*Please* read this, it's important. (Compensation culture)

Member Name: Daisybelle

Product:	Compensation culture
Date:	12/08/01 (70 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: It's a route to compensation

Disadvantages: We're all paying for it

What’s so important about this op then? Well, until yesterday I agreed with what most others seemed to be saying on the topic. Namely that ambulance chasers and their TV campaigns are the driving force behind the compensation culture, and we are becoming a nation of money grubbers like our cousins across the pond. Blahdy, blah, blah.

By chance, however, my opinion changed substantially yesterday morning whilst in the shower. I was listening to one of my favourite radio stations, 5 Live – is that funny I wonder? My radio listening consists of either Radio 4 or 5 for news and stimulation, or Rampling, Jules or whoever’s knocking out some form of house on R1 – typical Lower Middle class British listening tastes, or just boring? Mm, another op I guess.

Anyway, there was this guy from one of these beloved “Bloodsucking” companies we’ve heard so much about, and the tale he had to tell astonished me. Maybe everyone else is aware of this and I’m just way behind here, but I suspect not. I’d love to hear your comments on the matter. The thrust of the discussion was this –

*Legal aid is no longer an option for people who have a personal accident*

This left me pretty stunned, so this morning I’ve done a bit of research on the web and come up with a few salient points. It turns out that the government, in early 1998, decided that legal aid for personal injuries was costing them too much. How caring. Costs over the preceding 7 years had tripled to 671 million, whilst the number of people helped had fallen. To most people this would sound like a reason for overhauling the system, but instead Lord Irvine decided it would be a much smaller headache just to throw the system to the wolves.

The so-called “Conditional Fee” system, which basically means no-win, no-fee, had already be in operation as an option since 1995 and had brought over 34,000 cases to
court. It was now to be the sole means of pursuing a claim, unless you're extremely wealthy. It works like this. The claimant has to take out a small insurance policy against losing. This involves taking out a bank loan against the claim that will be covered by the insurance if the case is lost, so it’s not so easy as it sounds if you’re just a chancer.

The Bar Council and the Law Society were both very much against these changes, their misgivings included fears that companies would be reluctant to take on complex cases or where damage claims are potentially very high and the defendants will take the case to the wire, as apparently many cases are settled out of court as it’s cheaper all round.

So back to the radio program. The speaker, I wish I’d heard all of it and caught his name and position, went on to say how badly things have gone for the industry in terms of PR. The Government has no desire to make a big deal of the fact that to all intents they’ve privatised the process of compensation for Joe and Jill Bloggs, so to most people it just seems like we’re on the receiving end of another American import. It turns the moral majority off the whole process was his fear, and people who should genuinely be claiming just aren’t coming forward. The compensation claim industry is new, so is just beginning to develop a proper national body and the fact that they are honestly viewed by the public in these terms is only now becoming apparent to them.

To this end the industry is planning a publicity campaign to increase awareness of the fact that it’s a Government creation, and in fact is the only course of action available to most of us should we be unfortunate enough to have an accident. The problem with a system like this is yes, anyone can make as stupid a claim as they like, because a lot of the time they’ll win rather than have the defendant go to court. Claims Direct apparently ha
s a 75% success rate, not something to be sniffed at. If this weren’t the case, the system would be unfair, as genuine cases would often get refused if they seemed dodgy, and it’s difficult to see a way round the problem, as it seems the industry doesn’t like it much either.

So, dear reader, what do you think of it all now? Yes, we are becoming americanised, but the root cause of this is the people we elected. Their abdication of responsibility has given rise to a compensation culture that most of us detest. We’re having to fund it too, because as in all things, what goes around comes around - although we were paying for legal aid anyway, but I don't suppose the Government's given that money back.

The companies that are taking on the legal aid role have to advertise, because, well, that’s what businesses do, isn’t it? So it’s fair to say we’ve got what we deserve as we gave Tony Blair his mandate in the first place, which causes me a degree of wry amusement when I see how everyone is so appalled at the situation. That includes myself, so don’t imagine I’m sitting here thinking I’m the cleverest bear in town, either ;-)

Summary: