Ridiculous Compensation - About time

dotsman

Given the number of threads on boards about ridiculous compensation payouts, I thought people would be interested in this: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/goverment-may-consider-referendum-if-compensation-awards-arent-reined-in-by-judges-884573.html

One of the big problems up to now is that judges are a law on to themselves. This is a good thing in one way - it prevents politicians from interfering in legal cases etc. But, a serious downside, is that there is nobody with the power to knock some sense in to them.

So boardsies - would you see a referendum on this as a good thing? If so, how would you vote?

Signore Fancy Pants

I'd rather the Government challenge the Judiciary over percieved leniency of sentencing and the soft approach to criminality.

Suspended sentences for offenders who have 100+ convictions is bollox.

dotsman

Chewbacca wrote: »

I'd rather the Government challenge the Judiciary over percieved leniency of sentencing and the soft approach to criminality.

True, hopefully that will be next!

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Looking forward to seeing the turnout in that referendum, it will happen, particularly the No vote.

Fann Linn

Can we have a referendum on the cost of housing?

Gatling

Mandatory sentences , with no disgression from judges to give a suspended sentence or less that the actual sentence type .

Personal injuries claims should be backed with independent medical evidence that there is an actual injury ongoing and no pity payouts yeah you jumped on a moving vehicle and you then feel off ,it's your own fault case dismissed

paw patrol

it's an odd one for me .

I agree with the governments view but I've grave misgivings about politicians dictating to judges.

they should have the referendum and legislate rather than resort to threats because it looks really bad.
It only adds fuel to the fire that the elite are all in bed together.


then again they aren't the blueshirts for nothing.:pac:

Signore Fancy Pants

dotsman wrote: »

True, hopefully that will be next!

Hopefully.

In this instance, the Government are looking to use Joe Public to do their dirty work.

People ssem to think that the various Insurance premiums across the spectrum will reduce if lower end or "chancer" claims are outlawed or capped.

In reality, Insurance companies will not reduce their premiums no matter if soft tissue or whiplash claims were capped at €1k.

As long as this referendum is targeted solely at the chancers with no medical substantiation for their claims, im all for it.

However, I disagree with limiting compensation awards for people who have genuine injuries and are presently effected or are likely to be effected into the future.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Fann Linn wrote: »

Can we have a referendum on the cost of housing?

Yes, free houses for everyone in the audience

Fann Linn

Tinsley Sweet Temperance wrote: »

Yes, free houses for everyone in the audience

Who said that?

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Chewbacca wrote: »

I'd rather the Government challenge the Judiciary over percieved leniency of sentencing and the soft approach to criminality.

Suspended sentences for offenders who have 100+ convictions is bollox.

That’s common sense, how dare we expect our judiciary to use it.

suicide_circus

I agree that government interference with the judiciary is not good but in this case the judiciary have brought it upon themselves by unashamedly nurturing this culture of codology.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Fann Linn wrote: »

Who said that?

I did, That will abolish the cost for those who can’t afford one, me included.

touts

The justice industry is a corrupt shambles. Too much money is made by legal eagles through a variety of scams from earning a % of big payouts in crazy compo claims through to high repeat fees earned by keeping criminals on the street and repeat offending. Judges have made their way up to the top of the pile and are keeping it going by making sure the payouts keep flowing. We to completely overhaul the justice industry. Bail should be reformed (I.e. abolished for repeat offenders), free legal aid needs to be curtailed (i.e. lawyers are assigned a criminal and get a flat fee for representing that person regardless of how many crimes that individual commits), mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes (that a judge cannot go below or a prison governor cannot give early release before).

And in the case you are discussing maximum compo payouts need to be set by people external to the system that profits from them. Lawyers should get a flat fee. Claimants should get compo that is calculated by an independent tribunal who assess the case on a number of factors including the past claim history of the applicant.

