Discussion- end compensation culture

[unclebulgaria67]

According to reports the Tories will include a Car Insurance bill within the Queens speech to reduce the compensation culture which is making insurance expensive.

 

Whilst this is very welcome, i just wonder what more they can actually do via legislation ? Surely it would be up to the courts, if it got that far, to validate a claim and to assess the amount of claim. Most personal injury claims never get to court and any payout is decided between parties. Applying some limits via legislation, might just end up with court cases to look into the limit set.

 

Might it be more effective to remind people that submitting a bogus claim to Insurers is a criminal offence and Insurers might report any suspicions to Police for investigation.

 

People do see any accident as an opportunity to make money and it is not just restricted to Car Insurance. If people fall over on a pavement, they might be thinking who owned the pavement, is there any defect that caused the fall, can i claim for injury etc.

 

And there is the issue of what the government is doing to prevent accidents in the first place. E.g spend more on road safety, more restrictions on young/new qualified drivers, more spending on driver training. What about a compulsory driving course at own expense, if you caused an accident ?

[citizenB]

This is something else imported from the USA, isn't it?

 

I agree it should not just be restricted to car insurance - with a little more care, some accidents can be avoided.

 

This article from the Telegraph in 2013 - http://cag.tw/22pa

 

Axa chief Paul Evans said 'ambulance chasing' firms who have made a fortune from fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims were now turning to new injury battlegrounds such as 'stress' triggered by a road accident or 'deafness' caused in the workplace by too much noise.

 

And he warned the UK was at a risk of turning into the US, with soaring insurance premiums and companies or social groups too worried to stage events where someone could fall over and sue them.

[citizenB]

This article from 2015 though reckons that the USA is being blamed unfairly for this culture, citing incidents from as far back as 1870..

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/features/attitudes-claiming-compensation-culture-5136576

 

The US is rarely accused of creating any sort of culture, so it seems unfair to deny it this one, but insurer Aviva recently poured cold water on the idea. Their archivist Anna Stone found clearly frivolous UK claims dating back to the 1870s. They include:

 

•A merchant who got rice in his eye after throwing it at an 1892 wedding, was awarded the equivalent of £2,994*

 

 

•A Welsh artist blown over in an 1886 gale, managed to get up again to receive his £1,796*

 

 

•A Scottish merchant, having hurt himself in 1895 leaping out of bed to catch his fainting wife, received £2,575*

 

 

*All sums are in today’s money.

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

This is something else imported from the USA, isn't it?

 

I agree it should not just be restricted to car insurance - with a little more care, some accidents can be avoided.

 

This article from the Telegraph in 2013 - http://cag.tw/22pa

 

Yes the UK and many others like Australia have adopted the US way of trying to make money out any situation.

 

It is the same with healthcare costs. As soon as you involve private companies and remove public capacity, you attract those seeking to maximise profits, which will not go towards better healthcare. The US Insurance based healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, yet does not deliver good healthcare to most people. Hospitals and Doctors lose their public service ethos and see that they can earn a fortune.

 

I can never understand why the UK always seems to follow what has not really worked in the US.

[Migster]

There's also a growing problem with claims relating to holidays ruined by sickness. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40348282

[king12345]

There's also a growing problem with claims relating to holidays ruined by sickness. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40348282

 

I read that.

A few years ago getting sick on holiday was part of the package and people just accepted it as bad luck or their fault for stuffing themselves at the all inclusive buffet and bar.

I see lots of holiday makers eating and drinking to such excess that it is almost inevitable reaching the end of the holiday without being sick.

I'm also surprised that such claims exist: how can someone prove that the food eaten in the resort was the cause of their sickness.

Occasionally you hear about a large number of people in one resort getting food poison and i understand that this is good evidence of their fault, but if you're the only one getting sick, how can you prove anything?

[Ganymede]

I read that.

A few years ago getting sick on holiday was part of the package and people just accepted it as bad luck or their fault for stuffing themselves at the all inclusive buffet and bar.

I see lots of holiday makers eating and drinking to such excess that it is almost inevitable reaching the end of the holiday without being sick.

I'm also surprised that such claims exist: how can someone prove that the food eaten in the resort was the cause of their sickness.

Occasionally you hear about a large number of people in one resort getting food poison and i understand that this is good evidence of their fault, but if you're the only one getting sick, how can you prove anything?

 

It's not just a case of being "sick" though.

 

If you've not left your hotel and only eaten their food and developed food poisoning, then clearly the hotel is at fault for not cooking the food properly, not fully reheating it or using poor hygiene methods.

 

Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent.

[BazzaS]

It's not just a case of being "sick" though.

 

If you've not left your hotel and only eaten their food and developed food poisoning, then clearly the hotel is at fault for not cooking the food properly, not fully reheating it or using poor hygiene methods.

 

Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent.

 

I disagree.

