Integrum Law

Supermarket Accident

2018-06-06T08:49:00.001-07:00

Integrum Law solicitors have recently settled an unusual accident which occurred in a local supermarket.

They acted for a client who was shopping in the supermarket and took an item from a high shelf, in doing so other items were dislodged and fell from the shelf striking the client on the head and causing injury. It was apparent that the items should not have been placed on a high shelf as this posed a danger to customers.

Investigations established that the item had been placed on the wrong shelf contrary to the instructions issued by the supermarket. It seems that supermarket staff may have confused the items with a similar product which was suitable to be placed on a high shelf.

Fortunately, the client was not seriously injured although they sustained an injury and were very shaken by the incident.

In view of the minor nature of the client’s injuries Integrum Law were able to negotiate an early settlement of damages.

Ten Reasons to Make a Will

2018-02-12T08:07:00.005-08:00

The main reason why everybody should make a Will is because of what are known as the “Intestacy Rules”. These are the rules which apply to a person’s estate when they do not leave a Will. The rules are clear and strict but can have unforeseen consequences. The only way to ensure that the Intestacy Rules do not apply to your estate is to make a Will.

There are a number of specific reasons why making a Will is particularly important:-

Unmarried Couples - Many people wrongly assume that just by living together their estate will pass to their partner. This is simply not true. The law treats people who are neither married nor in civil partnerships as single and therefore gives no rights automatically to their partner.
Children – If you have young children you will probably be concerned about their welfare if you die. A Will can appoint guardians to care for them and arrange for assets to be held for the benefit of the children until they are old enough to make their own decisions.
Marriage or Divorce – When a couple marry any existing Wills which they have are normally revoked by their marriage however when a couple divorce this is not the case. Anybody who has divorced or is in the process of divorcing should make a new Will.
Complicated Families – Many of us now have much more complicated family structures with children from previous relationships, step children and half siblings. It is important that proper provision is made for everybody.
Potential Disputes - People often make assumptions about what will happen when they die and say things like “Oh, they will sort it out” or “I’m sure they will be fair”. Sadly this is often not the case and so, for example, children might not share an estate with step children even if that was your wish.
Care Home Charges – It may be possible to protect some of the value of your family home from being taken to pay for you or your partner’s care in later life.
Inheritance Tax – If any of your estate becomes liable for this tax the government will take 40% of that part which is liable. Taking advice as early as possible can help reduce the risk of this tax applying.
Funeral Arrangements – Many people have very specific wishes about how their funeral should be. Including instructions in your Will can ensure that you get the funeral you want and take away any uncertainty.
Sentimental Gifts – The law generally provides that on death our assets are sold so that the money raised can be divided. If you have something that has particular sentimental value you should leave a gift to the person you want to receive it to ensure that it is not sold.
Legacies to Friends or Charities – Writing a Will gives you the chance to remember those friends, neighbours or charities who have helped you or which you feel you have a special connection to.

There is one more reason why everybody should think about making a Will… peace of mind. The knowledge that you have put your affairs in order and that when you pass away there will be no delays or disputes is a weight lifted from your shoulders.

Rising Cost of Motor Insurance

2018-01-30T03:25:00.000-08:00

I have just had a letter from my motor insurers (Hastings) advising me that my policy is due for renewal.

Despite the fact that both me and my car are another year older and that I have had yet another claim free year my insurance premium is set to increase by over 50% (in fact closer to 60%).

Whilst still reeling from the shock I read yet another press release from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) which says that average premiums rose by 6%, if only mine had; I would happily swallowed such a modest increase.

The ABI, as they always do, go on to point the finger of blame for the increases saying “Changes to how compensation payouts are calculated, insurance premium tax, more whiplash-style claims and rising repair bills are all piling on the pressure for cash-strapped drivers."

They went on to further blame “whiplash claims and changes to lump-sum compensation payments for people with long-term injuries”

So, according to the ABI the Courts, the Government, injured people and repair garages are all to blame. The ABI clearly has particular issues with people suffering from “long-term injuries” i.e. people who have been very badly injured who are precisely the people who insurance should be protecting and helping.

It then occurred to me that if my insurers are putting up my premiums by such a large amount then they must be as cash strapped as us drivers, so I checked. According to their press releases Hastings had increased operating profits of £86.5m for the six months to 30^th June 2017. So Hastings are making about £14m profit a month or half a million pounds each and every day.

In the face of such massive profits from one of the UK’s smaller insurers perhaps the ABI should be looking closer to home for blame.

