cheats”.

The ABI, Insurance Fraud Bureau and software specialists Detica NetReveal have signed the deal to create a national database of proven fraudsters.

Insurers will be able to dip into the IFR to weed out insurance cheats who currently add an estimated £50 to every policy.

The IFR is the latest in a series of fraud busting initiatives. The Police Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department has led to a number of arrests since it kicked off in January.

Managing director at Detica Imam Hope said the register was a “serious blow to insurance cheats”.

“The IFR is laying the groundwork to deliver a serious blow to insurance cheats. It is vital to collect information about known fraudsters so that this can be combined with existing counter fraud data analysis to further protect honest customers from being penalised.

“The IFR is a beacon to the global insurance industry with other countries taking an active interest in this initiative. Detica NetReveal’s partnership with both the Insurance Fraud Bureau and the Association of British Insurers underlines the importance of the innovative approaches we are providing in the fight against fraud,” he said.

Head of fraud at AXA Richard Davies, who is leading the project, said “The signing of the contracts is an important step as we move towards delivery of the Insurance Fraud Register during the Summer.

“Over the coming months, we will step up our engagement with insurers to ensure they are ready to participate. We will also be talking with consumer organisations so that they fully understand what the Register will mean for consumers.

“While insurers remain committed to paying genuine claims as quickly as possible, committing insurance fraud will have long and serious consequences.”

A number of insurers will now work with the Insurance Fraud Bureau on systems testing to ensure delivery of the Register during the third quarter, likely to be July.

Original Article: Insurance Times

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Elderly victims of mesothelioma could be entitled to substantial compensation, following a landmark ruling on damages for pain and suffering.

In the High Court last week Mrs Justice Swift awarded 92-year-old Dennis Ball £50,000 compensation for pain and suffering after he developed asbestos-related cancer following his work for the National Coal Board and British Coal Corporation.

The award is higher than the £35,000 figure recommended in the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) guidelines where the duration of the pain and suffering is relatively short.

In her written judgment, Swift said: ‘A person of any age who is informed that his or her life will be cut short by the effect of a harmful substance to which he or she has been wrongfully exposed is likely to suffer a good deal of distress.

‘Even if a deceased’s death has in the event been relatively peaceful, he or she will have been fearful since being told of the diagnosis of mesothelioma that a painful and distressing end lies in store.’

Swift said: ‘I consider that the appropriate award of damages lies below the lower level of the bracket of awards identified in previous editions of the JSB guidelines, but significantly above the lower level which appears in the latest edition.’

The ruling makes it clear that regardless of the amount of time the victim lives following their diagnosis, they should be appropriately compensated for the pain and suffering they endure, and paves the way for other elderly sufferers to receive settlements which reflect the pain and distress the disease causes, regardless of their age.

Lesley Mynett, industrial disease partner at Fentons, who represented Ball said: ‘The bar for pain and suffering damages has clearly been set too low for mesothelioma cases.’

As mesothelioma cases usually settle before court hearings, there was little in the way of legal precedent to assist older victims when assessing the level of compensation attributed to pain and suffering, she said.

‘The JSB guidelines used by judges to assist in determining compensation in these cases have changed significantly over recent years. The lower bracket of recommended damages has been reduced in order to allow a smaller award in cases where the time the victim actually lives and suffers with their symptoms is less than the average – which is usually between 12 and 18 months.’

Mynett said the defendant in the case, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, had argued that because Mr Ball was 92 and had only a short life expectancy, the amount of compensation he received should be reduced accordingly.

‘They argued that because of his age and the fact that he had only a few months to live, he in some way did not warrant the same level of damages as a younger person or someone who could expect to live longer,’ she said.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has said that introducing further change to a civil justice system which is already in the throes of a series of major reforms would be short-sighted.

As part of the new measures announced today in the government’s response to its consultation, Solving Disputes in the County Courts, up to 80 000 more cases each year will be diverted to a simple small claims mediation process in England and Wales. According to the Ministry of Justice, this will lead to “cheaper, quicker and less daunting” justice.

Apil president David Bott, pictured, explained: “This year lawyers and the injured people they represent have faced more changes in a short space of time than ever before.

“So we welcome the fact that the government is going to consult further on its plans to extend the streamlined claims process and consider the timing of any future changes.

“It’s critical that the government fully considers the combined impact of proposed changes to the no win, no fee system, the proposed end of legal aid, the introduction of alternative business structures and other planned reforms on injured people.

“Policymakers need to be aware that extending the current system for road traffic accident cases, when that system still has serious technical and administrative flaws, will inevitably mean a further tilting of the playing field away from genuinely injured individuals in favour of big businesses and insurance companies, who are, actually, quite capable of looking after themselves.

“The government must avoid over-focussing on needlework and forgetting the full tapestry. Too much change, too quickly, would be reckless, and we hope that, in its ongoing consultation, the government gets its priorities right and puts the needs of injured people first.”

Original Article: Post

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has welcomed the government announcement to extend the claims limit for settling personal injury motor claims from £10,000 to £25,000.

According to the insurer trade body, the development will mean faster compensation pay-outs for an additional 55,000 people injured in road accidents a year. It added that around 97% of motor personal injury claimants will now be able to claim through the fast track process.

The fast track process was introduced in April 2010 and involved stringent time limits for insurers and legal representatives in establishing any liability, standardised claim forms and fixed legal costs.

The ABI also welcomed the government’s intention to introduce a similar scheme for claims for workplace-related injuries and public liability claims.

Nick Starling, the ABI’s director of general insurance, said: “This is good news for thousands more claimants who will get their compensation much more quickly. In less than two years evidence shows that this process is leading to the average pay-out time being more than halved and lower legal costs.

“The government must now press on with its wide-ranging and long overdue reforms to civil litigation to ensure that steps such as reducing fixed legal costs lead to a more cost efficient compensation system.”

