Another attempted fraud case

Liam McPoyle

Just saw this today.

FIVE Dublin drinking pals today dramatically withdrew personal injury claims relating to a rear-ending accident that a judge described as “a clear set-up.”


SHARE
At full value the group could have pocketed damages of €300.000 against the Motor Insurer’s Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) together with legal costs of €100,000. A sixth €60,000 damages claim had been withdrawn before today’s hearing.
Barrister Paul Murray told 41-year-old Darren Mulhall that the MIBI had traced the history of the car used in the set-up crash and found it belonged to a close relative of one of his friends involved in the scam.

“This was no coincidence. You have been caught out Mr Mulhall. This was pure and simple a set-up,” Mr Murray told him under cross-examination in the witness box.
Mr Murray, who appeared with Mark Healy of Harrison O’Dowd solicitors for the MIBI, told Mulhall that he and his drinking friends had called a taxi and lured the driver into a set-up crash.

Counsel told Mulhall he and his friends were found “still moaning and groaning” in the taxi by the time three ambulances and the gardai arrived. He had been taken out of the taxi on a spinal board and rushed to hospital.
Mr Murray told Mulhall that neither he nor any of his friends could identify the Toyota car that had crashed into the back of the taxi even though, with one of its front wheels askew, it could “hobble” only a short distance up the road from the scene.

Mulhall, of Rutland Cottages, Lower Rutland Street, Dublin, told Judge Jacqueline Linnane he knew nothing about two men from the crippled Toyota having come back to the taxi and allegedly asking everyone if they were all right.
He said the accident had happened in Tallaght after he and five of his friends had left his brother’s pub, The Blind Ref, in Ballybough, Dublin, on March 13, 2013. The car that had rear-ended them had never been traced, he said.

Mr Murray said the taxi driver had returned to the scene the following day and had photographed the crippled Toyota which lay abandoned only yards from where it hit his taxi.
“Investigations revealed it had been sold only days before the crash to either the father or stepfather of Gerard Black, Killarney Court, Dublin, who was in the taxi with you and who has already withdrawn his claim,” Mr Murray told Mulhall.

Mulhall told Mr Murray his theory of a set-up sounded “very convincing” but he knew nothing about it.
Following an adjournment for lunch Mr Murray told Judge Linnane that Mr Mulhall’s case need no longer trouble the court as he was consenting to it being dismissed with no further order.

“I can also tell you judge that the connected cases of Alan O’Brien, Shelmalier Road, East Wall; Anthony Dolan, Fairlawn Road, Finglas; Stephen O’Shaughnessy, Avonbeg Gardens, Tallaght, and Mark Carroll Hart, Portland Row, North Strand, have been withdrawn over lunch,” Mr Murray said.
Judge Linnane, striking out all of their cases, said: “It is quite clear these were a set-up.” All of the claimants had complained of whiplash and back injuries.

Source

Costs generally run to about 30% of the final payout so if it had been fully paid it would have resulted in around €400,000 being paid out, for one fabricated accident.

Its unlikely that it would have resulted in the full amounts being paid but Id conservatively place the saving at €250,000 incl costs.

The MIBI should be applauded for carrying out due diligence and uncovering the full facts.

What rankles me is that there was no mention of any of the claimants facing any sanctions which is as maddening as it is stupefying.

If I went into a post office or a shop and attempted to rob it I would be convicted and jailed for it.

This is attempted theft from the MIBI and there should be similar sanctions placed for people that commit or attempt to commit insurance fraud.

While its great that this was uncovered, how many cases are getting through I wonder?

When the court and judicial system does not punish white collar crime then there is absolutely no deterrent to it. The potential rewards far outweigh the risk, such as it is.

Until the government and the judiciary get their house in order then cases like this will continue unabated.

I should also point out that the individuals involved are not noted to have any criminal connections or to be part of any ethnic minority.

It just goes to show how easy it is to turn some peoples heads for a couple of quid.

If you know of or suspect that someone is making a bogus claim then please, please, please report it to Insurance Confidential.

Its completely anonymous and they can be contacted on 1890 333 333.

Insurers and the MIBI can only do so much and their resources can only stretch so far, it is down to the honest members of society, ie people like you or I to try and stem the tide for this nonsense.

Graham

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

What's scariest of all is that they were able to just ring a random taxi and get the driver to agree to take part in the scam.