But the whole system is so rotten and solving it is so complex one referendum won't fix it.

judeboy101

And if its yes, what's stops future gov capping payouts to future child sex/cervical smear/hep c style gov blunders? People need to think carefully about this.

padd b1975

Fann Linn wrote: »

Can we have a referendum on the cost of housing?

FFS...

Graniteville

Pavee point will be up in arms at this.

Cutting off their primary income stream.

Paulzx

Graniteville wrote: »

Pavee point will be up in arms at this.

Cutting off their primary income stream.

They'll survive. There'll never be a shortage of old, vulnerable people to fleece

suicide_circus

Graniteville wrote: »

Pavee point will be up in arms at this.

Cutting off their primary income stream.

wouldn't actually surprise me if this was a sop to casey voters

Skylinehead

Fann Linn wrote: »

Who said that?

Not as if your idea was any less silly

Fann Linn

Nixonbot wrote: »

Not as if your idea was any less silly

Who said it was?

Franz Von Peppercorn

paw patrol wrote: »

it's an odd one for me .

I agree with the governments view but I've grave misgivings about politicians dictating to judges.

they should have the referendum and legislate rather than resort to threats because it looks really bad.
It only adds fuel to the fire that the elite are all in bed together.


then again they aren't the blueshirts for nothing.:pac:

There’s an awful lot of nonsense about protecting the judiciary from political criticism. That should happen all the time.

Franz Von Peppercorn

judeboy101 wrote: »

And if its yes, what's stops future gov capping payouts to future child sex/cervical smear/hep c style gov blunders? People need to think carefully about this.

It’s particularly about whiplash I believe. The Irish judiciary awards on average 4 times more than the U.K.

Gonad

Won’t do anything about car insurance or rent though !!!!!

Fann Linn

Or bail laws.

Duck Soup

A referendum on what? Could you be more vague please?

The Bishop Basher

Judges and the legal system had their chance and did nothing.

That said I wouldn’t trust this current governement to fix anything..

They’ve been proven to be incompetent and self serving over and over again. They won’t fix it, they’ll make it worse.

Whenever we finally get a competent governement I’d be in favour of granting them more powers to sort this but we could be in for a long wait.

Skylinehead

Fann Linn wrote: »

Who said it was?

We could have a referendum on that :pac:

paw patrol

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There’s an awful lot of nonsense about protecting the judiciary from political criticism. That should happen all the time.

I wasn't really talking about criticism more influencing them.
I fully support criticism , judges shouldn't be beyond criticism.

the dail should legislate...the judges should apply the law
but the dail shouldn't try to influence court outcomes because we'd hammer (and people do) places that don't have transparency between courts and leaders.

don't get me wrong , I do believe the whole law society in Ireland is up its ass and needs reform . Many things should be taken out of the courts and free up the judges for proper stuff.

Blazer

Chewbacca wrote: »

I'd rather the Government challenge the Judiciary over perceived leniency of sentencing and the soft approach to criminality.

Suspended sentences for offenders who have 100+ convictions is bollox.

That is one of the key policies of Renua. As much as I hate their abortion policy they have a policy in no more concurrent sentences, mandatory sentencing for murder, home invasion etc.
I'm half leaning towards them in the next election provided there's a candidate in my constituency.

Harry Palmr

I'd be shocked if this led to anything at all other than another report filed away.

enricoh

Iirc Alan shatter raised the amounts that the district court n circuit court could award, and guess what awards went up!
The last zero should be knockrd off awards 20000 becomes 2000 n no scammers bother anymore

decky1

compensation it's a laugh, got knocked off my motor bike some years ago lost a good bit of elbow, now have plate +several pins-- had to wait 4 years to get fixed up 20 ,000 my wife's friend fell on a curb slight shoulder injury 50,000 after 8 months??????????

McCrack

Our junior minister appears not to understand what a Referendum actually is and what it can apply to

Samuel T. Cogley

Easy solution and no referumdum* needed - reinstate Juries in civil cases and let them make the awards. How many people would have given Luas girl a cent?