Original Article: Insurance Age

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

The government must abandon its current proposals to ban referral fees in personal injury cases and start again from scratch, Chancery Lane has urged.

Writing in the Gazette today, Law Society policy chief Mark Stobbs says the relevant amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO) will have ‘unintended consequences’ and should be ditched.

The government’s real problem with referral fees is not ethical, but that it thinks they encourage frivolous claims, says Stobbs. LASPO’s agenda is to cut the number of claims, he adds, but this ‘won’t work’ because the major claims-handlers and insurers will enter into alternative business structure arrangements with law firms and ‘internalise’ the referral fees that they are currently receiving.

Meanwhile, Stobbs adds, firms that currently pay referral fees will not be able to compete, resulting in less client choice.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup
Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Who? Nogah Ofer, 45, solicitor specialising in actions against the police at London firm Bhatt Murphy.

Why is she in the news? Won a £20,000 out-of-court settlement for a 73-year-old client after officers from Gwent Police smashed windows and caused other damage to his car. Retired businessman Robert Whatley was pulled over in his Range Rover for driving without a seatbelt in September 2009. Video footage obtained by the police, but later posted on YouTube, shows one officer smashing a side window, while another jumps on to the car’s bonnet and kicks the windscreen.

Whatley was found guilty of driving without a seatbelt and of failing to stop for the police. He was fined £235. Whatley said that he sued the police ‘as a matter of principle’. He received £20,000 damages, plus £9,800 for repairs to his car.

A Gwent Police spokesman said that, following internal ­disciplinary proceedings, the two officers had been cleared of any wrongdoing. He said: ‘While maintaining our position that we do not admit liability, a decision was made to settle the matter out of court on financial grounds.’

Thoughts on the case: ‘This case shows up the police disciplinary system… findings in their disciplinary hearings are hugely at variance with those in public hearings – which is why the police settle so many before they come to court.’

Why become a lawyer: ‘To help people fight the powers that be – I like to think the police groan when they hear my voice on the phone.’

Career high: ‘A 2005 victory in the House of Lords that opened the way for claimants to obtain disclosure of similar complaints made against the police officer in their case.’

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

The limit on small claims in the county court is to be doubled to £10,000 as part of government measures to speed up civil litigation. Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke today set out plans to divert up to 80,000 more cases to a small claims mediation process that can be carried out over the telephone.

The limit on small claims may also be raised further to £15,000 subject to evaluation. A single county court system will be introduced and all claims will be handled electronically at centralised business centres, then allocated across neighbouring courts according to demand.

The Ministry of Justice also wants to free up the High Court to deal only with complex cases.

The level below which non-personal injury claims cannot be heard in the High Court will be raised from £25,000 to £100,000. Equity cases will only be taken to the High Court where the property is valued at £350,000 or more, up from the current level of £30,000.

The MoJ has also confirmed the extension of the web-based portal scheme, which will now apply to employer and public liability personal injury cases and road traffic accident cases worth up to £25,000.

Clarke said: ‘Without effective civil justice, businesses couldn’t trade, individuals couldn’t enforce their rights, and government couldn’t fulfil its duties.

‘But individuals and businesses tell me that the civil justice system at the moment can sometimes be intimidating and that they don’t know if using the system will be worth the time, expense and hassle of going to court.

‘I want to make the system as easy and transparent as possible. I want people to be able to resolve their disputes cheaply and simply through the courts’ very successful mediation service, and I want judges freed up to make quick and effective judgments based on the facts of a case, without unnecessary legal complication.

‘These changes will produce a service that helps people to resolve their disputes effectively and in the simplest and quickest way possible so they can get on with their lives and businesses.’

Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘The government’s plan to increase the financial limit of the RTA PI scheme to £25,000 may mean the extension will incorporate psychological injuries to be considered at this level. The portal scheme was designed for low value RTA claims.

‘There appears to be nothing in the government’s response about the potential increased costs relating to this. It is effectively asking solicitors to undertake the same work at £25,000 as they would have for £10,000 – quite simply, it can’t be done by true professionals.’

The reforms are in response to the government’s consultation on solving disputes in the county courts, which had originally been due out in October.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Deep divisions surfaced in the personal injury claimant lobby this week after the proposal of a compromise deal on the Jackson reforms.

Leaders of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers said they are now prepared to drop blanket opposition to Jackson’s plans to switch the burden of costs on to claimants.

The association’s executive committee wrote to all 5,000 members on Monday with a list of concessions designed to bring about a change in government policy. Under a ‘Plan B’ for civil litigation legislation, the group is prepared to abandon qualified one-way costs shifting and concedes that claimants will have to fund after-the-event insurance, in return for fixed recoverable success fees.

APIL says the compromise deal is necessary in the face of continued government commitment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO).

The Law Society, which has been working behind the scenes on a possible alternative plan, gave its cautious backing to APIL’s strategy.

But the Consumer Justice Alliance, a claimant lobby group of charities, law firms and insurers, says the timing of the concessions, as LASPO moves into report stage in the House of Lords, is ‘little short of catastrophic’ and will harm the interests of injured victims.

Deborah Evans, chief executive of APIL, told the Gazette that pragmatism was essential if the government is to be persuaded to modify the bill.

‘The government’s approach on other bills is to let the Lords have their debate but make sure it goes back to the original objectives,’ she said.

‘We’re trying to come out with a more workable view. At the moment injured people stand to lose such a lot and with our proposals they lose a lot less.

‘It’s important to see it as a step up from [the current bill] which could quite easily go ahead unamended without a good alternative.’

CJA chairman Nigel Muers-Raby has written to Evans expressing ‘surprise and concern’ that the APIL executive committee sought a compromise deal without consulting members.

