John J, yes, most of the remainder are a result of the 'lack' of Employers actions!

Lets not split hairs. The no Win no Fee adverts imply, and in some cases state, that all accident victims are due compensation. There is no accountability for individuals putting in spurious claims. I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with an individual putting a claim in if they have been imjured by an employers action (or inaction). Sometimes, however, people need to accept that they are responsible for their own actions and need to accept responsibility for the same. Not all employers are 'Dickensian' in their outlook but a few posts on here seem to believe that.

http://www.telegraph.co....nd-in-100000-payout.html I think this demonstrates that we still have a compensation culture. It has been deemed necessary to tell a 44 year old senior employee who works with risk that jumping 5 feet off a wall is not a good idea. We need to move towards people being responsible for their own actions as well as employers having responsibilities

Ok – it is Friday after all. Decimomal – with regard to Employer Liability insurance covering personal injury there is no ‘compensation culture.’ That is: the number of annual claims – yes claims!! – is going down and has been for some time. This trend has been in existence for the last ten years. So – taking into account those of you kindly providing anecdotal evidence to the contrary: 1 According to the HSE statistics for 2010/11, 1.2 million people were suffering from work related illness; 171 workers were killed at work; 115,000 injuries were reported under RIDDOR – the Labour Force Survey put the figure at 200,000 reportable injuries and around 12,000 people died from occupational cancers and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Let’s forget about the up to 60% under reporting and stick with these figures. We are looking at around 1.4 million people suffering an occupationally related condition in one year. Now ….. 2 If we consider the main HSE reports on the causes of accidents, starting with ‘Managing Safety’ in 1981 to now, overall the HSE estimate that around 80% of accidents can be ‘attributed to a failure in managerial control’. If I make the assumption that employers are not likely to be any better at occupational health controls over substances they cannot see – for example – than safety hazards they can see, then the 80% average can be applied to instances of occupational ill-health. Thus …. 3 In a year we could expect to see around 1,120,000 potentially legitimate claims. However when the actual number of claims is considered we see around 1 in 10 claims being made, according to the TUC. I make the ratio only 1 in 12 people who could claim, actually do claim. That’s make a claim, not succeed in a settlement. In among the reasons that people with genuine claims give for not making a claim is that they are frightened of the employer taking ‘detrimental’ action against them if they do. ie 91% of potentially legitimate claims are not made. I repeat 91% of potentially legitimate claims are not made. So Decimomal there is no ‘compensation culture’ in relation to EL. Ah yes but …… 4 Insurance companies settle claims when they should fight them. OK. I have been given to understand that in order for a civil claim to succeed at least the following two criteria must be met: the injured party must show that the employer was negligent to them ie failed in a duty of care and show that their injury was directly related to their work. They have to prove at least both these points. My understanding is that breach of health and safety Acts or Regulations [criminal law] provides persuasive evidence that the duty of care employers have to workers has also been breached. Hence let me put a scenario …… 5 A ‘no win, no fee’ solicitor submits a claim for an ‘allegedly’ injured worker, throws in shedloads of alleged breaches of H&S law and says ‘pay up or else’. The employer being knowledgeable about what EL insurance is for, immediately sends all correspondence to the insurance company. The insurance company – as part of its request for more information – asks for the ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment. The employer obligingly sends an obviously ‘unsuitable and insufficient’ document that is being laughably passed off as a ‘proper’ risk assessment. The insurance company then asks for the reporting procedure documentation and the accident reporting and recording system and associated documentation. At this point the insurance assessor takes a view that should they fight the case, they will lose. No Nigel you miss the point. It is the time consuming paperwork chase that is the real cause of the problem. Hmmm …… 6 Let me think. The employee has a legal duty to co-operate with the employer. This accident comes as a ‘complete surprise’ to the company. Surely such claims highlight a weakness in the accident reporting and recording system? If a fraudulent claim is being made is this not an example of ‘gross industrial misconduct’? Of course should any evidence exist. You know. Evidence. So that when people accuse solicitors or workers of being liars, fraudsters etc they back accusations up with their evidence. Is fraud not a police matter? However I digress …… 7 On the 18th July 2007 the Government National Audit Office published Coal Health Compensation Schemes. In it they summarized the costs associated with a scheme set up to deal with the claims from COPD and Vibration White Finger following the Court’s decision that the Coal Board were negligent and loads of coal miners suffered ill-health as a result. It was estimated that there would be around 173,500 claims related to COPD: in fact there were 591,000 ooopps a little underestimate there! It was also estimated that there would be around 45,000 claims for VWF: in reality there were 169,000 - whoa bit of an underestimate there again!! In this instance there was loads of publicity of the scheme and ex coal mining areas were particularly targeted. The moral of the argument – when you go looking, loads of legitimate claims can be found. Oh yes …. 8 The main firms of solicitors made loads of money from processing claims. I assume the medical experts who ensured that claimants – ie those coughing their lungs out from the effects of black dust, for example - were not just putting it on, got some fees for their work. Indeed the administration costs were £2.3 billion. The compensation was anticipated to be around £4.1 billion. And people complain because solicitors advertise!! As some posters have previously implied – better keep the workers in ignorance rather than them finding out what their rights are. Or as the Daily Mail – with help from the Prime Minister - might put it …… 9 Down down with workers’ rights – they are destroying the UK economy; strangling the UK spirit of enterprise; causing riots; imitating monsters etc etc. Here’s an innovative idea – if workers submit a claim make them pay a fee just for the privilege of exercising their rights. Oh here’s another one. In the unlikely event that they actually submit a claim and win it, make them pay their solicitor’s fees out of their compensation! You know it makes sense!! 10 So Decimomal, if you – or indeed anyone else has made it to this point - there is no ‘compensation culture’ in relation to EL insurance in the UK. There is, of course, an issue about legal fees. More significantly the vast majority of those who have legitimate claims don’t make them (91% don’t). Oh yeah – there’s a significant issue associated with numerous employers who fail to comply with minimum legal requirements that leaves their insurance companies devoid of a sustainable defence in the face of a civil liability claim. But let’s not talk about that now. Cheers. Nigel