Was the taxi driver involved? My interpretation on first reading is the taxi driver was not involved other than as an unwitting participant.

robbiew

Makes you sick to think they got off without so much as a hefty fine at the very least..:mad:

biko

I think that for every bogus case like this there are probably ten were the perps were a little bit smarter, got away with it and is part of why you and I pay extra for insurance on our cars.

uck51js9zml2yt

I assume they will have to pay their own costs.

Liam McPoyle

Graham wrote: »

Was the taxi driver involved? My interpretation on first reading is the taxi driver was not involved other than as an unwitting participant.

Dont think so, at first read I thought he was but on second it seems not so I ninja edited my post.

Obviously not ninja enough though!

dudara

They weren't even subtle about it, getting Dad/Stepdad to buy the car, and leaving it at the scene.

Imagine how many schemes are successful because a bit of forethought is put into it

Atlantic Dawn

Heaven Beautiful Jackal wrote: »

I assume they will have to pay their own costs.

Probably something like €9.50 a week from their dole and they will repay it in 48 years.

Liam McPoyle

biko wrote: »

I think that for every bogus case like this there are probably ten were the perps were a little bit smarter, got away with it and is part of why you and I pay extra for insurance on our cars.

That is the problem.

Where its a case of one or two injuries its often cheaper to just pay it rather than let it go to court, unless the insurer has irrefutable proof that is.

The onus lies with them to prove the claimant is lying which is hugely difficult with soft tissue claims.

The fact that where 7 initial claimants here is what set the major warning bells going Id say.

Graham

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Dont think so, at first read I thought he was but on second it seems not so I ninja edited my post.

Obviously not ninja enough though!

Out ninjad

The only reason the taxi driver element stood out is the local cabby I used to use all the time got caught in a similar 'accident'. A relatively minor bump resulted in the fire brigade turning the cab into a convertible so the passengers could be taken away on spine boards.

George Michael

sickens me. my insurance has gone up and this is why

Henry Ford III

Will these guys now be uninsurable for life?

p.s. That might not be fair but they deserve to pay a life long penalty for their attempted fraud.

Liam McPoyle

George Michael wrote: »

sickens me. my insurance has gone up and this is why

Its part of the reason why alright, certainly not the only one but it is having a substantial effect on premiums overall.

Liam McPoyle

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Will these guys now be uninsurable for life?

p.s. That might not be fair but they deserve to pay a life long penalty for their attempted fraud.

That's the thing, I dont believe they will.

They withdrew their claims before it went fully through the motions so technically they haven't been convicted of anything, just found out that they were pulling a fast one so the case was dismissed.

You can bet your life though that any insurer worth their salt will have the names recorded and circulated to every sales agent they have.

While not convicted of anything they clearly present a moral hazard so insurers wont want anything to do with them.

ED E

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Will these guys now be uninsurable for life?

p.s. That might not be fair but they deserve to pay a life long penalty for their attempted fraud.

More importantly would that actually stop them driving? If they're willing to commit serious fraud I doubt driving without tax & insurance is going to be a big weight on their conscience.

Henry Ford III

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

That's the thing, I dont believe they will.

They withdrew their claims before it went fully through the motions so technically they haven't been convicted of anything, just found out that they were pulling a fast one so the case was dismissed.

You can bet your life though that any insurer worth their salt will have the names recorded and circulated to every sales agent they have.

While not convicted of anything they clearly present a moral hazard so insurers wont want anything to do with them.

Would their current insurers in the circumstances be entitled cancel their cover?

Damien360

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

You can bet your life though that any insurer worth their salt will have the names recorded and circulated to every sales agent they have.

While not convicted of anything they clearly present a moral hazard so insurers wont want anything to do with them.

Our data protection laws would likely come into play and as they are not convicted (I don't see why not), it is unlikely records can be legally held.

Liam McPoyle

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Would their current insurers in the circumstances be entitled cancel their cover?

Nope, they haven't technically done anything wrong, they were claiming through the taxi drivers insurance. At least he will be fully exonerated now. Its hard enough to get insurance on a taxi never mind having a claim for €300k hanging over your head.

If right was right they would be made reimburse the taxi driver for any extra outlay he more than likely had to make on his insurance premiums. This has been ongoing for over 3 bloody years.