He said: ‘The proposal as it stands leaves the injured victim in a worse position than do the Jackson proposals.’

Evans accepted there will be differing views within her group but said the settlement ensured fairness, with success fees proportionate to the level of risk and 50% recoverable if the case goes to trial.

The alternative proposals will be presented to Ministry of Justice officials later this month and APIL is also prepared to meet insurance representatives to thrash out a possible joint position.

Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society said: ‘We’ve welcomed the “pause” in implementation of the bill’s Jackson reforms and we urge the government to use this delay to properly engage with claimant groups, charities, distinguished academics and victim representatives who have well-informed reservations about the proposals.

‘The government appears determined to force through changes. Blunt opposition seems unlikely to halt the reforms so the Law Society has been considering pragmatic alternatives. For several months the Society has been working behind the scenes with other stakeholders to discuss possible ways forward.

‘We remain opposed in principle to the government’s changes but alternative proposals from APIL deserve serious consideration. We look forward to serious discussions with government and the insurance industry.’

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

A woman who had to have 20 operations to rebuild her face after being thrown from a horse is suing the keeper for huge damages.

Kara Goldsmith, 39, alleges she was left in persistent pain and had to give up her job after the animal trampled on her face in March 2008.

In a High Court action which could have serious implications for hundreds of riding centres nationwide, the mother-of-two claims that equestrians should be granted better legal protection when riding animals that are not their own.

The case against businessman Bradley Patchcott has already been thrown out by Judge Christopher Walton, sitting at Newcastle County Court.

But Mrs Goldsmith appealed the decision and today her barrister argued that the earlier judgment was unfair and left his client – and every horse rider in England and Wales, with no legal protection if their mount unexpectedly behaved ‘nastily or viciously’.

Addressing three High Court judges, Richard Stead described how Mrs Goldsmith had taken nine-year-old gelding Red for a ‘test ride’ at Stanley, in Country Durham.

The pair had trotted and cantered for approximately 20 minutes without any problem.
But on the way back to the stable, Red ‘suddenly and without warning reared up full height on his hind legs’.

‘He then bucked violently several times. Mrs Goldsmith was thrown from the horse and was then struck in the face by the horse’s hoof,’ Mr Stead said.

‘Her face was stamped upon by the horse. She has undergone 20 operations to try and rebuild her face and a remarkably good job has been done, but she still suffers persistent pain and is permanently on pain killers.’

Mrs Goldsmith, who lives with her husband Ronald and children, aged ten and six, in Hallgarth, Consett, County Durham, had been trying Red out with the intention of buying him.

The court was told that the horse’s previous owner was getting rid of him after a fall which caused her to ‘lose her confidence’.

Her barrister said that Mr Patchcott knew this – and should have warned her Red, who was being given away for free, was tricky to control before she took the animal for a ride.
Mr Stead argued that she should have won the original case under the Animals Act, which makes keepers of animals ‘strictly liable’ if they are aware they have particular ‘characteristics’, not normally found in their species, which create a risk of serious injury.

‘The judge wrongly concluded that Mrs Goldsmith voluntarily assumed the risk of injury when in fact the only evidence was that the horse bucked in a violent manner so as to throw her from the horse,’ he said.

‘Such behaviour could not have been expected from the horse and Mrs Goldsmith would not have ridden the horse if she had been aware of the risk.

‘The judge wrongly concluded she voluntarily assumed the risk of injury caused by violent bucking simply by virtue of the fact that she knew that horses could buck when spooked and cause the rider to fall off.’

Mrs Goldsmith, an experienced rider, is suing for damages and loss of earnings.

Benjamin Browne QC, defending former pharmaceutical company boss Mr Patchcott, said: ‘Neither party contended that the horse had a known propensity to buck violently.

‘Mrs Goldsmith consented to the risk that the horse could buck. It is obvious that on occasions when a horse bucks it will throw its rider.

‘The distinction Mrs Goldsmith seeks to draw is between general knowledge that a horse may buck and throw its rider, and knowledge that a horse may buck so violently that even an experienced rider cannot stay in the saddle.

It is suggested that she consented to the former but not the latter. Given that the behaviour of horses is unpredictable it is submitted that the County Court judge’s approach was correct.

Any other approach would produce a wholly unreasonable test’, he added.

‘The court may need to consider how many bucks may be anticipated in a normal horse and how high such bucks may be – six inches off the ground? seven inches? eight inches?
‘Why should strict liability apply to a person who voluntarily gets on the back of a horse?
‘If it does, you are going to get innocent owners penalised who know nothing of any vicious propensity in their animals.

‘It is submitted that this was a nasty, vicious horse and it bucked and reared much more than Mrs Goldsmith could have expected, (but) any horse can buck or rear and you simply don’t know as a rider,’ Mr Browne concluded.

Recognising the importance of the case, Lords Justice Longmore, Rimer and Jackson have now reserved their decision until an unspecified later date.

Medico Legal News Source: The Daily Mail

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Legal expenses provider First Assist has welcomed the six month delay to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill stating it was “a limited reprieve” for those making claims next year.

Peter Smith, managing director said: “That is clearly good news for those who will be able to bring claims in the next year. It is worth remembering though that this is only temporary: when restrictions on the recovery of after- the- event premiums and the use of Conditional Fee Agreements do come into force, individuals and small businesses with legal disputes will still struggle to bring claims.”

He spoke of his “regret at the continuing lack of clarity about future decisions” on the new regime.

“The change to the Jackson implementation date should not come as a surprise. The Government has so far failed to set out a much-needed work programme, let alone an implementation timetable. The end result of this is that nobody is entirely clear on how the reforms will work in practice.”

Smith added: “Issues such as proportionality, part 36 offers and qualified one-way costs shifting are still far from clear and the industry is still a fair way from being Jackson-ready. Clarity on these matters is a prerequisite for an effective implementation of the proposed reforms.”

