Hats off to the Transport Select Committee for an insightful and balanced Report

Last week saw the publication of the long-awaited report by the cross-party Transport Select Committee on the cost of motor insurance, and in their deliberations a number of sensible points were made.

As significant as anything, though, was the revelation that the report contained this paragraph:

MPs on the committee were surprised to find that insurers sometimes made an offer to personal injury claimants even before they had received their medical report.

Pre-medical offers are wrong

To this, I would substitute the word 'sometimes' with 'often'. As I have previously mentioned, the practice of pre-medical offers of settlement is both endemic and contrary to the interests of justice. How can it be right that injured people compromise claims without the benefit of legal advice?

The committee took a commendably robust view of this practice, urging insurers to put their house in order and stop it at once. Not least in the committee's thinking was the fact that settling cases without a medical assessment, still less with any legal input, encourages the very things that insurers say they are trying to combat (and which drive up consumers' premiums): fraud and exaggeration.

Common sense about whiplash

What, though, of whiplash? The committee noted that there is no statistical, verifiable evidence to support the oft heard assertion that "the UK is the whiplash capital of the world". In fact, the committee observed that the number of UK claims for whiplash has fallen; and they are in fact below the level they were 5 years ago.

Moreover, the committee found that there was no authoritative data publically available about the prevalence of fraudulent or exaggerated claims for whiplash injuries. By way of a wider point, the committee recommended that the government ask that the Association of British Insurers provide better data about fraudulent or exaggerated personal injury claims. This step is critical to combat fraud, and long over due.

The committee recommended that the government should not switch whiplash claims to the small claims track, by increasing the small claims court limit. Its reasoning is again sensible: namely that there was a real likelihood that genuine claims would not be brought.

There was further congruity between the government and the committee. The government proposed demanding medical reports from accredited medical experts for whiplash claims - a good idea, and one backed by the committee. This will be particularly powerful in eradicating unmeritorious claims, especially if combined with the committees recommendation that insurers stop making pre medical offers. In addition, the committee suggested claimants should have to prove they saw a medical practitioner shortly after their accident.

Hats off to the committee for some sterling work and balanced common sense, and to the government for having the wisdom to await receipt and give consideration to the Transport Select Committee Report before taking further reform steps.

A Spotlight on 'Compensation Culture'

The case of Baljinder Kaur Gill, who was killed in a staged crash-for-cash accident, shines a light on the reality of the so-called 'compensation culture'.

Here we have a tragic incident in which perpetrators of a criminal enterprise have justly been given lengthy custodial sentences. Four men - Radoslaw Bielawski, Jacek Kowalczyk, Andrzez Skowron and Artur Okrutny - concocted a plan which would see a VW Passat and an Audi A3 collide with an innocent Ford Transit van on the A40 in Buckinghamshire. Their intention was to claim personal injury compensation.

A Disgraceful Scheme
The men put their plan into operation on the evening of 11 June, 2011 - to disastrous effect. Gill, 34, died when her Ford Fiesta, which had been hit by one of the men's vehicles, was hit again by a Renault Trafic van. Her car had been stationary in the fast lane of the A40 after she had been unable to avoid crashing into the Ford Transit van, whose experienced driver had commendably managed to avoid hitting the men’s vehicles. Ms Gill left her car with its hazard lights flashing but returned to retrieve some possessions. Her car was then hit by the Renault van in what Reading Crown Court heard was "an explosion of metal, glass and dust". Ms Gill was fatally injured at the scene.

The men stood to gain £20,000, having targeted the Transit van because they knew it would have valid insurance. Their ill-conceived and disgraceful scheme caused harm not only to Ms Gill. Probably because of 'rubber-necking', there was a pile-up on the opposite carriageway. It left another person seriously injured.