You have no idea how angry this makes me, Im feckin stewing thinking about it.

Damien360 wrote: »

Our data protection laws would likely come into play and as they are not convicted (I don't see why not), it is unlikely records can be legally held.

When I started working in insurance 7 years ago my first job was in a call center for an insurance company rather than a brokers so we got brilliant training in terms of what to look out for.

For example, there were particular occupations that set off alarm bells, certain surnames were on a non paper "watch list" as in if we happened to get a call from a person we suspected was a bit dodge there were ways around not quoting them.

Of course nothing was ever official or put in a handbook etc however it was common practice.

Henry Ford III

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/50/enacted/en/print#sec6

I think the insurers could and should go after them. Get a conviction for attempted fraud. Blacklist them.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/50/enacted/en/print#sec6

I think the insurers could and should go after them. Get a conviction for attempted fraud. Blacklist them.

They are more likely to ban insurance for
People who drink
People who have pals
People who take taxis
People who own taxis

If we are to take anything from the indiscriminate ban on 15year old cars.

greengone

In the UK they have thousands of the arranged crash types and rarely do they catch them.
The normal is rent a car put 4 to 6 in the car and deliberatly stop on fast road and they get rear ended .
It might take few times to find suitable place and car to make rear end crash

Best I can figure these guys in this story didnt get the cash so there is unlikely to be further court case for them as the problem is to really prove it .

The court case only looked from the sounds of only one element of the story the civil side not criminal side so it doent look like it is real proof to get convictions for the whole gang .Civil law requires lowwer level to say guilty but criminal such as fraud requires total proof of crime .

However when you look the stats on car crashes these fraud events are still tiny compared to the real crashes that occour all over .
Also the MIBI requires various things that can rarely defeat the fraudsters from small fender benders if they use good solicitors .
Those are often not planned crash events but the people take advantage of the crash event to get large funds.
However the payout stats from MIBI still show Ireland to be the average claim rates compared to the western world norms .

scamalert

Bio Mech wrote: »

Come again???

my point was theres no one properly overlooking accidents,people i know that had troubles and stories person gets rear ended,just by rolling car at stop light,no guards no ambulance few words oh its grand and next thing person is wearing neck support and pursuing legal action for compensation.

Anyways asked mod to delete my prior post as went a bit on a ramble with my experience but until system works in a way where compensations are in 5 digits and people manage to get away with it and as per OPs example takes years to figure such stunts they will keep happening and this only will impact people with ever increasing insurance costs.

ohnonotgmail

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Nope, they haven't technically done anything wrong, they were claiming through the taxi drivers insurance. At least he will be fully exonerated now. Its hard enough to get insurance on a taxi never mind having a claim for €300k hanging over your head.

If right was right they would be made reimburse the taxi driver for any extra outlay he more than likely had to make on his insurance premiums. This has been ongoing for over 3 bloody years.

You have no idea how angry this makes me, Im feckin stewing thinking about it.




When I started working in insurance 7 years ago my first job was in a call center for an insurance company rather than a brokers so we got brilliant training in terms of what to look out for.

For example, there were particular occupations that set off alarm bells, certain surnames were on a non paper "watch list" as in if we happened to get a call from a person we suspected was a bit dodge there were ways around not quoting them.

Of course nothing was ever official or put in a handbook etc however it was common practice.

The claim was against the MIBI not the taxi drivers insurance. the other car hit the back of the taxi so the taxi was not at fault.

quadrifoglio verde

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Its part of the reason why alright, certainly not the only one but it is having a substantial effect on premiums overall.

What's the other reasons?
A rise in claims has occurred, but nowhere near proportional to the rise in insurance.
Did the central bank change reserve rules? If so, how under capitalized were they prior to these rules/how ****ty were the regs .

ohnonotgmail

robbiew wrote: »

Makes you sick to think they got off without so much as a hefty fine at the very least..:mad:

this was a civil case for damages not a criminal trial. hopefully a criminal trial will follow but i'm doubtful.

Liam McPoyle

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

What's the other reasons?
A rise in claims has occurred, but nowhere near proportional to the rise in insurance.
Did the central bank change reserve rules? If so, how under capitalized were they prior to these rules/how ****ty were the regs .

A huge part is down to the requirements of Solvency 2. Its an EU directive that came in at the beginning of the year.