John Spencer, director of Spencers Solicitors branded the original deadline “unworkable”.

“The Government’s original timetable for the implementation of the Jackson reforms was almost unworkable in its ambition.” He welcomed the new deadline but added:“I am concerned that this will still not be adequate time for solicitors and claims management companies to make the changes necessary to restructure their businesses to be compliant with the new legislation.”

“Rushing through the legislation without adequate time to reflect and adapt is likely to cause much more harm than good.

“I would implore the Government to look again at how wide-ranging the changes which are being put forward by Jackson are and tailor the timetable of implementation appropriately.”

Original Article: Post

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Lawyers are earning “success fees” totalling £66 million a year for helping patients to sue the NHS, new figures have revealed.

The annual cost to the taxpayer of the win bonuses in cases where NHS staff are found guilty of clinical negligence has more than doubled in just four years, according to the Ministry of Justice.

Details of the heavy financial cost of “no-win, no-fee” cases against the health service have emerged just days before Government plans to reform the law in this area are scrutinised by the House of Lords.

The number of clinical negligence claims launched against the health service rose from 5,426 in 2006/07 to 8,655 in 2010/11, while the legal costs of claimants suing the NHS rose over the same period from £83 million to £195 million – equivalent to the annual salary of 12,000 nurses.

The cost of defending the actions also rose, from £49 million to £62 million.

Ministers blame the rise on so-called conditional fee arrangements or “no-win, no-fee” litigation, whereby those seeking redress only have to pay legal costs if their action succeeds.

The NHS Litigation Authority has said that these rules have made litigation so profitable that “claims farmers” have entered the market, encouraging more patients to sue.

Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, said: “No-one begrudges NHS patients compensation when it is due to them, because of negligence by doctors or staff in the service.

“What is worrying though, is the extraordinary rise in payments from the NHS not to injured patients, but to lawyers acting on their behalf.

“Taxpayers expect that the system should compensate claimants properly and reward their lawyers appropriately, not liberally.

“We urgently need to get the compensation culture under control, as it is all being paid for out of the NHS budget.”

The Legal Aid Bill, which will be scrutinised in the House of Lords next week, includes proposed reforms to “no win, no fee” arrangements.

The bill aims to prevent winning claimants from recovering from the losing side the expensive insurance premiums they take out when they launch such actions, and their own lawyers’ fees.

Instead, these costs will have to be paid by the winner out of any damages.

The Government’s proposed reforms arise from the recommendations of a 2009 inquiry into civil litigation costs led by Lord Justice Jackson, who advised that success fees should not be recoverable in no-win, no-fee cases against the NHS.

As well as clinical negligence cases, the reforms would affect individuals who strike no-win, no-fee deals to pursue privacy cases.

Critics including the parents of Milly Dowler, the murdered teenager whose phone was hacked by the News of the World, claim the changes will make it difficult for any but wealthy people to launch legal actions.

The Dowlers used a “no-win, no-fee” arrangement to take legal action against News International, the newspaper’s publisher, after they learned their teenage daughter’s phone was hacked.

A letter sent by the Dowlers to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, said the couple would not have received compensation from News International without a no-win, no-fee arrangement.

“We are sure that you do not want to go down in history as the prime minister who took rights away from ordinary people,” the Dowlers’ letter read.

Sound Off for Justice, a campaign backed by the Law Society, has said that the bill will cut access to justice for millions of middle-income families and individuals.

But the Government believes that legal fees of claimants have risen disproportionately in recent years.

The Ministry of Justice said it had noticed that lawyers acting for patients suing the NHS often call expert witnesses who can cost well over £200 an hour to help support claims.

Original Article: The Daily Telegraph

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Insurers were given extensive access to civil servants drafting the flagship legal aid bill that would benefit private industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, new documents reveal. The information helped the industry choreograph an appearance on Radio 4’s Today programme.

Official papers show Robert Wright, the head of civil litigation funding and costs at the Ministry of Justice and the official in charge of the controversial reforms, and his team gave the Association of British Insurers, the industry lobbying body, regular information on their plans.

The documents, obtained under freedom of information, reveal:

• Policy officials were pressing Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, to attend insurance industry events with emails telling the ABI that they were “working on” getting ministers to attend events before the Tory party conference last year.
• In May 2011, the government was in talks with the insurance industry over controversial plans to force defendants to pay their costs even if they win a case – a change known as “qualified one-way cost shifting”. The Civil Justice Council, the body tasked with investigating these proposals, was only informed by ministers in July.
• On 8 September 2011, Wright sent the ABI a press release outlining the proposed ban on referral fees – payments for finding victims of road accidents who could sue for compensation, which the industry had long advocated – the day before it became public.

Twenty minutes later, the ABI returned the favour, sending the MoJ its press release, adding it had briefed the BBC’s Today programme and they would use the information “as a basis” for interviewing the minister.

The 118 pages of official papers, record discussions between insurers, their lawyers and government officials working under Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister. Djanogly gave up regulating parts of the industry after a Cabinet Office investigation into his personal insurance holdings in October.

The legal aid bill is being debated in the Lords until Monday. Financial firms with insurance interests have given the Tories £5.4m in the last decade, £4.9m of that since David Cameron became leader in December 2005.

The prime minister has invited the chief executives from the insurance industry into Downing Street next month to discuss how to deal with the burgeoning costs of civil ligitation.

Lord McNally, the Lib Dem peer piloting the bill through the upper house, had insisted ministers “will not pander to or give special access to ‘vested interests’ such as the Law Society and the Bar Council”.

Desmond Hudson, the Law Society’s chief executive, said: “This looks like being legislation for the insurance industry, by the insurance industry.

