5th July 2011
You couldn’t make it up, or could you?
Panacea.Com finds itself in the strange situation of agreeing with the FOS and its Chief Ombudsman Natalie Ceeney regarding claims management firms.
FOS has stated that an astonishing 45% of claims it handles come from this source. This news comes on top of the recent Panacea.com FOS survey finding that two thirds of IFAs had encountered false or fraudulent claims.
Some claims management firms' websites have some very interesting ‘menus’ that enable you to assess what you could expect to get from a claim. A great example is the Personal Injury calculator from the top of a Google search firm, Claims Direct, who state, “we understand that you may want to know how much compensation you could receive. However, the amount of compensation awarded varies from case to case, depending on the injuries, so we are not able to give an exact amount. Please use our interactive guide below to see the typical compensation awards received for different types of accident and injury”.
The IFA perception of claims management firms is not good and the IFA community will be in total agreement with Ms Ceeney, they can build false hope or even create a false representation of the facts with a view to “holding folding” for the client and of course themselves. They are seen by many as a modern day version of a door-to-door ‘hawker’.
It is not entirely fair of the Chief Ombudsman to suggest that IFAs should handle complaints properly and early on. With IFA complaint levels running at below 2% what is properly? Is it finding in favour of the complainant without question or is it a rejection following an investigation based upon the facts available and/or the balance of probability?
IFAs are the most likely to defend their position, especially if the complaint is clearly false. The problem for IFAs comes when the complaint is rejected, complete with supporting evidence yet the complainant or ambulance chaser still thinks that in light of the zero cost downside, a plea to the FOS is quite acceptable, regardless of the strength of the case. The process that follows causes further stress, loss of time and of course cost.
The UK seems to have developed a habit of expecting someone to pay them something irrespective of the merits of the claim in question. This mindset is made worse when we hear that police forces and even insurance companies are selling accident data to claims management firms for a fee.
Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister, said recently “ministers would look at several practices – including referral fees, touting for business by text message and garages selling lists of drivers involved in accidents”. He felt that these were “the symptoms of a rotten suing culture rather than the cause”. He went on to observe, “frivolous claims were encouraged by the fact that claimants need not pay for legal action, even if they lost their case”.
Where have we heard that before?
So, it is with some sense of relief that at last something is being done about these firms. We learn this week that over 30 financial claims management firms have had their licence suspended or cancelled in the last six months by the Ministry of Justice.
A Polish truck hit my car last year in London; there was thankfully no injury and indeed very little damage to my car. However, I am still getting text messages from a claims management firm I have no knowledge of suggesting that my “injury” could gain me compensation.
Where has the moral mindset gone in the country? Is fraud becoming an industry with claims management firms being the profession that oversees its growth?
The problems with IFA regulation, the FSA and the FOS are that the system is generally regulating the wrong people in the wrong way for the wrong reason.
This is driven by a ‘where we can try to attach blame there is a claim’ system that allows the unchecked proliferation of attempts to gain compensation for events that have not or may not ever happen. The vast majority of IFA firms have survived because they do care, they do take it personally if they see a false accusation and they give client advice based upon the circumstances at the time.
The sooner some meaningful accountability is put in place and the FSA brings them into the world of regulation the better.
Comments (1)
Regardless of whether it is, the Fraud Act makes quite clear that it is a crime - and they should be prosecuted for it.
I have taken to writing direct to complainants, telling them what the ambulance chaser claims they have said and giving them the opportunity to "correct" it in view of the fact that they are responsible for it.
It doesn't make the ambulance chasers very happy but I think the FSA would be on a sticky wicket it if tried to intervene because the defence is that it is in the spirit of TCF to prevent the client incriminating themselves and in any case the FSA is under a statutory obligation to reduce financial crime.
Peter Turner 07/07/2011 17:45
Not yet registered?
Please complete this form to join our community