|
End of the Road for Criminal Injuries Compensation? |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Nina Mahaffy
|
|
Friday, 03 February 2012 16:48 |
|
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, commonly known as the CICA is a taxpayer-funded scheme, which was set up in 1964 to compensate blameless victims of violent crime. For the first time the State was taking responsibility for violent crime committed by law breakers and by 1998 the scheme was receiving over 40,000 applications and paying out £50,000,000 annually.
How things have changed but with the economic climate the way it is, something had to.
Earlier this week Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told MPs that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was now in “serious financial difficulty” with a deficit of over £250 million.
As it stands there are 25 compensation bands, starting at £1,000 for minor sprains and fractures. At the top end victims are able to receive up to £250,000 if they suffer paralysis or very serious brain damage. Under new proposals the lowest five bands are to be scrapped so that anyone with a minor head injury or broken hand for example will be excluded. For other bands, awards will be significantly cut.
Mr Clarke has also proposed scrapping injury compensation for anyone with a criminal record. That said, criminal records have always been taken into account when decisions are made over whether victims are awarded compensation. Over the past 10 years approximately 20,000 criminals have been paid more than £75 million, including a convicted rapist who was given £62,000. The Soham murderer, Ian Huntley recently claimed compensation for being violently attacked in prison, which provoked outrage among the public that this monster may have received up to £20,000 from the public purse.
There have been conflicting views about whether these proposals would be for the greater good, both in the Houses of Parliament and amongst the general public. In view of the economy being in such dire straits it would seem a good idea. One school of thought would disagree however, adamant that blameless victims of violent crime should be compensated. Nevertheless, should the UK’s slim line bank balance be spent in this way and should the concept of compensation be attached to crime? |
|
Written by Andrew McHale
|
|
Monday, 31 October 2011 15:44 |
|
Over the course of the past decade the number of road traffic accidents involving personal injuries has fallen, however strikingly, the number of personal injury claims has more than doubled in this period. This mercenary ‘claim culture’ has been identified as one of the main factors in driving up motor insurance premiums by an average of more than 30% in the past year.
The government have identified referral fees for road traffic accidents as a key factor in the increase in personal injury claims and have vowed to put a stop to this. Although a timescale has not yet been agreed to implement a ban on such fees, the wheels are certainly in motion to put a halt on these fees.
A campaign, spearheaded by Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly and Jack Straw amongst others, is looking to cut out the middle man and consequently begin to reduce the number of claims for injury and subsequently cut the excessive insurance premiums currently borne by car owners.
Otto Thoresen, Director General of the Association of British Insurers states “they [referral fees] add no value and encourage spurious and exaggerated personal injury claims.”
The counter argument to this is that thousands of jobs are at risk and there is no evidence that the writing off of these fees will help reduce insurance premiums.
Public demand would seem to far outweigh this argument put forward by these claim management companies however nothing is yet set in stone, it will be intriguing to see where this campaign heads.
Here at McHale and Co we minimise the number of personal injury claims referred to us from such companies as we believe that the referral fees not only make the whole file less cost effective but more importantly we do not want to risk dealing with fraudulent or unnecessarily exaggerated claims. Whichever way this campaign ends up, the effect on our firm is sure to be small if none at all. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 20 January 2012 09:52 )
|
|
Accident Claims due to Road Potholes |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 16 April 2011 00:00 |
|
As a result of severe weather conditions in the UK, there has been a substantial increase in the number of accident claims due to potholes on the British roads.
This was the view of the AA in a recent report. Potholes cause not only damage to a car but they can also have deadly consequences. Cash strapped local councils have been criticised for just “patching up the roads”. But they are laying the blame firmly in the hands of the utility companies who fail to resurface roads properly after repairs have been carried out.
Simon Douglas, Director of AA insurance, called on the Government to solve this “pothole epidemic”. The motoring body are urging the Government to put the extra money they have received from VAT on petrol into resurfacing roads. This in turn would not only reduce the number of compensation claims but needless accidents would also be avoided. |
|
|
Written by Nina Mahaffy
|
|
Friday, 20 January 2012 09:41 |
|
We attended a Joint Settlement meeting for a client recently to try and settle his Personal Injury claim with the Defendant’s Solicitors.