It essentially means that insurers have to have a minimum amount of funds in their coffers to cover potential outlay on claims.

Iirc it's a minimum of 150% to 200% of the outstanding reserves so if a company has €100m outstanding claims at any time they have to have a minimum of €200m in their cash reserves.

Changes at the court levels have increased the potential payout levels.

The district court limit tripled and the circuit court limit almost quadrupled.

In the last 12 months insurers have been advised that they must now reimburse the department of social welfare for any illness benefits paid as a result of a claim.

The brain dead Setanta ruling means the MIBI has to cover the €95 million hole left by their collapse. The MIBI is funded by a levy on insurance premiums so has to he funded by increases.

The funny thing is, Setanta went tits up because they were writing policies far too cheaply and couldn't cover the claims, yet people are still expecting their motor insurance for a couple of hundred quid. It's unequivocally proven that the prices over the last number of years were too low but many people cannot get their head around it. The only reason 123 are still around today is because RSA bailed them out for over €200,000,000 yet people still expect to get policies for buttons. The lack of foresight that many people have is frightening.

The collapsing world investment markets also has paid a part. Where previously insurers could invest their money and get decent returns the low levels of interest available means that the returns are much smaller than in years past.

Liam McPoyle

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The claim was against the MIBI not the taxi drivers insurance. the other car hit the back of the taxi so the taxi was not at fault.

True, however as his policy was in force at the time of the accident, he would have had to declare that to his insurers or to any new companies, there would have been 6 open personal injuries claims against passengers in his vehicle. Insurers are obliged to err on the side of caution as there was / is no guarantee how it would have played out so even though it was unlikely his insurance would have had to pay anything (if it was a genuine accident) the claim would have to remain open with his insurer meaning no other company would touch him.

Mousewar

This is actually the bit that annoyed me the most:

Counsel told Mulhall he and his friends were found “still moaning and groaning” in the taxi by the time three ambulances and the gardai arrived

Ripping off the MIBI and upping all our insurance prices is one thing but tying up THREE ambulances for your little fraud that may have been diverted from a real emergency should be criminal.

hullaballoo

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

A huge part is down to the requirements of Solvency 2. Its an EU directive that came in at the beginning of the year.

It essentially means that insurers have to have a minimum amount of funds in their coffers to cover potential outlay on claims.

Iirc it's a minimum of 150% to 200% of the outstanding reserves so if a company has €100m outstanding claims at any time they have to have a minimum of €200m in their cash reserves.

Changes at the court levels have increased the potential payout levels.

The district court limit tripled and the circuit court limit almost quadrupled.

In the last 12 months insurers have been advised that they must now reimburse the department of social welfare for any illness benefits paid as a result of a claim.

The brain dead Setanta ruling means the MIBI has to cover the €95 million hole left by their collapse. The MIBI is funded by a levy on insurance premiums so has to he funded by increases.

The funny thing is, Setanta went tits up because they were writing policies far too cheaply and couldn't cover the claims, yet people are still expecting their motor insurance for a couple of hundred quid. It's unequivocally proven that the prices over the last number of years were too low but many people cannot get their head around it. The only reason 123 are still around today is because RSA bailed them out for over €200,000,000 yet people still expect to get policies for buttons. The lack of foresight that many people have is frightening.

The collapsing world investment markets also has paid a part. Where previously insurers could invest their money and get decent returns the low levels of interest available means that the returns are much smaller than in years past.

The rest of your post is spot on but there seems to be some misinformation about what happened to the DC and CC jurisdictional limit changes.

District Court limit went up from approx. €8,000 to €15,000. Circuit court went up from approx. €40,000 to €60,000 for personal injuries claims.

The jurisdictional limits also cause a bizarre phenomenon in the old media whereby claims are reported as being for the maximum jurisdictional limit, even when the actual claim is for far less.

If I have a case that I think is worth, say, €14,000-€16,000, proceedings will commence in the Circuit Court because if I was to take it in the DC, the claim cannot be for more than €15,000. In other words, the claimant could be losing out on €1,000 or more because I took the case in the DC instead of the higher jurisdiction.

In the mainstream media, my claim for €14-16,000 will be reported as being for €60,000, the jurisdictional limit of the Circuit Court. This overinflation of claims and their supposed value leads to a number of serious consequences not just for the individuals involved but for the legal profession, insurance companies and arguably society as a whole.

