If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Received a letter from PIAB with false claims



  • Registered Users Posts: 983 ✭✭✭GavPJ

    Hope it works out man. It would surprise you the amount of cn uts out there at the minute.

    Taxi rear ended me during the summer and he is claiming it is my fault!

  • Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭delboythedub

    On this doctors letter does the date match the date of the incident. Also think that the onus of Proof lies on the other party. Have you written to this PIAB to outline your version of this incident. Were both dogs on a lead.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,876 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    Do NOT under any circumstances give your version of anything to PIAB.

    Deny consent to the assessment of the claim in as few words as possible, register the letter and send it back. My guess is you'll never hear another peep. about it.




    Dear Sirs,




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY

    I do not understand the insurance position.

    Does OP's household insurance cover this or not ? The answer to that determines how to manage the matter.

  • Registered Users Posts: 39,138 ✭✭✭✭Mellor

    Curious how you can put an exact location on something that never happened. Was the time/place named in the letter?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭mrsbeebee

    Suggest you check with your home insurer to see if you are covered. Normally this sort of thing would be covered.

    Also, suggest you contact the local gardai - was this incident ever reported to them? It's very strange that someone was knocked over by a dog to the extent they sustained any sort of injury without notifying the gardai or the local dog warden.

    Check the date of the alleged incident. Were you definitely in the time and place at the time? Check the date they first received medical treatment (should be on the Form A)

    Is this person acting as a lay litigant or do they have a solicitor? You can reject PIAB assessment but if they issue proceedings, you're into costs territory and while you would hope the case would be dismissed, you can't guarantee that. If they have a solicitor, it's more likely that they would issue proceedings but if they are unrepresented they may go away.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner

    As above. Please check 100℅ your insurance situation before you take ANY action

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,857 ✭✭✭✭Discodog

    I have pet insurance including third party liability. If the same thing happened to me & I referred it to the insurance company, my premium would be increased. So I end up paying more even if it was nothing to do with me. Also how can PIAB give 30 days to respond or they will assume that you accept the claim ? Surely they have to prove that you received the letter ?

  • Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭MikeCairo78

    A household policy will normally provide cover here, once the dog is not as defined by the dangerous dogs act. Also PIAB only adjudicates on award and makes zero assessment on liability. If one party doesnt consent to adjudication, then, PIAB just consents to a matter being pursued through the courts

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,175 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump

    My understanding is that there was an "incident" in the park but is not of the order of magnitude of what was claimed in the letter

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,871 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB

    1. why is everyone recommending to go via insurance?.... even after OP has told us what they are doing?
    2. false claim should be reported to the cops.
    3. problem with this country is that we all give out about insurance costs, but yet, here loads of you are, telling everyone that it's ok to allow someone to make a false claim and let the insurance handle it

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    If the insurance company is on cover, part of the deal is that they have the right to manage the defence of the claim. If the insured steps in, full of righteous indignation, and makes a hames of things, the insurer is entitled to disclaim cover, leaving the insured to meet the claim on his own. The whole point of having insurance is so that you don't have to defend these claims or to meet them, if successful.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner

    Insurers know how to deal with claims like this, both genuine and false. Ignoring the process that's underway, or trying to deal with it yourself, will end in tears. It will be too late then to ask your insurer to pick up the costs and awards. Like it or loathe it, a claim for damages has been initiated and t thinking it will go away of it's own accord is foolish to say the least.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,362 ✭✭✭✭coylemj

    In post #4, the OP told us that (1) his household policy doesn't cover this situation but (2) he has informed them anyway.

    No I don't have dog insurance and looks like my home insurance doesn't cover it. I have informed them though but also said this person completely made it up.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner

    I have being urging the OP double check with his house insurers, as I've never seen a policy (comprehensive buildings & contents) which didn't cover liability for domestic pets, with certain exclusions such as dangerous breeds, guard dogs etc

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    He says it looks like his insurance doesn't cover it. Unless the insurer has said explicitly that the policy doesn't cover this, I wouldn't rule out the possiblity that it does.