*As above though what exactly are we having a referendum on?

suicide_circus

McCrack wrote: »

Our junior minister appears not to understand what a Referendum actually is and what it can apply to

yeah I'm not sure where a referendum would come into it? Just cap payouts to the EU average or something

gctest50

Betterer idea :

When someone get a lump of compensation, it is paid directly into the social welfare fund.

Then they can can collect it week by week @ around € 200 or whatever ( same as dole etc )

Post offices/social welfare are already set up for this kinda thing - it'd be no load


Too many get ripped off just after accidents because they are not "themselves" etc

Grab All Association

In quite a majority of cases the judge is only approving a settlement made by the claimant and insurers/defence. The insurance companies have to share part of the blame as they’re normally settling claims that could go potentially in their favour if decided by a judge.

The luas surfer was offered that money in a settlement with Transdev/veoila whatever and the judge could only refuse to approve a settlement if he thinks it’s too low.

Comprehensive and fire+theft types of cover should be banned or provided as an external cover. The minimum level of insurance is third party only and that’s all that’s needed. If you crash your car yourself into the ditch or wall then it should be tough luck. Third party customers premiums are no doubt bearing some of the cost of this cover, it very likely doesn’t come out of the insurers profits. Judging by the amount of new cars getting towed daily it’s hitting the insurers and no doubt TP customers.

Samuel T. Cogley

gctest50 wrote: »

Betterer idea :

When someone get a lump of compensation, it is paid directly into the social welfare fund.

Then they can can collect it week by week @ around € 200 or whatever ( same as dole etc )

Too many get ripped off just after accidents because they are not "themselves" etc

You could do that, New Zealand does something similar - you're made whole by the aparatus of the state. The issue is though if you were earning €100K a year on cycling home one night you're knocked off by a drunk driver and recieve serve brain damage is the dole a fair amount to be paid each week?

Samuel T. Cogley

Grab All Association wrote: »

In quite a majority of cases the judge is only approving a settlement made by the claimant and insurers/defence. The insurance companies have to share part of the blame as they’re normally settling claims that could go potentially in their favour if decided by a judge.

The luas surfer was offered that money in a settlement with Transdev/veoila whatever and the judge could only refuse to approve a settlement if he thinks it’s too low.

Comprehensive and fire+theft types of cover should be banned or provided as an external cover. The minimum level of insurance is third party only and that’s all that’s needed. If you crash your car yourself into the ditch or wall then it should be tough luck. Third party customers premiums are no doubt bearing some of the cost of this cover, it very likely doesn’t come out of the insurers profits. Judging by the amount of new cars getting towed daily it’s hitting the insurers and no doubt TP customers.

Eh? It's third party that makes up the vast majority of claims. I upgraded the car from an 09 recently to a 181 and the insurance went down.

gctest50

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You could do that, New Zealand does something similar - you're made whole by the aparatus of the state. The issue is though if you were earning €100K a year on cycling home one night you're knocked off by a drunk driver and recieve serve brain damage is the dole a fair amount to be paid each week?

i was thinking more of the "average" compo crash in Ireland, say € 50,000

€ 200 per week is about 10,000 so they'd knock 5 years out of it

Grab All Association

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Eh? It's third party that makes up the vast majority of claims. I upgraded the car from an 09 recently to a 181 and the insurance went down.

But why should someone on TP bear a single cent of the cost through increased premiums of a number of comprehensive drivers wrecking their cars themselves through bad driving etc

It would be like the VHI going out offering benefits of free liposuction, braces etc to customers on the dearest plans and making the basic plan customers bear the cost.

RSA/Insurance Ireland are refusing to reveal whether TP customers bear any of the cost of these benefits due to commercial sensitivity apparently. Same with windscreen cover, handbag cover, sat nav cover etc. These are not a legal requirement. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t protect their own vehicle, I’m saying it should be separate to third party cover as an add on provided externally from a different pot of money and any loses should not be recouped by premiums of TP drivers.