“It is an unusual and unsatisfactory notion of democracy when insurers can write the laws of the land. The Law Society has campaigned and lobbied for changes in the interests of access to justice … the government must be even-handed with all interested parties of the bill.”

But a spokesperson for the ABI said: “We have not said anything in private that we have not said in public and we have nothing to hide. We make no apology for providing evidence to policymakers to tackle the compensation culture and help reduce motor insurance premiums. The ABI, unlike the claimant lawyer lobby, has provided the evidence and analysis to support our public policy positions rather than rely on rhetoric and anecdote.”

Labour claimed policy was being made to favour “Tory paymasters”. Andy Slaughter, Labour’s justice spokesman, said: “The justice system is meant to serve victims of harm, not the insurers of those that caused that harm. The Tory party seems obsessed with favouring financial services companies and their corporate donors over ordinary people.

“As with brutal cuts to legal aid, this shows the true colours of Ken Clarke’s Ministry of Justice, reconfiguring the rules of the game to favour large public and private corporations over citizens.”

An MoJ spokesman denied that the insurance industry had been given privileged access to the ministry. “Ongoing dialogue between government and stakeholders is an important part of policymaking. It is normal business to listen to a range of views.”

Original Article: The Guardian

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

A top judge declared himself “flabbergasted” by claims that 30,000 crash compensation cases have been infected by “industrial-scale perjury”.

Accusations of systematic fraud are being thrown at seven former workers at Autofocus Ltd, now in liquidation, whose job it was to investigate, on behalf of insurance companies, typical car hire rates in areas where crashes occurred.

The company’s research results were used in a vast number of cases to calculate reasonable contract car hire rates for replacement vehicles – but they are now said to have been based on hundreds of phantom telephone calls that were never in fact made.

Lord Justice Moses told the High Court today: “This seems to me so grave that, at first blush, the mind boggles. If proved, it is difficult to think of a more serious conspiracy.

“What we are talking about is industrial-scale perjury … the victims are the courts, the administration of justice, the public, you and me.”

And, ordering documents in the case to be sent to the attorney-general, Dominic Grieve QC, for a decision to be made on whether criminal prosecutions should be launched, the judge added: “I was flabbergasted when I read about this case.”

In the first case of its kind, credit care hire firm Accident Exchange Ltd (AEL) is mounting a High Court bid to have the seven former Autofocus workers jailed for alleged contempt of court.

Counsel for AEL Guy Vickers said the company had “overwhelming evidence” in the form of telephone records that hundreds of research calls the seven claimed to have placed to test local car hire “spot rates” had never in fact been made, and responses were simply “invented”.

The barrister claimed the scam had been perpetrated over “at least three years”, between 2007 and 2010. He said that, across the credit car hire industry, “there may have been 30,000 cases affected by this type of evidence”.

Vickers said that Birmingham-based AEL’s investigations had revealed “rank cynicism by the people involved, on a day-to-day basis … it is quite staggering”.

Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Irwin, granted AEL permission to launch contempt-of-court proceedings against the seven former Autofocus workers, and ordered the case files to be sent to the attorney-general.

He said: “We are talking about industrial-scale perjury. If that isn’t something that will attract the attention of the attorney-general, or the director of public prosecutions, I don’t know what is.”

Opening the way for AEL to pursue its bid to have the seven jailed, Irwin J emphasised that nothing has been proved against them.

“We have to be careful not to say anything at all that could be seen to prejudge,” he added.

The judges gave the attorney-general three months to view the documents and decide on any steps he might take. AEL’s case will return to the High Court for a full hearing thereafter.

The seven former Autofocus “rate surveyors” facing contempt proceedings are:

Nathan John George-Broom, of Walker Gardens, Wrentham, Beccles, Suffolk
Elaine Carlton Walker, of Lynton Road, Hucclecote, Gloucester
Andrew Watts, of Brookhurst Avenue, Bromborough, Wirral
David James, of Eton Drive, Thornton Hough, Wirral
Laurence Gray, of Gordon Close, Old Marston Road, Oxford
Keel Broom, of Chatres Piece, Willingham St Mary, Beccles, Suffolk
Duncan Carl Sadler, of The Oval, Bicester, Oxfordshire

Original Article: Insurance Age

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Last week’s LIVE magazine exposed how bogus claims are sending car insurance premiums rocketing – and making a fortune for claim firms, lawyers, even police.

When Lee Robinson reversed into a stationary taxi at traffic lights, it appeared to be no more than a minor impact on the cab’s bumper.

But seven months later, he was shocked to receive a claim for repairs worth £800, and a personal injury claim for whiplash for £2,000.

His insurance company, Blue Fin, advised him to settle the claim and pay the damages.

But unknown to the cab driver, Mr Robinson, from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, was a physiotherapist by profession, and one of his jobs was to assess whiplash cases on behalf of insurance companies.

He said: ‘I knew that the impact could have been 5mph at most, and that can’t give you the severe whiplash he was claiming.’

This month he won what he believes is a landmark case that will lead to more whiplash claims being challenged in the courts.

Mr Robinson’s experience comes amid mounting concern at the scams and rip-offs forcing up car insurance premiums.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday’s Live magazine last week into the spiralling cost of insurance, fuelled by ambulance-chasing lawyers and opportunistic insurance companies, received more than 500 responses from readers – and today The MoS launches a campaign to eradicate the scandal.

Mr Robinson was among the many readers who contacted us. The claim he faced is typical of the rapidly growing number of personal injury cases, the majority of which involve whiplash and are promoted by ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers.

The most unscrupulous of these lawyers, say critics, encourage accident victims to make extortionate claims for even minor accidents.

England and Wales now has the highest number of personal injury claims for the whole of Western Europe. Experts estimate there are more than 1,500 such claims every day.

