One reason your car insurance premiums are so high
Posted: February 26th, 2023, 10:26 pm
The Government and the insurance industry have - albeit very belatedly - finally cracked down on what was a huge industry of fraudulent whiplash claims.
However, although this has been generally quite successful there are still many such claims, and I’ve just been reading a judgement that was entered a couple of months ago in a personal injury claim where the judge found that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest, and dismissed the claim.
What distinguished this particular case was the judge's findings that the solicitors and the medical professionals involved were all in a cosy little group that were effectively exploiting such claims for their own benefit.
They have probably got away with many such claims in the past, but in this case the insurers, Aviva, and their solicitors took the admirable decision to fight the claim.
This obviously caused something of a panic at the solicitors, as they realised they would have to try and actually provide some evidence to support the claim for a change.
Although the claimant was evidently coached as to what she was supposed to say it seems she was too thick to follow instructions, even with the aid of a crib sheet, and under some careful cross-examination her story unravelled completely.
This type of claim is, and has been for many years, mired in fraud and corruption. In this particular case the medical agency that arranged the medical reports was owned by the brother of one of the solicitors running the case, and even operated from the same building, yet Its director (about whom the judge said "a very unsatisfactory witness and ... parts of his evidence were demonstrably untrue") denied any collusion.
The two doctors involved were using standard form medical reports that paid no attention to the individual involved, and routinely said that private psychiatric and physiotherapy treatment was required (conveniently supplied `in house').
It was interesting - and very unusual - to see the judge's suggestion that the General Medical Council might be interested, and that the SRA might also look into the conduct of the solicitors. Sadly though, as this type of fraud has been going on for years, particularly amongst certain communities, it’s unlikely that either professional body will take any action.
This is the link to the judgement for those who are interested - https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp ... down-5.pdf
However, although this has been generally quite successful there are still many such claims, and I’ve just been reading a judgement that was entered a couple of months ago in a personal injury claim where the judge found that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest, and dismissed the claim.
What distinguished this particular case was the judge's findings that the solicitors and the medical professionals involved were all in a cosy little group that were effectively exploiting such claims for their own benefit.
They have probably got away with many such claims in the past, but in this case the insurers, Aviva, and their solicitors took the admirable decision to fight the claim.
This obviously caused something of a panic at the solicitors, as they realised they would have to try and actually provide some evidence to support the claim for a change.
Although the claimant was evidently coached as to what she was supposed to say it seems she was too thick to follow instructions, even with the aid of a crib sheet, and under some careful cross-examination her story unravelled completely.
This type of claim is, and has been for many years, mired in fraud and corruption. In this particular case the medical agency that arranged the medical reports was owned by the brother of one of the solicitors running the case, and even operated from the same building, yet Its director (about whom the judge said "a very unsatisfactory witness and ... parts of his evidence were demonstrably untrue") denied any collusion.
The two doctors involved were using standard form medical reports that paid no attention to the individual involved, and routinely said that private psychiatric and physiotherapy treatment was required (conveniently supplied `in house').
It was interesting - and very unusual - to see the judge's suggestion that the General Medical Council might be interested, and that the SRA might also look into the conduct of the solicitors. Sadly though, as this type of fraud has been going on for years, particularly amongst certain communities, it’s unlikely that either professional body will take any action.
This is the link to the judgement for those who are interested - https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp ... down-5.pdf