From what I can see the main reason for increased premiums is greedy insurers cashing in on the fact that we drivers have no choice but to insure our vehicles.

How refreshing it would be if the ABI stopped blaming everybody else and just came clean and said “Greedy insurance companies are holding cash-strapped drivers to ransom” because that is exactly what they are doing.

The Easy Option is Not Always the Best Option

2017-12-22T04:49:00.000-08:00

Integrum Law have recently successfully negotiated a settlement for a client who was injured in a road traffic accident, the claim was relatively straightforward as, happily, the client was not badly injured and we were able to settle the claim quickly.

The case was however significant because prior to the accident the client had a pre-existing medical condition, as a result of this when the client reported the claim to their own insurers they refused to deal with the claim because of this condition. Fortunately, rather than just abandoning the claim, the client sought independent legal advice and has now received compensation for the injuries suffered.

We regularly hear of people who have been injured in accidents, particularly road traffic accidents, who say “I’ll just let my insurance company deal with it” or “it was easier to get my insurance company to handle everything” but, as our recent case demonstrates, this is not always the best option.

Insurance companies might be able to deal with personal injury claims but that does not mean that they are best equipped to give an injured person the best advice on how to make a claim or get the maximum damages possible.

Our advice is that if you or anybody you know is injured they should seek advice from a solicitor even if they have insurance cover.

Buggie Topple Claim

2017-12-19T07:24:00.001-08:00

Integrum Law has recently settled two unusual claims arising from a single incident.

They represented a mother and young child who were both injured when the mother was pushing her child in a buggie along a passageway in Liscard Village, close to the main shopping centre.

Unfortunately one of the front wheels of the buggie became caught in a deep pothole and the buggie toppled forwards and over onto its front, Mum fell forwards whilst trying to prevent the buggie from falling and was injured whilst her child remained strapped into the buggie but was also injured.

Happily neither was seriously injured although they did seek medical attention. Investigations by Integrum Law showed that the passageway was the responsibility of Wirral Borough Council and the solicitors were able to demonstrate that the local authority had failed to properly inspect the area so had failed to identify and repair the pothole. In short had the council operated a proper inspection regime the pothole would have been identified and repaired and the accident would not have occurred.

The council’s insurance company accepted responsibility for the injuries to both mother and child and paid compensation to Mum whilst compensation for the child is being invested by the court until they are 18.

Successful Car Park Maintenance Claim

2017-12-04T03:25:00.000-08:00

Integrum Law have recently settled a claim for a client who was injured whilst entering a supermarket car park on foot.

The client was crossing a road at the edge of the car park on the Wirral when they fell on a pothole and were injured. Our enquiries suggested that the car park belonged to the nearby supermarket however when details of the claim were submitted to the supermarket’s insurance company they denied liability on the basis that the accident occurred on the public highway and not on its land.

A considerable amount of research had to be undertaken to establish exactly where the accident occurred by reference to the plans held by HM Land Registry.

Eventually the insurers accepted that the supermarket owned the land where the accident occurred and accepted responsibility for the client’s injuries having failed to adequately maintain their car park.

Commenting on the case Martyn Brown, principal solicitor at Integrum Law, said “we are very pleased to have succeeded in this claim for our client. This case serves as a reminder that wherever accidents occur be it inside or outdoors it is worth seeking legal advice”.

Holiday Claim Success

2017-10-06T04:49:00.003-07:00

Integrum Law has recently been successful in recovering damages for a family who holidayed in the Canary Islands.

The family of five booked an all-inclusive package holiday with TUI Limited (Thompson) expecting an enjoyable family holiday but when they arrived they found that the hotel they were staying in was surrounded by road works. There works were so disruptive that the hotel had closed its pool area and guests had to use another pool nearby. However this meant that the family had to try to cross the roadworks several times a day.

To make matters worse the hotel staff were unhelpful and there was a particular issue over one member of staff who refused to allow some people into the dining room if they were wearing shorts whilst allowing others in in swimwear. As a result the family left the hotel to eat their evening meals rather than run the risk of being refused entry into the dining room.

At the end of the holiday their Thompson flight home was delayed which meant that the family had to be put up in a hotel overnight, unfortunately the hotel had not cots for the younger children which meant that the family got little sleep anyway. Moreoverfood or drink was provided until so late in the day that the younger children were already asleep.

On their return to the UK the family consulted Integrum Law who advised them that they ought to receive compensation for their delayed flight under European Legislation and that they may be entitled to compensation for the other problems on top.