In the above article, this erroneous valuation of the claims is applied and that's where the figures are coming from - 5 x €60,000 = €300,000.

If these fraudsters were claiming for injuries in a rear-ending that they walked away from, it's likely to be whiplash/soft tissue with a max value of €14-16,000. Now obviously, their actions are indefensible and I agree that they should be pursued by MIBI and AGS in relation to what they have done. This whole post is just to make people aware that the figures are way out of kilter with reality.

Also, the legal costs would be a third to a half of the €100,000 in the article - they just pull legal costs figures out of thin air fwics.


EDIT: Just another point on the jurisdictional limits. There will be a decrease in the level of awards and the legal costs associated with claims as a result of the change in limits. If you believe insurance companies about the reasons for the expense of motor insurance, then they will reduce premiums in line with the costs savings resulting from the changes in jurisdiction, leading to lower awards and lower legal costs being payable. If.

Liam McPoyle

You are correct in that my figures were off.

District court limits went from €6384 to €15,000.

Circuit from €38,092 to €75,000 with a limit of €60,000 for personal injury claims.

Maybe I'm just naive but I do believe that if court awards were lower or capped at lower limits then the reductions in premiums HAVE to follow. Insurers have been using this argument for a while and I know first hand as I see details of claims on a daily basis so they simply cannot hide behind it if changes are made.

The Book of Quantum (for those that dont know its what judges are basing their rulings on based on previous insurance payouts and court awards for similar injuries) is being revised currently and due to be issued iirc mid year so that will make some interesting reading.

As I've said previously, its not just motor claims that are the issue here.

I'm sure some of you saw the ruling today where a lady received €60,000 from Irish Water because she tripped in a hole that had been dug by water meter installers and banged her knee.

She had no injuries, no damage other than bruising, no breaks or ligimant damage but apparently it has had such an effect on her life its worth €60,000.

Special Circumstances

Pity she didn't have a black box.
Would insurers be in favour of fitting us all with black boxes?

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Pity she didn't have a black box.
Would insurers be in favour of fitting us all with black boxes?

What a mind bogglingly stupid comment.

Remarkable.

Special Circumstances

Why the reluctance? Fear of big brother watching?
Fwiw, only those who have something to hide would be against this type of telematics.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Why the reluctance? Fear of big brother watching?
Fwiw, only those who have something to hide would be against this type of telematics.

What a mind bogglingly stupid comment.

Remarkable.

kupus

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Maybe I'm just naive but I do believe that if court awards were lower or capped at lower limits then the reductions in premiums HAVE to follow. Insurers have been using this argument for a while and I know first hand as I see details of claims on a daily basis so they simply cannot hide behind it if changes are made.

Yes you are naive nutzz. First and foremost, insurers are a business and not one that is shy from taking and wringing out as much as it can get from its users. We don't have far to remember the BS "equality" song and dance that they came up with. Raising women's prices, even though they are the safest drivers out there. All in the name of equality.
The alleged collusion that people thought of when 2 very different insurance companies at the exact same time decided to not insure cars 15 yrs or older.

Ah I don't know, maybe your not, maybe I'm too much of a cynic, since I know the price of politicians in various places. I know what can be bought and sold. Maybe I'm just fed up that the world is so rigged that it's beyond comprehension that even the very doors in people's houses have blood money behind them somewhere.

hullaballoo

@Saul, a couple of points on your reply to me. Judges sometimes refer to the book of quantum but are not bound by it. It is primarily used by PIAB when they come up with their assessment.

The case today, Audrey Fitzpatrick, was settled, not ruled. It's incredibly unlikely the settlement terms were dismissed to media, so again they use their smarmy trick of saying the claim was for €60k (the Circuit Court limit). She may have gotten nothing.

The fact is, part of the reason people are so against the legal system is because of disinformation put about by the media.

You simply don't get the level of awards the media tell us. (It's funny, the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction but they don't report HC cases as being claims for €infinite!)

Liam McPoyle

hullaballoo wrote: »

@Saul, a couple of points on your reply to me. Judges sometimes refer to the book of quantum but are not bound by it. It is primarily used by PIAB when they come up with their assessment.