Despite suspicions that many are fraudulent, insurance companies claim they are difficult to challenge if a doctor has provided a certificate.

But Mr Robinson said: ‘Cases like this are raising premiums across the country because insurance companies are just settling them. My insurance company also wanted to settle it, but I said, “No, I am going to challenge it.”â’

Mr Robinson was driving his Vauxhall van in Dewsbury, six miles from his home, when he pulled up at lights. He realised he had crossed the traffic line by a few inches, and decided to reverse back at about 5mph.

He accidentally touched the front bumper of a Toyota Corolla minicab behind him, which did not damage the car’s bumper in any way.

He and the driver had an amicable conversation and left, but Mr Robinson was stunned when his insurance company, Blue Fin, said that the driver was claiming £800 damages as well as £2,000 in a personal injury claim for ‘severe whiplash’.

Mr Robinson’s insurance company said it would settle the claim because the driver had all the correct medical assessments as well as garage receipts.

But Mr Robinson doubted the driver’s claim for whiplash. He said: ‘I decided he could not have got such a whiplash, and I was going to act both as a professional witness and as defendant.’

He said that at a hearing at Dewsbury County Court, a judge heard evidence that the driver, Nazir Hussain, from Dewsbury, had made such claims four times before.

‘The judge threw the case out, and the driver has to pay mine and his legal fees, which have come to £5,000,’ said Mr Robinson.

‘This was a victory for all those going through the same thing – knowing they have not caused any serious damage, yet claimants receiving nice financial handouts and the rest of us having our motor insurance premiums increased on the back of all this.’

Mr Robinson added: ’I believe this was a landmark case, because not many people take these cases to court in the first place.

‘Also, when these cases go to court, they are usually settled in the alleged victim’s favour. But this has a set a precedent because it shows these cases can be successfully challenged.’

Mr Hussain refused to comment.

Critics ascribe the growth in such claims to the rise of ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers who make their money by chasing down accident victims and encouraging them to claim compensation in legal actions they might not have contemplated in the past.

Supporters say this American-style conditional fee system, which has proliferated since the late Nineties after an overhaul of legal services, makes it easier for members of the public to seek justice.

But detractors say it not only encourages higher claims but has also spawned the controversial practice of referral fees.

Since a 2004 change in the rules governing solicitors, insurance companies have been allowed to receive money from lawyers in return for passing on personal details of accident victims.

Even so-called ‘fender bender’ cases, when damage might be limited to scratched paintwork, can generate claims of thousands of pounds.

The referral fees are then included in the bills sent to the insurance companies representing the drivers responsible for the crash.

This feeds into higher premiums for millions, who pay an average of £1,510 compared with £333 two decades ago.

Straw: Honest drivers pay the price for this web of scams

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw has called for strong measures to crack down on the dubious practices that are massively inflating the cost of car insurance, and he backed The Mail on Sunday’s efforts to expose the scandal.

Mr Straw said: ‘There is now widespread public understanding that there are a series of interlinked scams and rackets which lie behind the inflation-busting increases in premiums.’

His comments follow growing anger among law-abiding motorists over the rising costs of premiums that some experts estimate have increased by up to a staggering 40 per cent in just one year.

Critics of the system say that from the moment a collision occurs, a conspiracy is under way to make money for all those involved – except the motorist, who foots the bill in the form of higher premiums.

As soon as motorists inform their insurance companies they have been involved in an accident, those companies can pass on their personal details to favoured ‘no win, no fee’ personal injury lawyers.

In return for this information, many lawyers pay the companies referral fees of up to £1,800.

The lawyers then contact the accident victims to see if they are willing to launch a personal injury claim, most of which involve whiplash.

Critics say some lawyers will put pressure on motorists to make exorbitant claims for even minor accidents, because the larger the insurance payout, the larger their fee. When bills are sent to the insurance companies representing the drivers who caused the crash, the referral fees are included.

Vehicle salvage firms and garages which repair damaged cars also provide lawyers and other middle men with information about crashes in return for referral fees. These garages often have contracts with police forces to collect wrecked vehicles.

A recent inquiry by MPs was told by the ABP Club, which represents vehicle repair firms, that ‘innocent policyholders are often “encouraged” by their own insurer to pursue a claim as their insurer will gain financially from this in the form of a referral fee from the lawyer they pass the case to’.

The organisation described the practice as a ‘great merry-go-round with each insurer gaining at the cost of another insurer’, though other experts denied referral fees had greatly swelled premiums.

The practice has generated such controversy that the Government is pushing legislation to ban referral fees in personal injuries cases.

However, campaigners such as Mr Straw say the Government is not going far enough and referral fees should be banned across the board, including those paid by breakdown firms and garages.

He said: ‘In terms of action, the Government has agreed that referral fees should be banned, and that’s good as far as it goes.

‘I would ban them more widely and make it a criminal offence to pay a fee for referrals.’

GP: I was asked to sign patient off for a year

A doctor who assesses personal injury victims for insurance companies has told how he has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of patients with whiplash injuries.

‘I am seeing an increase week by week. I’ve seen the increase in the past two or three years, and I think it’s because of these accident management companies as well as “no win, no fee” lawyers,’ said the GP, who does not want to be identified.

The doctor, who is in his 50s and lives in Sussex, writes medical reports on accident victims’ injuries which are then used to make payments for whiplash and personal injury by insurance companies. He has been working on behalf of various insurance companies for the past decade. He says that lawyers are now increasingly interfering with doctors in order to change their medical assessments of a patient.

‘If a doctor sends a report saying that the patient’s injuries will recover in two weeks, then the lawyer writes back saying the patient will need longer, say six weeks. This is because they can make bigger personal injury claims,’ he said.