Integrum Law wrote to TUI who refused any compensation and thereafter failed to respond to subsequent correspondence; court proceedings were issued but once again TUI failed to respond. Ultimately the matter came before a judge in the Birkenhead County Court who awarded each member of the family the flight delay compensation which they were entitled to (400 euros each) and an additional sum in respect of the costs of eating their evening meals out and a further award of compensation for each member of the family.

Despite the court ordering TUI to pay this compensation they failed to do so and only paid after High Court enforcement officers had been instructed to recover the court’s award.

Tripping Accident Success

2017-10-06T04:47:00.000-07:00

Integrum Law have recently settled a claim arising out of a tripping accident which highlights some of the issues involved in cases of this type.

As a general rule if you slip trip or fall in a shop or on business premises you are entitled to make a claim against the owner or occupier of those premises. You need to show that the accident was caused by something that the owner or occupier did or did not do e.g. that they failed to clean up a spillage or left an obstruction in a walkway. Because the owner or occupier is in control of the premises they are responsible for the condition they are in.

However if you have an accident on the street you would normally have a claim against the relevant local authority provided that land is “adopted” this means that they have accepted responsibility for its maintenance. The rules relating to this type of claim are different in that the local authority are not expected to be aware of every defect but instead are expected to operate a system whereby they inspect all adopted areas regularly and carry out any repairs they find or which are reported to them promptly.

There is, however, a third category, which is land which is open to the public but not part of any business premises and which is not adopted by a local authority. This type of land is often accessed by the public as a right of way. You might be walking along a stretch of pavement but be unaware that it is in fact private property and so is not subject to the same rules as the pavement in most areas.

With an area subject to a right of way the land owner will not, generally be responsible for a defect which is caused by their failure to carry out repairs nor do they have a legal obligation to carry out regular inspections. The land owner will only be responsible if they have done some positive act to create a danger (such as digging a hole and leaving it unguarded). They would not be liable if a hole had merely formed over time.

In the case dealt with by Integrum Law the land was owned by a local authority but was not adopted. The local authority argued that it was a right of way and so they were not responsible for the defect which had arisen and which caused injury to Integrum Law’s client. However by a careful examination of the area Integrum were able to successfully argue that the area was not being used as a right of way and that the local authority should therefore be treated in the same way as the owner of a shop or other business premises.

The claim was ultimately settled.

Proposed government reforms are unfair and won’t work

2017-08-25T08:10:00.000-07:00

The government are consulting on reforms to personal injury claims which, if implemented, would leave many innocent accident victims struggling to recover compensation because of a lack of legal representation or receiving less compensation than they are currently entitled to.

The proposals include two measures which the government claim will help stamp out fraudulent claims and reduce car insurance premiums.

The first measure is to increase the level at which injury claims are classed as “small claims”. The significance of this is that for any claims which in future will be regarded as small claims injured people will no longer be able to recover the cost of legal representation. Firstly this might mean that they were unable to find a solicitor to help them but even if they were they would have to pay for the solicitor themselves. Without a solicitor, injured people would be left to deal with what are technical and complicated claims themselves against businesses or insurance companies who can afford solicitors and barristers to fight claims.

Does this seem fair and just?

The second measure concerns injuries sustained in road traffic accidents, the government wants to limit the amount of compensation available to anybody injured as a result of a car accident. It has always been the case that how ever a person is injured, they should receive the same amount of compensation for the same injury. This means that if somebody is hit by a car and breaks their wrist they will receive roughly the same compensation as somebody who breaks their wrist in a fall in a shop or an accident in work. However, the government now proposes that if a person sustains an injury in a car accident they would receive significantly less than somebody who suffered the same injury in another way. Does this seem fair and just?

These, obviously unfair, reforms are supposed to get rid of fraud and reduce insurance premiums but will they?

In every walk of life there is fraud (didn’t some MP’s fiddle their expenses?) but in truth fraud is relatively rare in injury claims. Determined fraudsters will not be put off by not having access to solicitors because they have nothing to lose. Furthermore limiting compensation will only punish those who are genuinely injured; fraudsters, who have not been injured at all, will not care if the compensation is inadequate as it is more than they deserve anyway. So there is no doubt that the reforms will do nothing about fraud.

