I believe the banning of referral fees is a good initiative because this fuels the 'no claim without blame' culture. The insidious practices these companies use with unsolicited, phone calls, texts, etc leave a lot to be desired. That said, it is not the only poor practice with regards to a so-called claims culture, but is a step in the right direction.

Allen

There is not and never has been a 'compensation culture' regarding claims taken under Employer Liability insurance. Over the last ten years claims have steadily decreased although there may be a slight increase in claims in the last year. The TUC have indicated that about 1 in 10 of those who could have a legitimate claim do not make one.

If all the people who have a legitimate claim were to make one the bonuses, salaries and shareholder dividends of the insurance companies may just about disappear. However they rely on people either not knowing they can claim or they are afraid their employer will take a dim view of it and victimise them.

On the other hand traffic related claims have increased sharply. Abolishing referral fees seems a logical step to help reduce irritating e-mails. However insurance companies discovering a backbone might help more. There are examples of clients working with insurance companies to fight claims that are dubious. Once this was done, claims reduced significantly.

A lot has been said on this forum about people making dubious claims. What tends not to get much of an airing is discussion about those who do not claim when they have a legitimate case; the relatively low levels of compensation awarded for life changing injuries; the ongoing and continual legal battle against many asbestos claims, which will now contribute towards Warren Buffet getting richer (the decision to stop making pleural plaques in England compensatable has saved many millions for the associated insurance companies); and the contribution civil claims has made to improving preventative health and safety standards.

It is suggested that the while there is no great 'compensation culture' regarding increasing claims related to EL work activity, there is a great increase in relation to legal costs. Given that our current system was brought about to reduce legal costs, I cannot wait to see the implementation of the next set of proposals to save money!!

Cheers.

Nigel

Yes I think most people will see the benefit of getting rid of referral fees, but they also want lawyers’ fees to be paid out of the damages. I seem to recall reading that they were going to recommend that damages awarded would increase by 10%, and that the maximum those Lawyers could claim for their services would be 25% of the damages. If these numbers and potential changes turn out to be correct, then I’m not in favour of this. Insurance companies would save and employers would at least slow down the rise in their premiums, so they also gain. The only one that loses out is the claimant. I also cannot help but feel that some justifiable claims will fall short, as the lawyers will not want to fight all the way, or at all if it is only a small amount (to them) justifiable claim or not.

I would fight an unreasonable claim, but feel if someone was hurt through no fault of their own they should be compensated properly. The government seem to be very quiet about their plans to change the way no win lawyers are paid, most of the publicity is focused on referral fees. I guess it is another case of getting Joe public onside, while sneaking in unpopular changes when no one is looking. This of course is IMHO, feel free to disagree.