He added: ‘I was recently approached by a medical agency that acts on behalf of lawyers who handle accident victims. The agency told me they would like me to give a prognosis saying a patient will take a year to recover from whiplash. I declined.’

He said that if he writes a report about a patient who is making a bogus claim about suffering from whiplash, then the lawyers or the agency which sent the patient will send them to another doctor to get a more favourable report.

The doctor said: ‘There is no way of fully determining whiplash, except asking a patient questions and doing tests on them. Sometimes in order to see if a patient is lying, we do trick tests on them to see if they make sudden movements – if they do, then they may not be suffering from whiplash.’

The GP said that he is receiving less work every month as a doctor because he does not make medical assessments that help lawyers secure the maximum claim for their clients.

He said that instead of using him, lawyers are increasingly looking for doctors who are experts in ‘slow-speed impact car accidents’.

’There is really no such expertise, but they are looking for doctors who would write that a person whose car was hit in a slow-moving accident can get injuries like whiplash.

‘But other doctors would find it difficult to make such an assessment as it is not always backed by medical evidence,’ said the GP.

Original Article: Mail on Sunday

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Imposing a minimum speed limit of 6mph before whiplash can be claimed will cut the cost of motor insurance policies by an average of £45 a person, says leading motor insurers.

The companies have called for the Government to adopt legislation used in Germany to stop the estimated 285,000 fake neck injury claims a year – saving insurers £1billion in payouts.

At present, the burden of proof in British courts is placed on insurers, so most cases are settled out of court as it costs more to prove the driver was not injured after a collision at low speed.

In Germany the courts take the opposite approach. Insurers will not accept injury claims if evidence shows the collision between two vehicles occurred at speeds below 10kmh or 6.25mph.

Claimants in Germany also have to get two medical opinions to prove they have suffered whiplash.

Britain has been dubbed the whiplash capital of Europe as 76 per cent of personal injury claims are for the neck injury, as opposed to five per cent in France and 13 per cent in Finland.

In the past three years, claims for whiplash rose by a third to 570,000, which has cost insurers £2billion a year, and added £90 to the average insurance premium. Up to half of these claims are believed to be fraudulent.

Ashwin Mistry at Brokerbility, a leading insurance broker, which handles £450million a year in claims, said: “The German model is something we should embrace. If we had it in Britain this would negate 50 to 75 per cent of whiplash claims.” Mr Mistry has been working with former Labour Justice Minister Jack Straw MP to get the insurance industry to adopt a unified approach in reducing injury payouts. He is calling for insurers to investigate claims more aggressively to deter fraudsters.

He also wants an end to insurers passing on details of accidents to third parties for a fee, to stop no-win, no-fee “ambulance-chasing” lawyers profiting from fake injury claims. Statistics show 87p of every £1 paid out in compensation by British insurers last year went in legal costs.

Steve Hardy at Axa Personal Lines also wants the German approach to be adopted. He said: “Car manufacturers could fit devices in cars to record how fast they were going when collisions occurred, which would act as a deterrent against false claims.”

Criminals have cashed in on the scam. Mohammed Patel, from Bolton, deliberately caused 93 car crashes across Greater Manchester, which enabled car owners to make a total of £1.6million in fake claims. He was jailed for four years in 2009.

Earlier this month the House of Commons Transport Select Committee recommended Government action to tackle motor insurance fraud.

Original Article: The Daily Express

Medico Legal News Source: Claims Standards Council

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Justice minister Lord McNally has reiterated that the government has no intention of banning insurers from third-party capture.

Speaking during Wednesday’s House of Lords debate on civil litigation reform, McNally said there was no proof that accident victims were harmed by a direct approach from insurance companies to settle early. The subject has long been a grievance of personal injury solicitors who claim that early offers are often substantially lower than the claimant deserves and restrict the victim from seeking legal advice.

Insurers say the practice – which they term ‘third-party assistance’ – keeps costs low and that a voluntary code of conduct limits unsolicited contact.

Lord Thomas of Gresford, a Liberal Democrat peer, had tabled an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill calling for the practice to be banned, but the government appears unmoved on the issue.

McNally said: ‘Third-party contact does not, in itself, cause detriment to consumers and may be to their advantage as a claim can often be resolved quickly.

‘In addition, this practice can allow insurers to reduce the legal costs associated with handling a claim, and this in turn reduces costs for all policyholders.’

He said he was aware of concerns about potential conflicts of interest, but pointed to a review by the Financial Services Authority in 2010 which found no conclusive evidence that unrepresented third parties could have achieved higher compensation had they obtained independent legal representation.

Thomas, who was asked to withdraw the motion, argued that claimants should be able to reopen the matter and seek legal advice if they have been ‘bought off’ by a settlement made in breach of the insurers’ code of conduct.

Later in the debate, McNally also rejected an amendment to exempt not-for-profit organisations from the ban on referral fees. This would cover charities and trade unions that receive sums from law firms for referring.

He said: ‘As a layman, I see referral fees as a distortion of the market, but there is nothing to stop trade unions having a good close working relationship with particular law firms. Some have had long-standing relationships.

‘However, I cannot tell the House that we are willing to make an exception.’

McNally added that payments by solicitors to other solicitors for the transfer of prescribed legal business are not likely to be covered by the ban.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Evidence of poor morale among staff at the Ministry of Justice has emerged from the civil service’s annual ‘people ­survey’. Among its findings is that staff at the ministry and its agencies have no confidence in decisions made by senior managers.

Only 32% of respondents would recommend the MoJ as ‘a great place to work’, only half are proud of the organisation and just 35% felt it inspired them to ‘do the best in my job’.

In the courts service, only 26% recommended HMCTS as a great place to work.

The MoJ received below-average scores for the civil service – lagging behind the cross-departmental average for all but five of the 64 ­questions.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup
Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

The government is to defer implementation of its civil litigation reforms until April 2013, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed.