As for insurance premiums, insurance companies have been lobbying the government for the proposed reforms and have suggested that they might lead to cuts in premiums. Four years ago the government introduced reforms which slashed costs for motor insurers who had promised to cut premiums. Despite these reforms, premiums have continued to rise. So where have the savings gone? The answer is that in recent weeks Direct Line, RSA, AXA and Aviva have all posted significant increases in first-half profits in motor insurance. These profits are largely as a result of the earlier government reforms and the insurers’ failure to reduce premiums. So why would the government be so naive as to think that insurers will not just pocket the extra profits from another round of reforms?

Holiday Sickness Warning

2017-07-14T03:45:00.003-07:00

A judge has sent out a warning to anybody thinking of making a fraudulent claim for holiday sickness by ordering two unsuccessful claimants to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs.

In the summer of 2013 Michael McIntyre, Julie Lavelle and their two children took a two-week all-inclusive Thomas Cook holiday at the Parque Cristobal Hotel at Playa del Ingles, Gran Canaria.

In May 2016, nearly 3 years later, the family brought a claim asserting that they had all suffered gastroenteritis with symptoms of diarrhoea and vomiting for most of the holiday.

However it transpired that the family made no mention of the illness to the hotel staff nor to Thomas Cook representatives and they did not seek medical attention either whilst on holiday nor upon their return. Furthermore there was no report of any of the family being unwell on the flight home during which Mr McIntyre filled in a survey in which he described most aspects of his holiday as “good” or “excellent”.

It was also established that on the day that they returned from holiday both Mr McIntyre and Ms Lavelle returned to work and their children went to nursery. Further still, despite the fact that Ms Lavelle and one of the children were seen by their GP within a week of their return, their GP was not told about any holiday illness.

The judge threw out their claims which were described as “wholly implausible” and based on a finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest the couple were ordered to pay £3,744.00 in costs.

The case highlights the relatively recent problem of holidaymakers being approached by unscrupulous claims management companies and persuaded to invent holiday sickness claims on the promise of easy money.

Unfortunately the case may also have unforeseen consequences for those who are genuinely taken ill whilst on holiday through no fault of their own as the holiday industry are lobbying the government to reform the law in this area in light of the number of claims which are now being made.

If you believe that you have suffered from food poisoning whilst on holiday, consult a solicitor. However if you are approached by somebody about making a claim when you have not been affected tell that person to “take a hike”.

Modernising Wills

2017-07-14T03:42:00.003-07:00

The Law Commission, an independent body which keeps the law of England and Wales under review, is currently consulting on updating the law relating to wills.

They are concerned that the legislation that governs wills is mainly contained in the

Wills Act 1837 and so is regarded by many as out of date.

They suggest that the 180 year old legislation does not reflect modern life with people living longer, more cohabiting couples, more second families and our better understanding of dementia and other conditions which affect capacity.

One of the proposals being considered includes relaxing the strict rules which apply to the execution (signing and witnessing) of wills. At present any error no matter how apparently insignificant can invalidate a will. The Commission are consulting on whether to give greater emphasis to the will maker’s intentions rather than strict compliance with procedures.

Another is to address the issue that anybody who does not have full capacity simply cannot make a will; often resulting in them making no provision for their estates. The Commission want to look at a scheme to enable persons without the full capacity to make wills with some form of assistance perhaps from legal or medical professionals.

Perhaps an obvious proposal, given the age of the law relating to wills, is that the requirement for a will to be printed on paper may be dropped to allow electronic wills.

The Commission is also considering whether to recommend that the age at which a person can make a Will is lowered from 18 years to 16 years and, in exceptional circumstances to even lower which might be appropriate if a child has substantial assets of their own.

The consultation will run until 10 November 2017 after which it is likely that the Commission will make recommendations for reform to the government.

Big changes for debt claims

2017-06-12T06:01:00.002-07:00

The Government has unveiled changes to the way in which businesses pursue debts from individuals.

On the 1st October this year, the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force. This protocol applies to any business (including public bodies) which is pursuing a debt from any individual or business sole trader.

Accordingly, the new rules will not apply to most business to business debts however the introduction of these rules means that after 1^st October all businesses will need to be aware that if they have a debt which they are claiming from an individual then it will have to be treated differently than other debts.

Therefore businesses will have to take care to record whether they are dealing with companies and partnerships (when the new rules will not apply) or individuals and sole traders (when the new rules will apply).

The protocol includes new requirements for more information and documentation which has to be provided when seeking to recover a debt in addition to which debtors must allow 30 days for a response. In the past, many businesses had just sent out short reminders demanding payment within perhaps 7 days but in future, this will not suffice.