The case today, Audrey Fitzpatrick, was settled, not ruled. It's incredibly unlikely the settlement terms were dismissed to media, so again they use their smarmy trick of saying the claim was for €60k (the Circuit Court limit). She may have gotten nothing.

The fact is, part of the reason people are so against the legal system is because of disinformation put about by the media.

You simply don't get the level of awards the media tell us. (It's funny, the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction but they don't report HC cases as being claims for €infinite!)

Fair points, well made.

kupus

hullaballoo wrote: »

@Saul, a couple of points on your reply to me. Judges sometimes refer to the book of quantum but are not bound by it. It is primarily used by PIAB when they come up with their assessment.

The case today, Audrey Fitzpatrick, was settled, not ruled. It's incredibly unlikely the settlement terms were dismissed to media, so again they use their smarmy trick of saying the claim was for €60k (the Circuit Court limit). She may have gotten nothing.

The fact is, part of the reason people are so against the legal system is because of disinformation put about by the media.

You simply don't get the level of awards the media tell us. (It's funny, the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction but they don't report HC cases as being claims for €infinite!)

No hullabaloo, the reason people don't trust the legal system is because day in day out, court stories appear with some guy getting a suspended sentence despite having a 101 previous convictions.
It's a ****ing disgrace.
Then the legals will blame no room in prisons. Why not save space and put five or six to a room. Then the arguement becomes human rights and a right to ones space. There is always a bloody excuse. It's monotonous at this stage.

scamalert

I'm sure some of you saw the ruling today where a lady received €60,000 from Irish Water because she tripped in a hole that had been dug by water meter installers and banged her knee.

She had no injuries, no damage other than bruising, no breaks or ligimant damage but apparently it has had such an effect on her life its worth €60,000.

first thought was about the one few weeks posted in AH supposed mountain trekker who been to everest base camp,managed to slip her foot trough some wood on wiclow trail and sued for 60k got 30,and still in progress to appeal decision on payout six stiches she received as part of damage she incurred-and thats the legal system for you,as above if some scum has 50+ convictions its ok suspended penalty see you again,while some 70+y old guy who grows weed for himself gets busted and suspended sentence of jail,just amazing .

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

The rest of your post is spot on but there seems to be some misinformation about what happened to the DC and CC jurisdictional limit changes.[...]
EDIT: Just another point on the jurisdictional limits. There will be a decrease in the level of awards and the legal costs associated with claims as a result of the change in limits. If you believe insurance companies about the reasons for the expense of motor insurance, then they will reduce premiums in line with the costs savings resulting from the changes in jurisdiction, leading to lower awards and lower legal costs being payable. If.

The Irish Times have this piece by the Chairman of the Bar of Ireland relating to the above: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/insurance-industry-misleading-public-over-reasons-for-higher-premiums-1.2660988

The legal profession, the courts, PIAB etc. are not the reason for increased premiums, nor are "excessive payments for whiplash injuries" etc. It seems very much like insurers are just relying on the public disdain for those institutions in order to pull the wool over.

(I will just reiterate that I am not for a second coming to the defence of the scammers. They are certainly part of a problem facing all stakeholders in the processes.)

Special Circumstances

hullaballoo wrote: »

The Irish Times have this piece by the Chairman of the Bar of Ireland relating to the above: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/insurance-industry-misleading-public-over-reasons-for-higher-premiums-1.2660988

The legal profession, the courts, PIAB etc. are not the reason for increased premiums, nor are "excessive payments for whiplash injuries" etc. It seems very much like insurers are just relying on the public disdain for those institutions in order to pull the wool over.

(I will just reiterate that I am not for a second coming to the defence of the scammers. They are certainly part of a problem facing all stakeholders in the processes.)

Waits for a hat trick of "What a mind bogglingly stupid comment. Remarkable." on the one page LOL. Gone fierce quiet about the black boxes now though. Despite putting them forward as some silver bullet for car insurance in another thread.



Do insurers even want to weed out scammers, it seems easier (preferable?) for them to use the whole thing as an excuse to reduce EVERYONE'S payout and make EVERYONE more likely to settle things outside of insurance.

If they can get general bumps down to 5k, then it's basically free - they can load innocent,legitimate cases for 5years after a claim and claw it all back. For the hard of thinking here, I'm not talking about NCB. I'm talking about "not at fault" legitimate victims being loaded for up to 5years for having the audacity to claim.