The real culprits!

Amidst all the other fun and games on civil litigation, notably personal injury, funding people seem to have overlooked an interesting and authoritative slice of data that I saw mentioned in a very short column a few weeks ago.

A recent academic report has suggested that delays by defendants are driving up the costs of personal injury and clinical negligence claims. The study was commissioned by claims referrer National Accident Helpline (“NAH”) and conducted at the University of Lincoln.

Highly respected Lincoln Law School Professor John Peysner and his team analysed nearly twenty thousand cases supplied by NAH.  Delays by defendants and their insurers were found to cost an average £57.83 per day, compared with only £8.49 a day generated by all other causes of delay.

“All other causes” would include claimants and their lawyers who, according to the Association of British Insurers and some of their leading names are responsible for inflating costs of the system.

So there you have it.  An academic study by a leading authority on the subject finds out who is really responsible for pushing up your motor insurance premium. 

No surprise – it’s those that shout loudest that it’s somebody else’s fault.

Happy retirement?

I just posted an article on my website about the latest state of play with the abolition of the default retirement age.

It’s still going to be possible to dismiss fairly on the grounds of age but only with objective justification.  The informed view is that this will be too difficult for most employers so the answer is likely to lie in improved appraisal and performance management systems.

It’s all logical.  If in the course of getting older, people become less capable they face the consequences of that in the same way as their younger counterparts.

And if despite apparently advancing years there is no impact or they just get better at what they do, there should be no issue.

But aren't we missing something here?  I bet the majority of people have always accepted – and many of them gladly so – that they will retire at a certain age.  Those that do not want to put their feet up take other jobs anyway. B&Q springs to mind as a champion of the more mature workforce.

But 65 or whatever age it may have been will no longer represent a milestone, an achievement, an exit from the rat race.

It may be at about the same time, later, or it could well be sooner that senior staff find themselves told that it’s time to go because they are no longer capable – just to add to growing fears that it might be so.

How does that reconcile with the concept of dignity at work? Surely there is still much to be said for the carriage clock and party instead of being quietly ushered out with mutterings of “past it”.

Pat on the back - or tap on the shoulder?

Cheers, suckers !

I saw an article yesterday reporting the delight of liability insurers at the news that the Ministry of Justice will now implement Lord Justice Jackson’s civil costs recommendations.

It’s understandable.  They must be creased up in laughter at the supposedly intelligent people responsible for this decision, who seem to have swallowed all the baloney dished up.

Nick Starling at the ABI is quoted as saying “these reforms are good news for genuine claimants, who too often struggle to get fair compensation under the current system”.

How touching. How caring.

The reason why genuine claimants too often struggle to get fair compensation is that liability insurers will stop at nothing to prevent them from getting it.

And when “ambulance chasing lawyers” step in to make sure that justice is done, the game plan is simple.  Fight it all the way, run up a massive bill of costs and then squeal to the world that the lawyers are getting rich and spoiling the game.

Here’s an example, from personal experience…

A teenage girl, a farmer’s daughter, was crushed by a bull whilst she was working at a neighbouring farm.  She was not badly physically hurt but she did suffer a significant psychological injury as a result of being pinned to the wall by the huge beast.

An old style claims handler from a familiar big name nursed it carefully for nearly three years to the point where the young lady was on the verge of signing the agreement that was pre-requisite to payment of her £1,500 in compensation.

Father insisted that she should consult solicitors before signing. Of course we had to begin proceedings fairly quickly because the friendly claims handler had almost run it past the limitation date but we made a very early Part 36 offer to settle at £10,000. That was still a bargain for insurers but the client had reasons to do a deal at that level.

Her case went to trial on quantum. The award was nearly £35,000 with premium interest. Indemnity costs for most of the proceedings ran out at about the same level, also with premium interest.  So that was £70,000 for the claimant camp.

Our opponents were perhaps remunerated at the reduced rates that were the corollary of guaranteed work flows.  Even so, one can guess that the total bill would have been £90,000, if not more.  It could easily have been less than £15,000, by agreement - and no hard feelings.

This is the sort of case to which liability insurers will point and whinge about fat-cat ambulance-chasing lawyers.

Remember the bullies at school?  What did they do when the quiet but fearless kid stepped in to stop them from stealing off the others and knocking them about?  They ran off to the teacher howling.  

I remember teachers who were a lot more perceptive than the people at the Ministry who apparently cannot, or do not want to, see the obvious and grotesque truth.

Tip top

It's great news that the Crewkerne recycling centre is to be retained following the meeting in Taunton yesterday. £2 a visit is a small price to pay.


Well done the Somerset Waste Partnership for finding an almost painless solution and for both speed and style of response to my own e-mails on the subject. Nick Cater is a worthy Senior Communications Officer.

Top tip

The blog isn't really ready for launch yet but time marches on and there are things that need to be said - below the text of an e-mail to Somerset Waste Board this evening...


"I was very pleased to read the report on Midwest Radio's website earlier this week that your meeting tomorrow may approve plans to keep the CRC open. This evening I see the front and second page articles in the Western Gazette.
As a resident of Crewkerne I entirely support the move even if the price has to be a charge of £2.50 per visit as suggested.
Crewkerne resident Peter Traves is reported by the WG as saying that the proposed charge is "disgusting" and moans about "double taxes". Where has he been?
We have a serious financial crisis. We are where we are. People need to accept that and stop demanding the impossible because it doesn't fit with their ideals.
Has he and others like him thought rationally about how much it would cost him in fuel (!) alone to travel to Chard or Yeovil and back? Is his time of no value or does he have so much of it to spare that he can happily waste another 30 to 40 minutes of his life wearing out the roads that your council can ill-afford to maintain plus however much longer he has to sit and wait in the queues swelled by others forced into the same position?
If Mr Pearson at Purtington and others out of this town can just as easily travel elsewhere then fine - do it. But don't expect that I shall be happy to follow suit when I live only 3 minutes drive from a facility in which there has plainly been significant investment and is generally a credit to those who manage and staff it.
On page 2 of the WG is a picture of a Haselbury resident with evidence of fly-tipping. The article concludes with a determined statement of how the District Council will investigate, sort by hand, find the culprits...
...then what? Launch a prosecution no doubt - at just how much expense and to achieve what?
Quite right of course but has anybody missed the (correct) message that has been permeating our society for the last 50 years that prevention is better - and cheaper - than cure? How much fly-tipping might follow once you close this facility? How much pollution from folk burning waste at home? How much irritation to neighbours?
It is, to put it bluntly, a no-brainer. Go ahead please and approve the scheme even if it must be preserved at a modest cost.
I pay nearly £2000 p.a. in council tax. I would much prefer that I didn't have to pay again for a facility that I use at the very least 60 times a year - I visit once a week without fail and sometimes up to 5 or 6 times some summer weekends when the gardening takes a grip.
If I must contribute another £150 over the course of a year in the present climate I shall willingly do so in the recognition that it is a small price to pay personally - and collectively.
Michael Williamson
Crewkerne
24 March 2011"