The new rules also make it clear that businesses must consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) i.e. they must consider other ways of trying to resolve any disagreements before embarking on court proceedings.

The new rules also confirm that sanctions may be imposed by the court if proceedings are issued without the new rules having been complied with.

The men who want to abolish compensation

2017-03-09T02:07:00.000-08:00

As the government prepares for yet another round of reforms aimed at reducing damages paid to accident victims it is perhaps worth considering why the government are so committed to taking away people’s long established rights to compensation.

The answer is that the government has been very heavily and very effectively lobbied by the insurance industry.

One of the loudest voices from the insurers has been Mark Wilson the 50 year old New Zealander who is the group Chief Executive at Aviva.

Wilson regularly writes about the scourge of “compensation culture” and urges the government to reduce compensation paid to accident victims. He once described claims arising from motor accidents as “a system of spiralling costs which prioritises financial compensation and encourages exaggerated and opportunistic personal injury claims”.

Clearly this is a man who wants to abolish compensation for road traffic accidents.

However Mr Wilson, who clearly does not believe accident victims deserve compensation, is not averse to lining his own pockets. In 2015 he earned a breath-taking £5.7million.

He is not alone; Paul Geddes, the boss of insurer Direct Line Group, picked up a £4.8million pay packet in 2015 and other insurance company bosses were similarly well remunerated.

To put this into context average salaries in the UK stand at about £28,000 per year or Mr Wilson earns over 200 years’ worth of average pay in just 12 months.

So how can Aviva afford to pay Mr Wilson his inflated salary whilst claiming that it will be forced to increase car insurance premiums if it has to continue to compensate accident victims?

Sadly the government is listening to multi-millionaires like Mr Wilson and not to those injured through no fault of their own.

Judges Question Government’s Proposals

2017-01-27T01:52:00.002-08:00

The judiciary has weighed into the debate about raising the small claims limit for personal injury by expressing “serious dismay” about the lack of consultation with judges and warning the Government that any savings are likely to be outweighed by the significant extra burden which the reforms would place on the court system.

The proposal to raise the small claims limit to £5,000 for all personal injury claims has been widely criticised by almost everybody other than the Insurance Industry and some Tory MP’s.

Now a combined response has been submitted by Lord Justice Briggs, the deputy head of civil justice, Mrs Justice Simler, His Honour Judge Bird and District Judge Jenkins. It is understood that the response was approved by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton and the Judicial Civil Executive Board and so would appear to represent the views of the majority of judges in England and Wales.

The response suggested there was “a serious level of dismay that a proposal with such serious potential implications for the management and delivery of civil justice has not been made the subject of discussion with the judiciary before being launched as a public consultation”.

The response also said “it is obvious…that there are serious access to justice issues for those with genuine but modest personal injury claims” and suggested that the “very large increase” in unrepresented claimants which was likely to occur would both reduce the number of settlements and multiply the judicial time needed per case by a factor of at least two, “but probably three or four”. In short the judiciary do not believe that the court system would cope with the government’s planned reforms.

Prime Minister breaks first promise she made

2016-12-07T04:24:00.001-08:00

On the day she was appointed Prime Minister Theresa May stood in Downing Street and said:-

“When we make the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you”.

Five months later her government has announced a series of reforms to personal injury claims which the insurance industry has been seeking for many years.

If enacted only those ordinary people who are injured in accident claims will suffer and only the insurance industry will benefit.

So how can Mrs May claim that she is not thinking of the powerful and mighty? How can she claim that she is listening to ordinary people?

Government proposals include the complete abolition of compensation for some injuries sustained in road traffic accidents alternatively the Government proposes to restrict the damages that would be payable to ridiculously low levels. In the future passengers whose trains are delayed may be entitled to compensation of £2 per minute whilst those injured in a road traffic accident might be lucky to receive £2 per day. How can that be fair?

The Government also proposes to exclude lawyers from the majority of personal injury claims leaving ordinary people (the people who the Prime Minister is supposed to be listening to) to try and deal with claims against their employers, local authorities and insurance companies with deep pockets. Put it another way ordinary people will have to take on the powerful and the mighty with no assistance.

Overall it looks like the Prime Minister has broken the very first promise which she made. It might have been more honest if she had said:-

“When we make the big calls we will think not of you but of the powerful. When we pass new laws we will listen not to you, but to the mighty”.

A New Reason to Make Powers of Attorney

2016-11-08T01:29:00.002-08:00

Guidance from the British Bankers’ Association should cause concern to anybody who has not make Lasting Powers of Attorney.

