sues_budgie Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 Yep, and it's a nice thought. Don't worry about winter though. As I say, there's no duty in reality on the council to grit, so the claims don't win. We see them every year, and turn them down every year. I'm more refering to the 'schools shutting' and the kids being sent home. To be fair we only had 2 weeks of snow in December and our country almost went into meltdown. One of the biggest things was the schools shutting and working parents having to arrange child care at extra cost, or take days off work and in effect lose pay. Could you imagine what would happen if we had 2 months of snow, or even sporadic snow between november and march (like we had in the 1980s). I believe the "throwing in the towel" mentality would have to change sharpish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Insurance companies take bungs from all claim companies (which are just fronts for you solicitors) according to the figures in the linked article over 1/6 of the insurers income is from bungs from solicitors/claims companies to let them know when an at fault accident occurs. You're telling me that isn't a blatantly corrupt system? You expect me to believe that the leeches in suits that are the legal proffession purely care about people who have actually been injured being fairly compensated? What utter rot, all you care about is volume of claims, hence your proffession bung the insurers to pass the at fault details to you to pressure people into making claims for thinks like noneexistant whiplash. If you're concerned about innocent people do you think there is a single legitamately injured peson in this country who has no idea that having been injured you may be entitled to compensation without some pimply parasite ringing them up on the behest of solicitors who have bunged the insurer for their contact details? Two things. First - claims companies are NOT a front for solicitors. At all. I hate, despise and loathe claims companies. They are in my view the unacceptable face of law, and should be stopped. They are very, very different. I know them very well, and do not like them. They are not staffed by qualified lawyers, despite what the adverts say, and in my view and experience are at the front of all that is wrong with law. Please do not confuse my profession with them. Second - yes, whilst we are a business, and businesses run on profit, we also do care about people. Do you know how many people I've charged in the last 15 years? None. Do you know what happens if we lose a case, or don't go all the way with it? We don't get paid. At all. We don't "bung" insurers anything. I've never worked for a firm that does that. Again, that is accident management companies. Big firms do not have to do that. I'll happily answer any more questions you have, but please do ask, rather than assume what the media says is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I'm more refering to the 'schools shutting' and the kids being sent home. To be fair we only had 2 weeks of snow in December and our country almost went into meltdown. One of the biggest things was the schools shutting and working parents having to arrange child care at extra cost, or take days off work and in effect lose pay. Could you imagine what would happen if we had 2 months of snow, or even sporadic snow between november and march (like we had in the 1980s). I believe the "throwing in the towel" mentality would have to change sharpish Sorry, didn't realise that's what you meant. Yep, that's a pain. I know all too well the cost of child care, and agree, it's a nightmare. I don't know the answer to be honest. I don't know if we expect too much, asking for gritting by teachers? I don't know on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Two things. First - claims companies are NOT a front for solicitors. At all. I hate, despise and loathe claims companies. They are in my view the unacceptable face of law, and should be stopped. They are very, very different. I know them very well, and do not like them. They are not staffed by qualified lawyers, despite what the adverts say, and in my view and experience are at the front of all that is wrong with law. Please do not confuse my profession with them. Second - yes, whilst we are a business, and businesses run on profit, we also do care about people. Do you know how many people I've charged in the last 15 years? None. Do you know what happens if we lose a case, or don't go all the way with it? We don't get paid. At all. We don't "bung" insurers anything. I've never worked for a firm that does that. Again, that is accident management companies. Big firms do not have to do that. I'll happily answer any more questions you have, but please do ask, rather than assume what the media says is correct. Claims companies are a front for solicitors - as a prominent example c&p from their website "Claims Direct is a trading style of Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors" - clearly not all solicitors get involved in the seedy business of "compo" but those who do are in bed with the compo marketing industry and the insurance industry. If you would like to "name and praise" your employer as having never engaged with either insurers or ambulance chasers to get business i'll be happy to pass it on to jack straw who is currently campaigning on the issue so he can come and meet them and find out how this industry can work without bungs and corrupt practice. A caring non-bunging firm of solicitors invloved in compensation claims would make a welcome change so i look forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Claims companies are a front for solicitors - as a prominent example c&p from their website "Claims Direct is a trading style of Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors" - clearly not all solicitors get involved in the seedy business of "compo" but those who do are in bed with the compo marketing industry and the insurance industry. If you would like to "name and praise" your employer as having never engaged with either insurers or ambulance chasers to get business i'll be happy to pass it on to jack straw who is currently campaigning on the issue so he can come and meet them and find out how this industry can work without bungs and corrupt practice. A caring non-bunging firm of solicitors invloved in compensation claims would make a welcome change so i look forward to it. I need to be careful here, as I know a lot about RJW. I typed a whole long response there, and have decided against it. Apologies, but I can't explain on a public forum. I won't name the firm I work for, save to say, we do not work for claims management companies. I actually left a previous company because I didn't want to deal with CMC's. Don't confuse the way insurers work by the way. Insurers selling claims as is suggested in that article is wrong. Insurers referring work whereby a client of that insurer calls said insurer for legal help, and insurer then refers the work to a solicitor is definitely not wrong. If I have legal cover on my policy and call them to use that (how we get work), that's fine in my view, because the customer has asked for the help. Unsolicited calls, if for instance the insurer finds out about the accident and sells the claim, are wrong, and actually illegal under the Compensation Act. Just wanted to clarify, there is a big difference between the two. Insurers capturing claims is wrong. Clients asking for help isn't. PS I'm off to bed now, so apologies if I don't respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 You know what? If "Joe Public" had access to legal aid for redress for those costs genuinely incurred as a resolt of an incident caused by another's negligence, then perhaps people wouldn't have to go down the personal injury claim route in order to make a genuine claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 You know what? If "Joe Public" had access to legal aid for redress for those costs genuinely incurred as a resolt of an incident caused by another's negligence, then perhaps people wouldn't have to go down the personal injury claim route in order to make a genuine claim possibly, but a previous government withdrew legal aid for personal injury cases preferring instead to push people down the "no win no fee" route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 some Claims companies are a front for some solicitors you missed the word some out, i've added it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 That is interesting. So in effect, instead of people moaning about kids. If an adult in that community was to actually get off his or her bottom, that one person could so something very positive for the good of the community. How many adults would be willing to step up and do something? very few which is very sad and the world would be a much better place if, in general, adults did get more involved. i would say that possibly being involved in something along the lines of the discussions here is a small consideration. most simply do not care enough and prefer to spend their time doing other things also anyone involved with children to that extent would probably need a crb check, and there would be the ever present worry of a false accusation of doing something improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.