Skylinehead

Grab All Association wrote: »

But why should someone on TP bear a single cent of the cost through increased premiums of a number of comprehensive drivers wrecking their cars themselves through bad driving etc

Is that not just on the insurance companies not pricing their policies right? If comprehensive claims are hitting third party prices, then the comprehensive policies should be more expensive.

Graniteville

enricoh wrote: »

Iirc Alan shatter raised the amounts that the district court n circuit court could award, and guess what awards went up!
The last zero should be knockrd off awards 20000 becomes 2000 n no scammers bother anymore

What it did was that it brought cases that were clogging up the high court into the district court.

So whilst it would seem awards went up, in reality they stayed much the same, but costs dropped.

jmreire

judeboy101 wrote: »

And if its yes, what's stops future gov capping payouts to future child sex/cervical smear/hep c style gov blunders? People need to think carefully about this.

No we don't need to think about this at all. ALL cases should be tried on their merits, fully proven and compensated for. This means everything from major brain injuries due to HSE ( or any other cause ) to the whiplash brigade. And appropriate compensation paid. False claim's / perjury etc. should be pursued to the fullest extent of the Law, with appropriate sentencing. There are plenty of other Countries in the EU ( and even outside it ) which do not have the anything like the level of awards that are given in Ireland for injury claims. Insurance compo culture in this Country is a cancer which is eating away at the very fabric of society. Roll on the Referendum

NewbridgeIR

Chewbacca wrote: »

I'd rather the Government challenge the Judiciary over percieved leniency of sentencing and the soft approach to criminality.

Suspended sentences for offenders who have 100+ convictions is bollox.

I can't see the left advocating a yes vote in either a compensation or sentencing referendum.

Especially if this tweet (and responses) is anything to go by - https://twitter.com/sineadredmond/status/1054119504840740865

People like that never get worked up about those individuals with 100+ convictions. Too busy complaining about blue collar crime, "suits" and middle class privilege.

Wheeliebin30

gctest50 wrote: »

Betterer idea :

When someone get a lump of compensation, it is paid directly into the social welfare fund.

Then they can can collect it week by week @ around € 200 or whatever ( same as dole etc )

Post offices/social welfare are already set up for this kinda thing - it'd be no load


Too many get ripped off just after accidents because they are not "themselves" etc

Who gets ripped off after accidents??

Jack Moore

Berties_Horse wrote: »

Witnessed a hi-ace brake abruptly for no reason on dual carriageway, vehicle behind had no reaction time and clattered the rear. Where's me compo boss? We are enabling despicable cretins, and consequently forking out more on insurance to cover excessive pay-outs.

Vehicle behind was too close

jmreire

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

I can't see the left advocating a yes vote in either a compensation or sentencing referendum.

Especially if this tweet (and responses) is anything to go by - https://twitter.com/sineadredmond/status/1054119504840740865

People like that never get worked up about those individuals with 100+ convictions. Too busy complaining about blue collar crime, "suits" and middle class privilege.

Sinead. no one is denying appropriate compensation for injuries damage etc. Burt at what point does compensation become fraud? Are you in favour of fraud?

Wildly Boaring

Whiplash and other injuries not nearly as well compensated in UK

Yet my insurance on same car and circumstances was approx £650 there in 2012. Paying from €600 to €750 since returning.

I know in construction industry that UK costs are also similar or higher than here.

Anyone who thinks lower compensation will sort out insurers is mistaken.

Straight in the insurers' pockets.

Still want it sorted and if someone is making a fraudulent claim they must be pursued for same.

Solicitors are main ones making money here. There were attempts to streamline and use an injuries board. They made sure that went to ****.

Purgative

Could we have a referendum on the number of referendums:


1) Should the number of referendums be limited to one every 3 years


or


2) Should we have a referendum every fortnight and sack the shower in the Dail