Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 22 September 2008 09:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Graham Watson
I was having a discussion recently about “ambulance chasers”, and the “no win no fee” system. Some were saying that this system causes many more claims than was the case before this system, and that some of them (many of them) are frivolous.

It was quite an interesting exchange but one point was of particular note.
I was under the impression that claims had gone down. I’m sure I’ve seen this statement on this site. One of the other contributors mentioned that this was because when the law first changed there was an increase in claims, but with the maturation of the system the number of claims had fallen. This was the source of the data suggesting a reduction in the rate of claims.

Does anyone here have any information on this?
Have the number of claims fallen since the “no win no fee” change?
Or was there an increase just after the change in the law, and a subsequent fall?
Or has there been a steady, decrease in claims over the years as a general trend?

Regards

Graham
Admin  
#2 Posted : 22 September 2008 11:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
Another Americanism, one that unfortunately affects us all in some small way, but I cant see the actual claim figure getting smaller, only the succes rate.
For what it is worth I have won four from four this year in my defence of " alleged accidents" and the truth is that one guy did actually have a clear cut case, but gave up the fight when he realised how much effort we were putting into our defence. Given that I am no solicitor it is a record I am quite proud of and I fought each case on the basis of "competence levels" for each individual, allied to proff of SSOW.
I suspect that the majority of claimants are as fed up with the Ambulance Chase mentality as the rest of us.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 22 September 2008 11:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Blenkharn
Tony, one aspect of your proud claim gives me great cause for concern:

"have won four from four this year in my defence of " alleged accidents" and the truth is that one guy did actually have a clear cut case, but gave up the fight when he realised how much effort we were putting into our defence"

If you are saying that you deliberately put insurmountable barriers in the way of a fully justified claim, even more so if you did that when a case had been formalised as legal proceedings, then you are likely to get your collar felt.

Making it difficult is one thing, and we all know of the gameplay that forms part of the first stage in most claims, but your comments hint at something far more malicious than that.

I hope I am wrong, but I am left with a very uncomfortable feeling about your approach.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 22 September 2008 12:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp
I suspect that no one really knows whether claims have increased or otherwise on the basis that 9 out of 10 claims are allegedly setteled out of court. I do agree that there is a perception of more claims than there used to be. This is probably due to society being far more aware of the law and associated practices.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people making claims for accidents. The courts are not stupid and as a rule only those deserving of it are won. Any compensation is via the employers liability insurance and that is exactly what it was designed for.

Ray
Admin  
#5 Posted : 22 September 2008 12:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
Ian

perhaps I should have made it clearer, but the guy had a case in that he did actually suffer an injury, a pretty severe one too, while at work. We argued that he was taking part in a work activity for which he had clearly been instructed not to. He argued that he was not sure of the boundaries and therefore he "crossed over" from one area into another and, although he was instructed to deliver to site he was not expected to get involved in the lifting operation which went pear shaped and resulted in his injury.
Our defence centred on his clear instruction(both signed and dated) and his inability to carry out the operation safely.
In my oppinion he did have a fair case, although certainly we would always contest it if we thought we had done ATWRP.We were prepared to lose but he but packed it in, presumably on advice from his solicitor. Another one to the company but a correct one im sure.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.