  • Registered Users Posts: 39,138 ✭✭✭✭Mellor

    That's true. But "managing the defence of the claim" is not the same as "defending the insured".

    The insurance company in that situation, it out to benefit the insurance company. And they will recognise that defending a false claim has an inherent cost, and if that cost is greater than or even similar to the claim they make decide to settle, regardless of what happened. Prehaps like likely here, but common in a car accidient where both drivers have differing versions of events. The two insurers high 5 and say "splitsies" ;)

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner

    Insurer and Insured will have a common interest in defending this claim. As with every situation involving liability, it will be down to the proofs available. The decision on whether they will settle or not will be based on their experience of probable outcome if presented in court. If it is obvious a claim is false, insurers do not cave in.

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    Sure. The point is, it's the insurer's call, not the insured's. If the insured engages with the matter himself, and does anything to constrain the insurer's freedom of action or otherwise disadvantage the insurer with respect to the claim, the insurer can walk away and tell the insured "you're on your own now, son".

    So, if you have insurance and might want to rely on it, refer the claim to the insurer and leave them to manage everything.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY

    If there is valid public liability cover available to OP and they [OP] are electing to deal with it themselves don't look to the insurer when it all goes pear shaped.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,138 ✭✭✭✭Mellor

    And how is it obvious that it is false? It’s largely OPs word against the claimants. I used the example of car accidents, if one party lies about the incidents. Defending it in court can become a cost.

    obviously if the claimant is looking for a 6-figure payday defending its more viable. But low value claims quite quickly get passed out by court costs.

    Sure. But tell insurance immediately, or going it your own all the way are not the only options. He can get information on the situation before making a decision.

    Although, it seems that he has told them. So might be best to confirm if covered at this stage.

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail

    getting information is one thing but acting is another. the OP acting on their own, acting includes any contact with PIAB, would be foolish.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,172 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy

    This absolutely screams insurance scam to me. It only costs €45 to lodge a claim, let's say another €60 for the doctor's letter though no doubt far less if the claimant has a medical card).

    Once the claimed damages are relatively low - a couple of grand or under - it's hardly likely to be worth it for the insurance company to defend the claim. Between staff costs (assuming they have internal counsel) and barrister fees it's cheaper to just cut the cheque.

    It's pretty much a textbook scenario for someone without much to lose to try to make a few quid out of.

    Report the claimant to the guards for insurance fraud OP.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner

    Insurers will only 'cut a cheque ' if, on balance, the facts are proven. If the evidence of facts are spurious, they will deny liability on behalf of their client. If the proofs support that the event did happen and is backed up by medical reports, they will seek to settle as low as they can.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,172 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy

    If someone's managed to get a doctors letter (not overly difficult I know) and the claim is for a relatively trivial (to the insurance company) amount, I can't see many insurance companies spending more than the value of the claim defending it.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    I see what you’re getting at BUT I would have to disagree only because of it the precedent it sets.

    If enough people can make false insurance claims for “trivial” amounts & get away with it because it’s cheaper to pay out than defend the false claim, they’d soon be losing a lot more money.

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,871 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB

    seems like a lot here would be only to happy to put a claim in/ or facilitate a claim for a trivial amount.

    rotten carry on

  • Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭MikeCairo78

    Has it been confirmed as to what breed of dog was involved?

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,172 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy

    My assumption is that there aren't enough people making such false claims to warrant the cost of fighting them.

    Insurance is based on actuarial maths and I'm sure there's a calculated tolerance for spurious claims like this. I'm sure if it was the second such claim put in by the same person, or a trend upwards of such cases from a demographic profile within a geographic area (indicating the spreading of the details of the scam within that area) they'd fight a few of them. We saw similar in the news not so long ago when old bangers were being bought to stage rear end accidents leading to whiplash claims...

    Insurance companies have enormous amounts of data at their fingertips and, more importantly imo, the people who know how to use it. They're financially motivated to tolerate a certain amount of low level fraud due to high legal costs and the poor likelihood of reclaiming costs even when awarded them.

  • Advertisement