andythejock01wrx

Edited for accuracy.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Hey up Andy. Don't get me started on solicitors, bloody parasites. Call me cynical but somebody who is making a killing out of the claim game is hardly going to bite the hand that feeds them. How can Milamber expect his 'opinion' to be taken seriously. It's high time the insurance companies clamped down on this p!ss take. I've said this before, People are quick to vilify insurance companies but they can pay out far more in one claim than a person may pay in a lifetime's premiums. That's without any qualifying period akin to most policies. No I don't have any interests in the insurance game.

andythejock01wrx

Hey Maz, how's things?

I don't normally harp on about what exactly I do for a living, but I'm a Technical Claims Consultant (not as well paid as it sounds lol!)with a large broker.

Although a fair bit of my work relates to property & business interruption claims, I also deal with liability claims. In my last job I worked for a motor insurer as a supervisor and a fair bit of my time was taken up negotiating quantum on whiplash and other claims with solicitors. The point being I have first hand experience of the fees solicitors charge for these cases, may of which don't require any court appearances by said solicitors!

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Care to back that one up with facts or is this just your opinion?

Moley said earlier on in this post that the average payout is £5,000. The most* that is paid in legal costs for that kind of claim is £1,350. Not quite 50%

* There is a fixed cost regime in place for RTA claims.

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Your opinions up to this point have not been correct. If you choose to go in this belief then that really is a matter for you.

I'm with you 100% on this one

Look, we're not a million miles apart. I'm just trying to say that the facts prove that claims are not increasing. What has happened is that with the boom in advertising and with the rise in Claims Management Companies what has happened is that your "perception" is that there are more claims than ever.

I hate the adverts and the CMC's as much as you, it's not that long ago that Solicitors weren't allowed to advertise at all and you'd get struck off for having an illuminated sign. Bring back those days as far as I'm concerned.

There may be an increase in fraudulent claims but this could be down to a number of things but probably that the insurance industry is getting better at detecting them. I wholeheartedly support them with that.

As for being a parasite, how exactly have I profited out of this thread? I haven't spoken to the OP or made contact in any way. If you think that I'm going to get rich out of RTA's I absolutely promise you that that isn't the case.

I can't really add much more to this.

andythejock01wrx

Just opinion and yes, probably a bit of an exaggeration. What would your figure be? RTA claim fees may be better regulated, but for employers liability deafness claims, for example, it is not uncommon to see insurers bills of £5000 damages plus £10,000 solicitors costs. My view is still that insurers pay out excessive amounts to solicitors each year (as your above example indicates), which in turn increases insurance premiums for the man in the street, fellow scobbynetters, etc.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I'm not attacking you personally, I apologise if it's come across that way. I do feel strongly about the subject. It's such a subjective issue. I do think all these claim agencies need doing away with.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

I think you will find that most if not all solicitors will agree with that sentiment...

There are a couple of "Accident Management Companies" that our couriers tend to use and the first thing they do is "provide a new rental bike FOC" if you've damaged your bike. Obviously this comes at a rate, which is bound to be more substantive than a normal hire company, then they add in all the other bits and pieces.

One of the most important parts of an honest claim is that you, the plaintiff, mitigate your uninsured losses, yet these companies go out of their way to rent/loan/do stuff for you but at a fee, which they will claim back from the other side. I have seen "reasonable" charges way higher than the average Joe Soap could get them but the problem is that the insurance companies accept them, either through laziness or lack of knowledge. This only encourages the Accident Management Co's to continue...

This, in turn, raises the profile of the so-called Claims Culture

andythejock01wrx

Quite right. Credit hire claims have been a rip off for years.

JAutos

iTrader: (5)

Right. Everybody is paying higher premiums due to all the whiplash claims, you have an accident and decide you can change to world by not claiming. Realistically what have you achieved. Firstly you get nothing, secondly your paying the premiums cos everybody else claims. Cutting your own nose off if you ask me.

Leslie

Are you saying then that we should all claim fraudulently if we were in an accident but did not suffer whiplash?

Les

Leslie

In my case, would you have advised me to claim for whiplash injury?

Les

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

I suspect he's saying that back in the day people just used to get on with it. apply some Deep Heat and carry on.

I had whiplash and went back to work. It hurt a bit but honestly, people having weeks off work because of it? I'm sure that some peeps were terribly terribly wronged but it does seems something akin to having a day off with a paper cut and sueing the employer for not providing paper handling gloves/guidelines.

5t.

Pjamie

A bit off-topic, but I can understand why people sometimes use them. Just before Christmas I was hit by a foreign driver who failed to stop at the give-way while I was going round a roundabout. Entirely their fault, witnesses to accident, police called and report made. Thought my claim would be simple and easy.

My insurance agent was helpful in passing me on to a company who dealt with their claims, but this company were entirely unhelpful. They said because of the driver was foreign it could take months to sort out and it would be best just to claim on my insurance, pay the excess, then maybe (possibly - read...never) I might get the money back. They said that if I wasn't willing to claim through my own insurance first, and insisted on the other parties insurance paying for it, then it would be 3-4 months before anything would happen, I'd have to hire another car at my own expense, and I'd be responsible to having the carried transported to a safe location and to store it until it had been cleared up. Making a claim on my own insurance would also have affected my premiums for the next X years even with a protected NCB. I've NEVER claimed in 30 years of driving. I wasn't happy.

I called an specialist accident solictor after this, sent them the paperwork that afternoon, and by the end of the day they'd organized a hire car, arranged to have my own car inspected and repaired with absolutely no hassle to me. Got my car back 4 weeks later repaired and working at no expense to me, no excess to pay, and no hassle.

I'm sure using the solicitor ended up costing the other insurer more than it would if I'd gone through my insurance company, but why should I be inconvenienced and out-of-pocket when the accident wasn't my fault? I didn't want compensation I just wanted my car sorted, and the specialist solicitor sorted it out with no fuss and excellent service.

So, from my perspective, one-up for these specialist companies.

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Without knowing all the facts it would be hard for me to comment but I don't recall a single occasion in my professional career when I've advised someone to make a claim. It's their choice and not mine, I'll discuss the pro's and con's but ultimately it is your choice whether to proceed or not.

Leslie

Fair enough, exactly how it should be of course.

Les

andythejock01wrx

To be fair not all "whiplash" injuries are the the same. A driver or passenger could suffer a permanent whiplash inury due to a severe impact or altenatively only suffer from a week of minor pain in a lower speed crash.

As has been said, if people have been genuinely injured they have a right to claim - if they haven't they are making a frauduelent claim.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Not suggesting they are at all but I find some of these 20mph or stopped at a junction and tapped by an old bloke leading to weeks off work a bit hard to swallow.

The crash I had was front into a coach and it destroyed the car. It was sore but it didn't stop me working so i'm a bit surprised by things I would class as 'low speed' accidents.

Not casting doubtrs, just really can't see someone being that injured.

5t.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

That is indeed correct. One of our couriers was sitting in a van (stationary/parked) when a vehicle collided with its o/s/r quarter at a reasonable lick. That chap has suffered whiplash where it affects his leg and he is now unable to walk properly/without pain/limp and that is 18 months since it happened. Prior to that, this chap was v.v. fit and was a body builder, now he can't do that. Different type of whiplash but devastating nonetheless.