This thread has certainly developed since I last posted. The review of the civil claim process undertaken by Lord Woolf, hence known as the Woolf Reforms, was designed to ensure a faster and cheaper system for civil redress resulting from an act of negligence. However, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) introduced in 1996 have unwittingly opened the flood gates for all manner of insidious practices by claims management companies, including TV and radio advertising as well as unsolicited texts, phone calls and emails. These practices have encouraged spurious claims which often the insurance companies are not willing to challenge because of the ridiculous costs involved. Indeed, as has been highlighted in a previous post, insurance companies have bizarrely contributed by passing on details of vehicle accident victims to these claims management companies and allegedly other organisations like the police! With regards to accidents at work, the employers' liability insurance, which is compulsory, was designed as a social utility in order to ensure those injured at work had a means of redress. It is in effect a no-blame system although in reality if the employee was at fault a sum from the award can be deducted by the court for contributory negligence. As a rule those that are injured can only claim for loss of earnings or future earnings and therefore ensuring the process is not penal or encourages unrealistic claims. Those who are genuinely injured at work or as a result of negligence must be able to seek redress. It is a shame that what Lord Woolf intended has been turned on its head by unscrupulous practices by so-called lawyers and others who should know better.

Well decimomal..... there you have it :-)

John at #49 I was responding to 'For example is it or is it not a myth ....' when I made the rather long point that it is a myth when the number of claims is considered as the measure. In relation to perception there quite clearly is a problem because the Daily Mail has told us there is one. So it must be true. In Lord Young's report there was a summary of stakeholders views from those who had taken part. His report states: 'There was an overriding opinion that the health and safety agenda had been hijacked by the tabloid press, whose reports often contributed to misinterpretation and misunderstandings by regularly exaggerating and ridiculing instances which in reality have little or nothing at all to do with health and safety. This has not only contributed to the current low standing of health and safety in the eyes of the general public, but has also led employers and event organisers to take an approach centred on eliminating all risks, rather than employing a common sense, proportionate methodology.' Lord Young recommended nothing to deal with this real - not perceived - problem. While I have no doubt spurious claims are made it is a puzzle as to how law abiding employers cannot defend themselves in such cases. Cheers. Nigel