 

What of someone on a cruise ship (again a closed environment).

Another passenger comes aboard incubating norovirus (the 'winter vomiting' bug), and is symptomatic, contaminating one of the loos in a common area of the ship. They don't tell the ships staff, just going back to their cabin. So, a closed environment, so "it must be the holiday company's fault, right?"

Except it isn't ; where is their breach of duty of care?

The same for the "all inclusive hotel" : there might not be any breach of duty of care, depending on the circumstances.

 

As for "Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent."

It is hard enough getting samples when in the UK (as most people don't go to their GP with acute diarrhoeal illness, as they don't want to leave the house!)

How likely are they to submit samples while on holiday?if they do, is the laboratory abroad suitable accredited to give a result a U.K. Court will accept?

If they send a sample once back in the UK, will it still be positive?

 

What if it is viral food poisoning? That won't show on routine tests by (which looks for food poisoning bacteria)

Or food poisoning from a toxin, (the bug may have grown, formed the toxin, and died) where again specialist tests would be needed to avoid a "negative result".....

 

It isn't quite as clear cut as at first glance.

[unclebulgaria67]

I disagree.

 

What of someone on a cruise ship (again a closed environment).

Another passenger comes aboard incubating norovirus (the 'winter vomiting' bug), and is symptomatic, contaminating one of the loos in a common area of the ship. They don't tell the ships staff, just going back to their cabin. So, a closed environment, so "it must be the holiday company's fault, right?"

Except it isn't ; where is their breach of duty of care?

The same for the "all inclusive hotel" : there might not be any breach of duty of care, depending on the circumstances.

 

As for "Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent."

It is hard enough getting samples when in the UK (as most people don't go to their GP with acute diarrhoeal illness, as they don't want to leave the house!)

How likely are they to submit samples while on holiday?if they do, is the laboratory abroad suitable accredited to give a result a U.K. Court will accept?

If they send a sample once back in the UK, will it still be positive?

 

What if it is viral food poisoning? That won't show on routine tests by (which looks for food poisoning bacteria)

Or food poisoning from a toxin, (the bug may have grown, formed the toxin, and died) where again specialist tests would be needed to avoid a "negative result".....

 

It isn't quite as clear cut as at first glance.

 

The way to deal with illness claims is to require a Doctors assessment at the time of suffering an illness. The Insurers have a helpline and if people called it, they would be told to get a Doctor or Nurse to visit the accommodation where they are staying, if they are too ill to get to a Doctors surgery or Hospital. Proper assessment and quick treatment might stop the condition getting worse.

 

Insurers are tightening up their claims processes and also policy terms detailing what they require people to do, if they want a claim to be considered.

[Ganymede]

I disagree.

 

What of someone on a cruise ship (again a closed environment).

Another passenger comes aboard incubating norovirus (the 'winter vomiting' bug), and is symptomatic, contaminating one of the loos in a common area of the ship. They don't tell the ships staff, just going back to their cabin. So, a closed environment, so "it must be the holiday company's fault, right?"

Except it isn't ; where is their breach of duty of care?

The same for the "all inclusive hotel" : there might not be any breach of duty of care, depending on the circumstances.

 

As for "Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent."

It is hard enough getting samples when in the UK (as most people don't go to their GP with acute diarrhoeal illness, as they don't want to leave the house!)

How likely are they to submit samples while on holiday?if they do, is the laboratory abroad suitable accredited to give a result a U.K. Court will accept?

If they send a sample once back in the UK, will it still be positive?

 

What if it is viral food poisoning? That won't show on routine tests by (which looks for food poisoning bacteria)

Or food poisoning from a toxin, (the bug may have grown, formed the toxin, and died) where again specialist tests would be needed to avoid a "negative result".....

 

It isn't quite as clear cut as at first glance.

 

With respect you're wrong on most counts.

[BazzaS]

With respect you're wrong on most counts.

 

Which counts?

 

The fact that it would be possible to argue no breach of duty of care?

I'm happy to discuss that (noting that it would be different if it was a group of people who a case-control study demonstrated that there was one dish which was contaminated, leading to a point source outbreak, where breach of duty of care wouldn't be hard to show, or if the venue had ignored an obvious outbreak)

 

The fact that not all labs would be accredited? Happy to discuss.

 

The fact that samples aren't always tested for viral causes or toxins, rather than just cultured? Happy to discuss.

 

The fact that if tested on return from holiday rather than time of illness a sample might have become negative? Ditto.

 

If you want to discuss individual 'counts' to back up your assertion that I'm wrong on "most counts" : feel free to try to justify that unwarranted assertion.

 

Meanwhile, I'm glad I've found an expert on testing for food poisoning: what do you feel is the main information (often missing from sample requests) that would lead to use (or not) of TCBS, and what might you or I miss (if as a result, TCBS wasn't used) ....