Many couples, or even parents and their children, will have long assumed that they do not need powers of attorney because their money is held in joint bank accounts. Therefore if one of them suffers a stroke or develops dementia their partner or child would be able to continue to manage their affairs using their joint bank account.

However guidance now issued to high street banks suggests that where one party to a joint account becomes mentally incapable the entire account should be frozen. The reason is that a joint account can only operate if both parties agree to the arrangement but if one party no longer has capacity then in theory they can no longer agree to the arrangement.

It is far from clear in what circumstances the banks will choose to freeze accounts however if capacity is lost the accounts are likely to remain frozen either until the person regains capacity or a deputy has been appointed to deal with their affairs. If capacity is never recovered there will be on alternative but to apply to the Court of Protection for a Deputy to be appointed. This is likely to take several months and is not a cheap process.

Overall the best way to guarantee continued access to all accounts is to prepare Lasting Powers of Attorney.

Falling Costs and Rising Premiums

2016-11-08T01:28:00.001-08:00

Despite ongoing claims from the insurance industry that fraudulent whiplash claims are to blame for motor insurance premium increases their own figures appear to suggest that this is not the case.

Association of British Insurers (ABI) figures show that the number of motor related personal injury claims fell from 365,000 in 2013 to 342,000 in 2014 and remained at the same level in 2015.

At the same time the average cost of each claim, including damages and legal fees, has fallen from £11,365 three years ago to £10,738 in 2014 and has fallen again in 2015 to £10,614.

This means that the overall cost to the insurance industry of these claims has dropped from more than £4.1bn in 2013 to £3.6bn last year. This is a saving for insurance companies of half a billion pounds a year.

Despite this insurance premiums have jumped by as much as a fifth in the past 12 months alone adding about £115.00 to each annual bill.

The only possible explanation is that insurers are not passing savings onto their customers.

Merseyside MP Louise Ellman, who chairs the Commons Transport Select Committee, said: “The bottom line is that the insurance industry promised that they would reduce premiums as whiplash claims fell and, if they haven’t done it, they’ve reneged on their promise”.

Ironically the government is still considering further reforms to restrict access to justice for accident victims instead of insisting that the insurance industry deliver on its promise of reducing motor insurance premiums.

True Cost of Fraud

2016-06-20T04:56:00.001-07:00

In recent years the Insurance Industry has peddled the myth that fraudulent road traffic accident claims cost each and every person with a motor insurance policy £50 a year.

The government has apparently accepted this figure without question and intends to impose harsh reforms as a result. However a new paper published by the consultancy firm Capital Economics has found that insurance industry figures are seriously distorted due to its own definition of fraud.

Insurers calculate fraud on the basis of both suspected and proven fraud, with the definition of suspected fraud including claims which are not pursued for any reason.

Using the ABI’s own estimates, the cost of actual proven fraud is just £4 per policy. Furthermore, Capital Economics suggest that even including suspected fraud the cost would only be £27 per policy; which around half of the figure used by insurers.

These figures are important as, citing the insurance industry figure, the Government plans to scrap all damages for minor soft-tissue injuries (“whiplash”) and to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000; denying many injured people a chance to engage solicitors to assist them.

Groups representing innocent accident victims are urging the Government to commission independent evidence about the true cost of fraud rather than just accepting the dubious figures promoted by the Insurance Industry.

Government remains tight lipped on reforms

2016-03-21T02:16:00.001-07:00

In his Autumn Statement on 25^th November 2015 George Osborne announced that the Government would introduce sweeping reforms to injury claims.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to remove the right of injured people to claim damages for “whiplash injuries” and to move all injury claims worth less than £5,000.00 to the “small claims court”.

It is estimated that the reforms would adversely affect 95% of all injury claims and have been condemned by consumer groups and lawyers on both claimant and defendant sides. Indeed the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (“FOIL”), the group which represents insurance company solicitors, is opposed to the reforms.

Despite announcing the reforms over 3 months ago the Government has still not given any details of how the proposals would work. Many believe that they would be unworkable and would swamp the small claims court with unrepresented claimants trying to battle insurance company lawyers.

In his statement the chancellor said that the proposals would mean that insurers could cut motor insurance premiums however one of the companies which has lobbied for the reforms, AXA, has just announced that its income from motor insurance rose to £400m in 2015 and its overall earnings rose by 25% which begs the question why these reforms would be needed for them to reduce premiums.

