Scams, claims and Compensation Games
The Channel Four "documentary" with this programme title this evening made irresistable viewing for any personal injury lawyer. I was hoping to see what tricks people got up to to make fraudulent claims, how they scammed unsuspecting insurance companies and councils into paying out thousands of pounds...i was really expecting it to be the sort of programme Harry Hill would host..or the voice over to be done by the same chap who does all of those traffic cop programmes.
Instead it was a very poor attempt at investigative journalism, with no scams ,no games and only four claims, hardly the exposee of the "compensation culture" it promised to be. What it revealed is that solicitors make money out of providing legal services,( heaven forbid) they make no money if there is no claim, and dont take matters further than investigation if there is no claim.
One man was compensated because he used a faulty razor which left his face scarred, a woman injured when a tree branch fell on her got her "pay out" and a young boy had money paid into a court trust fund becuase he broke his toe on a faulty drain in a school playground. In all cases the claimants were apparently the scourge of the country and solicitors as bad for helping them.
It has to be said it sounded as thought the legal fees were often as much as the damages paid.But no body asked why a dangerous drain had been left for three years in a school playground, nobody commented on the failure by the razor company to make sure their razors would be safe to use or why there was no system to make sure trees in public areas were not falling over or had old rotting branches.
The school drain seems to be as bad today as it was when the accident happened. If the Council spent a few hundred pounds of the council tax payers money and repaired it , the accident would not have happened, the legal fees would not have been incurred and more importantly than all a young boy would not have broken his foot. Moreover if when the claim was made the council had just admitted its fault the legal fees would have been much less.
If the boys parents had paid £100 for a school trip which was cancelled would it have been right for them to ask for it back....i think so ...but if the school injures the boy...well thats beside the point..lets blame the lawyers.
All this programme demonstrated is the lack of care shown by those we put our daily trust in and their continued attempts to avoid paying compensation when they should really be trying harder to make us a little safer.
]
It of course very fashionable
It of course very fashionable to blame lawyers for all kinds of perceived ills in society.
There is nothing new about this - even Shakespeare was keen to curry favour with his audiences.
However a few points occur to me.
1. I am old enough to remember the Pearson Commission which reported in the 1970s on compensation for personal injury. Pearson suggested a no-fault system for road traffic and industrial accidents. Such a system existed in New Zealand at that time and as far as I am aware still does. In other words victims would be compensated out of the benefits system regardless of the cause of the injury without the need for litigation. Thus lawyers would be eliminated from this aspect of conflict.
Successive governments were however not interested preferring instead to spend tax payers money among other things on:-
a. A system which many say encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.
b. Management consultants who trouser millions telling goverment how to run an office.
c. Quangos for every pressure group under the sun.
d. Computer systems which cost millions and never work.
e. Regulating the minutiae of our daily lives.
f. Duck houses.
2. Courts do seek to impose limits on the fault based liability. There are risks in life some of which are greater in certain activities and sometimes accidents happen without where no one is at fault.
For instance in 2008 the Court of Appeal held that a parent who hired a bouncy castle for her child's birthday was not under a duty to provide constant uninterrupted supervision of the children playing in it.
She was not responsible when a child was injured. If Pearson had been adopted then it could be argued that the money spent on those court proceedings would have been diverted to compensate the injured child. As it was he got nothing.
3. If there are scams these are likely to emanate from the so-called victim who also deceives his lawyer.
Insurance companies are becoming much more vigilant in detecting false claims and will seek the return of moneys wrongly paid plus exemplary damages if they can.
This is not to say however that a claimant with genuine loss will be denied compensation even if he lies or exaggerates. He will though suffer criminal consequences