(This was something highlighted to me by a "food examiner" in a case I was involved with ....... so I'm glad we can rely on your expertise to clarify that and the "most counts" I've apparently got wrong ......)

 

I'm happy to discuss where I might have got something wrong. I can't do so with the vague assertion of "most counts".

[Ganymede]

This isn't the thread for discussing holiday sickness claims. It's the motor insurance sub forum.

 

You can either take it at face value that I know what I'm talking about or not. It's up to you.

[BazzaS]

This isn't the thread for discussing holiday sickness claims. It's the motor insurance sub forum.

 

You can either take it at face value that I know what I'm talking about or not. It's up to you.

 

I'm aware you are a solicitor.

I'm aware you probably know more about motor insurance and it's law than I do.

 

I just doubt that you are correct that I'm "wrong on most counts" about investigation of food poisoning and its effect on those compensation claims, which is what your answer referred to (regardless of which forum it was posted in, [which doesn't show on my smartphone, BTW]).

So, if you want to persist in claiming that I'm wrong, I am happy to discuss it, rather than just taking it "at face value".

 

I don't doubt your knowledge & expertise (at least not for motoring insurance law)

I just doubt it more for the area (food poisoning and its claims) you've doubted me on, rather than those areas I have no grounds to doubt you on ......

[unclebulgaria67]

I have debated health issues with Bazza on a number of occasions and he has come back with a lot information, which seems well researched. Same on legal issues with Ganymede, where the information provided in very useful. I think there is an issue with these claims being made and it might be resolved in due course. A court case is currently ongoing, where a Hotel is suing a British visitor for false food poisoning claims and the Hotel is seeking loss of revenues. If the Hotel is successful and the amount involved is considerable, i should imagine it might put many off making dodgy claims and tighten up the process for people to collect medical evidence.

 

In regard to Motor Insurance claims, i can't see how the Government can reduce number of dodgy whiplash claims. People do seem to get medical evidence and if the amount that can be claimed is capped, then this will also catch genuine claims as well. I suffered from whiplash during a rugby match and it was one of the most painful things i have endured. It took weeks to recover.

 

I think educating the country about responsibility in making only genuine claims and limiting it to what is necessary, might be best way forward. If people were made aware that the value of claims made was increasing insurance costs for everyone and they would increase to potentially unaffordable levels, then it might make enough people think. As premiums increase, people will think they have more entitlement to claim to get a return on what they are paying.

[unclebulgaria67]

Interesting case

 

Mother who said garage tripped her up ordered to pay £70,000

 

http://dailym.ai/2t0VmrO

 

In my earlier post i mentioned a hotel suing a guest for an alleged false food poisoning case. The hotel are suing the guest for £170,000 for reputational damage. If the hotel is successful, then the person concerned faces life changing consequences.

[king12345]

I think that whiplash claims should be fully investigated by independent authorities, not by doctors paid by whomever is claiming (or their solicitors).

I always rage when I think about how a woman claimed fraudulently from my insurance.

My wife was reversing out of a parking spot, saw this car and stopped.

The woman driving it stopped and signalled with her hand out of the window for my wife to carry on.

My wife moved by 4 inches and this woman drove her scrap car into my wife's, lightly touching it.

No damage on my car, not even a scratch.

Her car was a rotten scrap and had dents, bumps and rust everywhere.

Immediately she came out of the car and demanded £250 cash for the non damage.

My wife told her to get lost.

I spoke to her on the phone a couple of hours later and she still wanted £250 cash to repair her car.

I asked how she knew the price of the damage there and then, no explanation.

I told her to go to a repair shop and get a quote.

She called me ten minutes later claiming that the repair was (you guessed it) £250.

I told her to get the car booked in and I would pay the garage the same day.

She refused to even tell me what garage it was and continued to ask for the £250.

I refused and contacted my insurance.

I made them aware that this was a sc@m and provided them recordings of the telephone calls in which she asked for the £250.

A few weeks later renewal comes up and I am informed that she's been paid £4900 for whiplash.

Apparently she produced medical evidence that she wouldn't be able to work for 6 months.

I pointed out to my insurance that she has a shop down the road and she never stopped working.

They said that they don't investigate any claim below £5k because it costs more (?!?!?!).

So the insurance took a biased doctor's word for granted and paid up immediately in this case of clear insurance fraud.

I made one mistake at the time.: I should have obtained CCTV evidence from the car park owner (Lidl) so to prove that she had signalled my wife to reverse and then deliberately bump into her.

But I doubt it would have made any difference.

Sad!

[Old Cogger]

waiter there is a fly in my soup_ ?? where can I claim distress and lack of meat? sad state of the times

[unclebulgaria67]

British tourists who faked hotel sickness claims face PRISON

 

http://dailym.ai/2uqRg9W

 

There is definitely a concerted effort now to stop fraudulent claims. If you make a claim which seems to be dodgy, you might well face investigation and it might end up with a prosecution.