Many years ago, the late Mrs L was involved in a minor collision. She nudged the bumper of the car in front in slow moving traffic. A moment’s inattention. They did the usual and exchanged details. As there was no damage to either vehicle, that should have been that. A day or so later, the partner of the other driver phoned, claiming that his girlfriend was suffering whiplash and they intended to make a claim. However, they needed Mrs L to substantiate the lies they were putting forward. As this person worked in insurance, he knew exactly what to say and how best to put forward such a claim. Mrs L naturally refused to go along with what was a case of insurance fraud. If asked, she would state the facts – it was a minor bump at very low speed. Certainly not enough to generate a whiplash injury. The claim subsequently failed. Oddly enough, some years later she was involved in a similar incident and the other partly likewise tried to make a fraudulent exaggerated claim. That, too, failed.
It looks as if the government and the insurance industry is attempting to deal with this expensive fraud.
The government is promising more than £1bn in savings for motorists, as new rules on car insurance claims for whiplash come into effect on Monday.
The changes aim to reduce the high numbers of fraudulent road traffic accident claims made each year.
The new rules will enable insurers to cut premiums for millions of drivers by about £35 a year, say ministers.
The reforms will also include a simplified process for making accident claims online that are under £5,000.
Medical evidence will also be mandatory for all future whiplash claims.
I guess we will see how effective this is. I’m certainly in favour of stamping out this practice as it’s been easy money for frausters for far too long.
“Medical evidence will also be mandatory for all future whiplash claims.”
I am surprised that this wasn’t the case already. It seems to be a pretty stupid state of affairs that you can just claim to be injured without any kind of proof.
Like Stonyground, I’m utterly astonished to find that insurers were accepting claims without medical evidence! I’d always assumed that this fraud depended on dodgy GPs….
The problem, as I understand it, is that whiplash is very difficult to prove, hence insurers erring on the side of caution and paying up.
Surely the red tramlines across your bottom are a dead giveaway. Sorry but somebody had to say it given the post title.
The title pretty much wrote itself.
Insurers took a pragmatic view that it was actually cheaper to pay up than let the no-win-no-fee lawyers exaggerate the issue to the point where arguing about it cost vastly more than was at stake. And anyway, why should they care, they can just pass the cost onto the honest policy-holders. Let’s hope the latest rules will stop that.
Interesting too how most dodgy whiplash claims seem to come from those with naturally tanned skins, maybe that weakens your neck muscles . . . . .