Thanks, Ray, for separating out the two issues being conflated: general accidents e.g. to the public in a shop where an employer can usually be found, and accidents involving employees being injured. It seems that if this division isn't made, the subject becomes overly confusing and emotive. The 'public' and 'employees' have different influences and motivations e.g. it's a brave (or badly injured) employee who takes a claim, whereas the public claimants don't have the same pressure. We've all seen crazy claims by people who seem to seek blame for whatever normal life throws at them, my view is that there are many parties out there involved and as was said by a DWP man at IOSH 2012, we shouldn't have to take it all on our shoulders. I wonder if solicitors have similar online debates?

As well as being a H & S Pro, I am also a Parish Councillor and a claim was passed to me this morning. Obviously can't go in to much detail but the gist of it is: Our Village handyman has cut all the hedges from around the outside edge of our Recreation Ground Public Open Space, the offcuts were all neatly piled up in several piles, ready for shredding and then spreading around the base of the hedges. Mr A was walking his dog on our recreation ground, when he became distracted from observing his dog by the ringing of his mobile phone. Whilst on the phone, his dog picks up a stick as dogs are prone to do. Unfortunately this was not the usual very brittle type stick usually found but a much more rugged type of stick that got stuck in the dogs mouth. Mr A could not extract the stick as his dog was, in his word very upset, so off he goes to the vet, gets a bill for £50.80 which he has this morning submitted for payment by the Parish Council. Allegedly the dog was on a lead all the time. In answer to the question - No its not a myth, the culture is there all right!

Just to throw the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons and to keep this interesting thread going. From your initial question and response in post 7 they have presupposed that your stance is that people should not make a claim, if they have suffered an injury. ie you will automatically have an opposing view to that of a solicitor. I would have thought that both parties would have the same view, that when there has been a real injury, then making a claim would be appropriate. So is the question correct? Should it be “Is there an increase (actual or perceived) in people making fraudulent claims or claims of an extremely trivial nature”. You of course then end up with a debate of where the line should be drawn regarding what is or is not trivial.

I believe we have a 'something for nothing' culture in general society. I agree you need to split the two EL and PL - in a company with sound management systems and a solid safety culture you can manage the situation and knock any culture in the head. Now for the PL another matter all together - its mentioned earlier in the thread issue in retail its rife - the slightest knock or scrape and the claim is in and in most cases vastly exaggerated. As a safety / insurance team we learn from incidents and put barriers in place to protect - as Jake quite rightly states too - sometimes over whats expected in legislation. Things are changing though - we run more to court these days on the back of some success's - only last week we won one - IP slipped on a grape (that old chestnut) we don’t retail food. However, based on our well managed defense (and systems and process) we won and the judge ruled for the defendant. We repudiate 52% of PL claims - that’s simply because we have had that many spurious ones its hard not to get good at it!

I said I would give some feedback on this. The format was a 'question time' type panel consisting of a personal injury claims lawyer, me representing the insurance sector (Broker), a lady from ACAS and an employer. The audience were a mixture of employers and health and safety practitioners along with an HSE inspector. It was generally accepted that there is certainly a perception that there is a compensation culture in society, but that it is generally confined to public liability issues rather than employer liability. The vast majority of claims appear to be related to traffic incidents and whiplash. The most eye opening comments for me came from the employer (a very pleasant chap as it happens) who did not really do himself any favours by dismissing back to work interviews as a waste of time and whose response to a query about risk assessments implied that they were not of any value and stated that in terms of slips and trips he tells his employees to watch where they are putting their feet! I am not sure what the HSE man made of this. (By coincidence I was reading an article yesterday that states slips trips and falls are going to be the new whiplash). I got a bit of grief as a representative from the insurance sector, but half expected that anyway; the audience were very good though, and were equally abrasive with the claims lawyer (another very nice chap as it happens). Thank you all for your contributions.