The reforms were buried in the detail of the chancellor’s expansive statement and received no media attention despite the potential effect on thousands of innocent accident victims. Surprisingly George Osborne has recommended that train companies should pay compensation to passengers whose trains are 15 minutes late. So we have a government which believes that the inconvenience of a 15 minute delay should be compensated but not a physical injury potentially lasting for months.

Proposed reforms would give insurers over £1bn a year

2016-01-20T08:06:00.001-08:00

The reforms announced late last year by George Osborne which include effectively abolishing damages for whiplash injuries could hand motor insurers over a billion pounds a year in increased profits.

In his autumn statement the chancellor said that the government would legislate to end compensation for what he called minor whiplash injuries and increase the limit on small claims from £1,000 to £5,000. This increase would mean that victims of accidents would be unlikely to have legal representation to help pursue their injury claims.

The chancellor suggested that this would produce savings of over £1bn, although some observers think that the savings could be much greater.

In return for the reforms the chancellor said that motor insurance premiums should fall by £40 to £50 per year however since making this announcement both the government and the Association of British Insurers have confirmed that there is no guarantee that savings will be passed on to the public in reduced premiums. Furthermore the government has had to admit that it has no way of ensuring that savings are passed on in reduced premiums and that it will not even be checking insurance company records to see what savings are made.

So will the massive savings be passed onto the public?

The insurance industry does have “form” on this issue. In return for previous government reforms in 2012 they promised to reduce premiums but failed to do so, in fact premiums have continued to rise. If, as expected, they fail to pass on further savings it will see their profits boosted by over £1bn per year.

Government Adds More Insult To Injury

2015-12-22T06:25:00.001-08:00

The Government recently took the unprecedented step of announcing proposed reforms to the legal system as part of its annual spending review.

The announcements were hidden away in Chancellor George Osbourne’s Autumn Statement when his retreat on changes to Tax Credits made all of the headlines.

What many observers did not spot were his proposals relating to personal injury claims. The Government have not explained why these announcements were made in the way they were when they have nothing to do with Government spending and are not part of Mr Osborne’s remit.

These latest proposals come after several years of almost constant reforms asked for by the Insurance Industry and granted by the Government all of which have produced massive savings for Insurance companies.

It has long been known that the Conservative Party is “very good friends” with the Insurance Industry, and it is no coincidence that donations to the party from Insurance companies and their well-paid bosses keep coming (estimated at £4.9m in the first 6 years of David Cameron’s leadership). However the latest announcement must have given Insurance companies everything on their Christmas list and more.

The Chancellor announced that he would abolish compensation for what he calls “minor whiplash injuries” and increase the small claims limit for personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000.

If the government gets its way, the effect will be to further deprive many innocent accident victims of compensation and, by raising the small claims limit, will prevent many more from accessing legal advice.

Many observers have noted that it is simply not possible for the government to just abolish “whiplash”, which is a diagnosable medical condition and can have a very real effect on those who suffer.

As far as increasing the small claims limit, in response to a petition protesting against the proposal (which so far has received over 20,000 signatures), the Government suggests that the increase from £1,000 to £5,000 is reasonable because the £1,000 limit was set in 1991 and so needs to be increased. In fact; if the increase was made in line with inflation it would be a little over £2,000 and nowhere near the £5,000 proposed.

The Government claims that both of these reforms will result in motor insurance premiums dropping by £40 to £50 a year and has said that some insurers have already committed to pass on savings to consumers. However in 2012 Insurers made the same promise after David Cameron agreed to introduce new measures to reduce their costs. Despite doing a deal with the Prime Minister (no less) the promised cuts in premiums did not materialise and now the Insurers are trying the same trick only this time with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On the promise of the possibly (but probably not) taking £4.00 a month off motor insurance premiums the Government is prepared for thousands of innocent victims of accidents to go uncompensated.

Of course, cynics might say that the Government is being conned (again) by the Insurance Industry or it could be that the Conservative party is so desperate for donations that it will give the Insurers whatever they ask for.

Damages for "sexting"

2015-12-03T03:21:00.000-08:00

In what might be the first case of its kind a court have awarded damages for “sexting”.

The claim for compensation was brought by a young woman against a former teacher.

When the victim, who cannot be named, was a teenager she developed a friendship with William Whillock who, at the time was the vice-principal and child protection officer at The New School in Kent. Mr Whillock was in his mid-50s at the time.

As the friendship developed Mr Whillock would call and text the victim late at night requesting naked images. Over the course of a year 18 text messages were exchanged and the victim sent twenty photographs to Mr Whillock, 12 of which showed her either topless, in her underwear or naked in the bath. Three of the images were even more graphic.