By way of a brief background; the client fractured his right talus bone after falling down from a height. The Defendant’s Solicitors admit primary liability.
The client is permanently disabled requiring him to walk with a walking stick; he will never be able to return to manual labour and is only 35 years old. His life has changed beyond belief and he has a wife and a young family to support. He will require future operations to fuse his ankle and foot into place and is in constant pain. He is no longer able to play with his children, undertake sports or martial arts, mow his own lawn, decorate his own home or drive great distances.
And the value of this life changing injury? In the region of £20,500 - £32,750. Less than £35,000.00 for being left with a foot that doesn’t work properly! Admittedly that is only relating to General Damages but when you consider that in Ireland under their PIAB scheme the award for a similar injury would be in the region of €49,700 to €84,200 (equivalent of £40,956 to £70,383). That’s almost double the amount of what is awarded here!
With the talk of success fees being scrapped and the courts increasing damages to reflect this, it is hard to see how the situation is going to improve and the only ones who will miss out are the claimants that are genuinely injured and relying on their compensation to be able to continue with their life.
Most people we have talked to thought the client’s claim would have been worth at least double that amount for his injury alone but in reality we are lagging behind when it comes to settling injury claims.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 20 January 2012 09:50 )
|
|
Legal Aid – “one of the great pillars of the post war welfare state”? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Laura Sharrock
|
|
Friday, 20 May 2011 10:25 |
|
The debate is currently raging in the House of Lords over the future of the Legal Aid system in England and Wales.
Legal Aid provides government funding to ensure that everybody has access to justice, protection of their basic rights and has a fair hearing.
Following the Second World War thought was given to creating a fairer society for the post-war population who had essentially lost everything, and a government saddled with debt. And so, the Welfare State was born. This was in recognition of the fact that certain rights were fundamental to society such as education, housing and health care. This in turn led to the creation of the NHS and, following the Legal Aid and Legal Advice Act 1949, Legal Aid.
The Government is planning to cut £350m from the Legal Aid budget and this in turn will lead to 250,000 fewer cases involving family disputes, 140,000 welfare benefits, 110,000 debt cases, 50,000 with serious housing problems and 30,000 with employment problems.
The worry is that in these straightened economic time these reforms will impact most on the poorest members of society. As a result of the cuts, it is likely to be the end of the law centre movement.
Lord Bach went on to say that “Lack of advice can lead to problems escalating out of control, leading to hopeless debt, relationship breakdown and sometimes a descent into crime.”
He went on to say: "At a time of economic hardship , it's madness to cut legal aid”.
|
|
Written by Nina Mahaffy
|
|
Thursday, 05 August 2010 00:00 |
|
My housemate was unfortunate enough to be involved in a rear end shunt a few months ago. He suffered a back and neck sprain, typical whiplash injury and whilst he didn’t need to take any time off work, he took it easy for a few weeks after the accident.
One particular day we decided to go to our local for some light refreshment and met some friends. The conversation turned to my housemate’s accident and how he was recovering after the accident. “You’ll get about 3 grand for that accident” said one friend. “No, he’ll only get £750. I knew a guy who knew a guy who was involved in a similar accident and he was ok after a few weeks. The insurance company only offered him £750 and said they wouldn’t offer him any more”.
I sat there in mild amusement as the “my friend’s friend got” stories got more and more elaborate. After hearing the outlandish story that one friend’s friend was awarded £10,000 for a 2 week recovery whiplash injury, I interjected and stopped the conversation.
“You’re all wrong” I said and all the faces looking at me paused in disbelief. “Oh excuse me, but I’m the only real expert in the field.” I went on to advise the procedure for valuing someone’s injuries and what factors were taken into account when valuing someone’s claim.
Further into the dicussion it transpired that the friend’s friend that was awarded £11,000 for a 2 week recovery whiplash injury was actually suffering effects of the injury for 3 years, the accident had “kicked off” a previously asymptomatic problem and it had resulted in him having a discectomy to relieve his symptoms!
My housemate was disappointed he wasn’t going to get £10,000; on the basis of the numbers banded around he’d planned a new car and 5* luxury holiday! So much for “my mate down the pub”!
- Nina |
|
Injury Compensation