Part two of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which incorporates the changes proposed in the landmark Jackson recommendations on ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements, were expected to be implemented this October. The 2013 implementation date was confirmed by Lib-Dem peer Lord Wallace of Tankerness in a House of Lords debate on part two.

Cuts to legal aid for most civil cases, included in part one, have already been put back until April 2013 to give the department more time to prepare for the change.

A spokesman for the MoJ said: ‘We are committed to reforming the “no win, no fee” system so that legal costs for reasonable compensation claims will be more proportionate, and avoidable claims will be deterred from going to court.

‘This will require changes to legal rules and regulations and we want to give sufficient time to get the complex details right. We are also conscious that legal businesses will need sufficient time to plan for the changes, alongside other forthcoming regulatory and funding changes to the industry.’

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

Banning leaflets advertising personal injury lawyers and claims management companies from NHS hospitals is unworkable and counter-productive, the government has been warned.

Health minister Simon Burns last week told English NHS hospitals it was ‘not acceptable’ to display adverts for law firms. He said patients should be able to focus on treatment and getting better, without having to be ‘hounded’ by lawyers. His comments came on the back of an early day motion from Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, supported by 29 cross-party MPs, calling for advertising in hospitals to be forbidden.

But advertisers warned any ban would hit hospitals’ income and conflict with the 2006 Compensation Act, which allows businesses to operate in NHS trusts with the approval of the facility’s management.

In return for advertising space on NHS leaflets, claims management companies pay for bespoke, specialist equipment in the hospital. Payments can also be negotiated between the hospital trust and advertiser.

Anthony Mowatt, major shareholder in BOE Medical Publishing, which has deals with 170 hospitals and has a panel of solicitor firms on its books, warned of confusion between clinical negligence and patients seeking compensation after suffering a personal injury.

‘The contracts we have with hospitals forbid us from being involved in any claim on that hospital,’ he said.

‘In 99.9% of cases the patient is only given one of the leaflets when they are being discharged. They’re not being handed to people lying on their backs in A&E wards.’

Mark Boleat, former director-general of the Association of British Insurers, said ministers would open the system up to abuse if they changed the current rules on advertising.

‘[Before 2006] there was a problem with cowboys advertising in hospitals – some had to employ security guards to keep them out,’ he said. ‘Now it can only happen with the hospital’s agreement. If you took that system away you would still have advertising and marketing, only you would lose any control and drive it underground.’

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

A man who was brain damaged at birth in a Bury hospital more than 20 years ago has received a £3.35m settlement payment from the NHS.

Adam Spinks, 24, who has cerebral palsy, was born at Fairfield Hospital in December 1986.

Mr Spinks’ family said he was starved of oxygen due to mistakes at his birth, which led to his disability.

The North West Strategic Health Authority said it wished Mr Spinks and his family “well for the future”.

While the authority has not accepted full liability for Mr Spinks’ condition, it agreed to settle the case by paying compensation at 50% of his claim.

Mr Spinks’ solicitors said that mistakes by his surgeon had delayed his delivery by caesarean section and he had been deprived of oxygen which had contributed to his condition.

Mr Spinks’ mother Jacqueline said: “The past 24 years have been incredibly difficult for the family and we have some tough times ahead, but to know that we have the means to be able to support Adam is an immense relief.

“However, we don’t want any other families to go through the same situation, so we hope that Adam’s case will demonstrate the devastating effects that birth injuries can have and improve levels of care for pregnant women.”

A spokesman for NHS North West said: “The North West Strategic Health Authority is pleased that settlement has been agreed with the parents of Adam Spinks.

“Adam was born in December 1986 and regrettably suffered brain damage.

“Legal proceedings were commenced in 2007 and following detailed investigations, a compromise in respect of liability was reached in 2009.

“The parties then worked together to reach a financial settlement, which has now been approved by the court.”

Sally Leonards, of Manchester-based JMW Solicitors who represented Mr Spinks, said: “No amount of money will ever substitute for the ability to lead a full and normal life.

“However making Mr Spinks’ life as comfortable as possible must be the priority now and this money will enable his family to do that.”

Medico Legal News Source: BBC News

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email

A personal injury firm is to be bought by a listed company in a £19.3m deal to create an alternative business structure (ABS).

Liverpool-based Silverbeck Rymer will be acquired by AIM-listed Quindell Portfolio for an initial £10.25m in cash, and the issue of up to 120.8m Quindell shares.

Quindell, which describes itself as a ‘brand extension company’, will partner Silverbeck Rymer in providing joint outsourcing to the UK insurance claim market, in particular the personal injury market.

The deal will be completed within months, subject to the approval of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and is one of the first examples of law firms taking advantage of alternative business structures to expand their business.

Jim Rymer, chairman of Silverbeck Rymer, said: ‘We see significant benefits in being part of the enlarged group. Quindell has a rapidly growing presence in the insurance space and we firmly believe in its non-conflict approach to working with insurers.

‘Its positioning as thought leader, and belief in improving margins whilst lowering costs for the industry, sits well with our philosophies of working alongside insurers to help combat fraud and other areas of cost escalation.’

Rob Terry, chairman and chief executive of Quindell, said: ‘Quindell will provide Silverbeck Rymer with the opportunity to grow through giving access to the group’s industry contacts and technology expertise, whilst partners and shareholders can share in the benefits of participating as holders of Quindell’s equity.’

Quindell is expected to to finance the acquisition through borrowing and internally-generated funds.

Shares in the company were trading at 7.62p this morning after a 5% increase following the acquisition announcement. Earlier this month, the company announced turnover for 2011 at around £12.5m, buoyed by admission to AIM in May.

Medico Legal News Source: Law Society Gazette

TweetFollow @InsMedGroup

Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email