The images were eventually found on the victim’s telephone by another member of staff at the school, Mr Whillock was arrested and pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of a child.

He denied that he encouraged the victim to send him indecent images however the judge, Sir Robert Nelson, found him to be a "wholly untrustworthy witness". Mr Whillock received a three-year community sentence.

The victim then sued for damages based on the allegation that Mr Whillock’s behaviour in encouraging the victim to send indecent images would inevitably cause her psychological harm.

The claim was successful and the victim was awarded damages of £25,000.00. The case shows that when a young person is manipulated in this way not only might this result in a criminal prosecution and conviction but also a civil claim for compensation may follow.

Accidents Involving Mobility Scooters

2015-10-23T03:45:00.003-07:00

Mobility scooters are becoming an increasingly common sight on our streets however what if you are injured by one?

You might think that the same rules apply to mobility scooters as to cars or motorcycles however surprisingly this is not the case.

To drive a mobility scooter the user does not have to hold a driving licence, does not need insurance and does not need to have had any training nor pass even the most basic of tests. Essentially anybody can drive a mobility scooter.

There are two types of scooter. Class 2 scooters which cannot be driven on the road and cannot travel faster than 4 mph and Class 3 scooters which can be driven on the road and have a maximum speed of 8 mph.

Most reported accidents arise when Class 3 scooters are driven on pavements. Driving a Class 3 scooter on the pavement is permitted however the Highway Code makes it clear that, although these scooters can reach speeds of 8 mph, they should not be driven and faster than 4 mph on pavements and that the users must give priority to pedestrians.

Whilst most mobility scooter users are responsible drivers and obey the rules you will not have to spend long in a busy town centre before you see a scooter user driving on the pavement at more than 4 mph and not giving priority to pedestrians.

If you are injured by a car or motorcycle, the law requires that the vehicle has compulsory insurance cover; however this rule does not apply to mobility scooters. Accordingly many scooters are uninsured. However a recent decision by the European Court means that if you are injured by a mobility scooter driven negligently you would be to recover compensation from the Motor Insurers Bureau if the scooter driver was uninsured.

Cosmetic Procedures Still Unregulated

2015-10-23T03:44:00.001-07:00

In April 2013 the National Medical Director of the NHS produced a report into the regulation of “cosmetic interventions”. The report covered both surgical interventions (i.e. plastic surgery) and non-surgical interventions such as dermal fillers, Botox, laser or intense pulse light treatments.

The report concluded that non-surgical treatments were almost entirely unregulated and that individuals could offer these procedures with no experience, no training and no qualifications.

The report recommended urgent action to regulate the industry which it is estimated will be worth billions of pounds every year.

Amongst the recommendations were that rules relating to medical services be extended to cover these procedures, a body be established to regulate the industry and that all practitioners should be registered.

The report went on to suggest that procedures should be reported to every patient’s GP, proper records should be kept and that all practitioners should have insurance for when things go wrong.

Two and a half years later, no legislation has been introduced and so the industry remains largely unregulated.

Anybody undergoing one of these treatments is likely to receive it from an untrained, uninsured, unqualified amateur.

Against this unregulated background these procedures have become more and more commonplace. They have become more widely available, cheaper and are no longer the preserve of the middle aged, as more and younger people look upon these procedures as “routine” in an image conscious world.

Before embarking on one of these procedures consumers need to do their homework and investigate exactly what qualifications the person treating them has. Moreover they might want to know that there is insurance cover in place to compensate them, if things go wrong.

Ryanair Lose Flight Delay Test Case

2015-09-15T02:42:00.000-07:00

Reports suggest that budget airline Ryanair could face over £600m in flight delay compensation claims bill after losing a recent test case.

At an appeal hearing in the Manchester County Court the judge rejected the airline’s attempt to limit the time allowed to make a claim.

The passengers in the cases in question had waited five years and eight months to submit their claims and were initially unsuccessful as the airline successfully argued that the claims were out of time. The airline relied on its own terms and conditions which say that claims must be made within two years.

However at the appeal hearing the court found that the claims had been brought (just) in time as the Supreme Court had previously ruled that passengers were allowed up to six years to make a claim.

This is just the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by various airline companies to try and limit the effects of European Legislation; so far the airline companies’ attempts have been mostly unsuccessful.

The case confirms that passengers who experienced flight delays even up to six years ago can still bring claims.