Just Sentences
Bielawski, 24 and Kowalczyk, 32 were both jailed for a total of 10 years and three months for conspiracy to commit fraud, causing death by dangerous driving and conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice. Skowron, 25 who was to be paid an undisclosed fee for taking part in the scam, was jailed for 10 years. Okrutny, 23 who was to be paid £300, was not present at the crashes but was jailed for 12 months.

Mr Justice Sweeney was right to pass stringent sentences on the men, in what he noted was "the first such enterprise to result in a death to come before the courts".

Every right-thinking person would understand and most would welcome the sentences, and applaud the investigative work of the police.

I hope we can rid society of this evil. This case demonstrates that fraudulent activity exists, just as  the ensuing  tragedy shows just how terrible the full consequences can be. But I also hope that those who maintain that we inhabit a world in which spurious claim follows spurious claim will take stock and pause for thought.

Time for a Common Sense look at 'Compensation Culture'
Back in 2005, Tony Blair gave a speech in which he called for "common sense culture, not compensation culture". In a sound-bite quickly picked up by the media, Blair said: "Public bodies, in fear of litigation, act in highly risk-averse and peculiar ways. We have had a local authority removing hanging baskets for fear that they might fall on someone's head, even though no such accident had occurred in the 18 years they had been hanging there."

Blair helped set in train a backlash against a fundamental tenet of tort law: that the claimant should, if he or she has proved negligence and causation, and if the resultant damage is not too remote, be placed in the position he or she would have been in had the accident or injury not occurred. Ever since, the media has delighted in stories of absurd claims supposedly brought by solicitors acting unethically and claimants on the make.

The truth is otherwise. The vast majority of claimants are honest  and their solicitors continue to adhere to the basic principles of tort law: if someone has been injured, they take up the cudgels on that person's behalf and seek redress, which as a matter of law is always intended to restore the position and no more .

It is right that our democracy allows this to happen. It is a sign that we are civilized, and that we care. Those who may need to bring claims arising from the collateral damage in the Gill case should not fear obstruction by insurers or vilification by third parties who insist they're making the most of their misfortune. They should be emboldened in their conviction that they are entitled to right the wrongs inflicted on them.

The fact is that the men behind the appalling events that led to Baljinder Gill's case are those who truly represent Britain's 'compensation culture'. Common sense condemns them - and gives thanks for a developed judicial system that allows victims to bring claims, when to do so is right.

A Poor Decision by Churchill

Last week Churchill, the insurance giant, was in the news - and not because it had announced a new series of benign ads featuring a cuddly dog and a well-known actor.

Instead, Churchill made the headlines because it has decided to appeal against a judgment by the high court.

Bethany Probert, now 16, suffered traumatic brain damage and a number of debilitating injuries when she was hit by a car one afternoon in December 2009. The young girl, who was walking home from riding stables, was hit by a driver who was travelling at 50mph along a country lane - too fast, according to the court.

The result of the accident was that Bethany was left with limited walking ability, depression and a lack of concentration or spatial awareness. She requires specialist equipment, a support worker and an open plan, single-storey home - in other words, ongoing care for the rest of her life.

Her mother would have taken some small solace from the court's judgment that Bethany was in no way guilty of contributory negligence. At least, she would have thought, there will be compensation to look after her daughter.

But not if Churchill has its way. The insurer was last week granted leave to appeal against the judgment (which would have seen Bethany paid up to £5m compensation), in what is being seen a test case to determine the extent to which children can be held responsible for their injuries in road accidents.

Churchill maintains that Bethany should have wearing a high visibility jacket as she walked along the road. In the words of a Churchill spokesperson: "While we accept that our insured was liable in part for the accident, we are appealing [against] the decision that he was entirely to blame."

Churchill's appeal can only be greeted with great dismay. Each case is, of course, dependent on its own facts, but the idea that children should be compelled to wear high-visibility jackets on country lanes, lest they are partly at fault for accidents, is ridiculous. I wish Bethany, her family and their solicitors (Richard Langton of Messrs Slater & Gordon) well in their battle against Churchill.