Require the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to adhere to common law. Please! everyone sign for me.
BY BECKY YERAK
CHICAGO If, while driving, you were also chowing down food, yakking on your phone or getting distracted by Bella the Labrador retriever, would your insurance company know?
A patent issued in August to Allstate mentions using sensors and cameras to record “potential sources of driver distraction within the vehicle (e.g. pets, phone usage, unsecured objects in vehicle).” It also mentions gathering information on the number and types of passengers — whether adults, children or teenagers.
And the insurer isn’t just interested in the motoring habits of its own policyholders.
Underscoring companies’ interest in collecting and analyzing information on you, also known as big data, the patent also envisions gathering information on nearby cars so it can compare its policyholder’s habits to other motorists in the area. The patent, called “traffic-based driving analysis,” is for a server that will receive driving behavior data from sensors, cameras and other devices.
“So my car spies on me and on other drivers near me?” Bob Hunter, insurance director for the Consumer Federation of America and a former Texas insurance commissioner, said after reviewing the patent. “Even if I give permission for this intrusive technology, my car spies on unsuspecting passengers and even on unsuspecting pedestrians or cars passing by?”
Hunter wondered about the “liability for that intrusiveness” as well as the potential to pick up such sensitive data as ATM PINs. It’s “the invasion of the spy car,” he said.
Allstate said it filed the new patent a few years ago. Company spokeswoman Laura Strykowski said the “technology would provide drivers with broader information about traffic conditions and external factors that could better equip them to drive safe.”
It’s at least the second patent in recent months that the insurer has been issued related to connected cars. In June, Allstate received a patent for a driving-behavior database it said might be useful for health insurers, lenders, credit-rating agencies, marketers and potential employers. That patent also said the invention has the potential to evaluate such physiological data as heart rate, blood pressure and electrocardiogram signals that could be recorded from steering-wheel sensors.
In May, Allstate floated the idea of possibly selling policyholders’ driving data, and in doing so held up Google as Exhibit A. “There are a lot of people monetizing data today,” Allstate Chief Executive Tom Wilson said at a conference.
Searching on Google, for example, “seems like it’s free, but it’s not free,” he said. “You’re giving them your information, and they sell your information.” Wilson then raised the question of whether Allstate could or should “sell this information we get from people driving around to various people and capture some additional profit and, perhaps, give a better value proposition to our customers that we’re not giving today?”
Long term, car insurers’ business models are under pressure. Questions have been raised about the industry’s long-term viability given increasingly safe cars. Also, with vehicles getting more connected, some have also wondered whether Google and Apple could pose threats to car insurers, which traditionally have gathered their own loss data and kept it in-house.
Allstate’s August patent adds several other physiological measures to the list of possible characteristics to collect: the driver’s eye and head positions and the “physical or mental state of the driver, such as fatigue or intoxication,” which could be determined by “sensors that detect the content of alcohol in the air or blood-alcohol content of the driver, such as a breathalyzer.” The database could also include audio that could pick up a cranked-up stereo or animated passengers, the patent said.
Allstate and other insurers are increasingly using information gleaned from technology, typically plug-in devices or smartphone apps, to score the driving habits of policyholders, who in exchange get the chance to qualify for discounts on their insurance. The programs are voluntary but have evolved from analyzing braking habits and time of day driven, to later introducing once-taboo locations in some programs, and, more recently, looking at physiological characteristics and now maybe even nearby drivers with the possibility of selling the data.
The patent describes a computer system or a computer program, or hardware or software, or a combination of the two. The sensors and cameras could transmit the data to “external computer systems,” the patent said.
External cameras could detect cyclists and pedestrians, among other things, the patent said.
“The proposed patent underscores the immense interest in data mining and data fusion,” said Frederick Lane, a lawyer and author of “American Privacy: The 400-Year History of Our Most Contested Right.”
“Thanks to advances in data collection, storage capacity and computing power, we increasingly will no longer be judged just on the data we ourselves generate, but on how our data compares to others and to various aspects of the ‘real world,’ such as speed limits and weather conditions,” Lane said. Allstate’s patent mentions marrying the driving data with weather conditions.
“Obviously, data fusion can only occur when data is shared among various companies and databases, but given the potential financial ramifications, consumers will be under tremendous pressure to allow such sharing,” Lane said. “The coercive techniques are already well-established: ‘To use this service/vehicle, you must consent to sharing the following information,’ or ‘You will receive the following benefits, such as lower rates, coupons, contest entries, if you share the following information.’”
Lane said “one potentially positive aspect of the patent” is the plan to compare a driver’s behavior to the behavior of other drivers at the same time or in the same conditions.
“An algorithm might be written to penalize a driver who exceeds the speed limit by a certain amount,” Lane said. But “if collected data reveals that a significant percentage of other drivers are doing the same thing either at the same time or on the same stretch of road, then the algorithm might not impose a penalty.”
As for possibly collecting physiological data, Lane said he believes Allstate “is at the tip of the iceberg” in terms of developing and using sensors to collect such data.
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article32774505.html#storylink=cpy
Insurers should review delegated underwriting, say experts or will they continue to mistreat customer?????
FOCUS: Recent thematic work by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) reinforces and clarifies that insurers remain responsible for ensuring that delegated underwriting services comply with regulatory requirements. Insurers must check that this is clearly reflected in their contractual arrangements now.25 Aug 2015
In June the FCA released the final report of its thematic review on so-called 'delegated authority' in the general insurance market. The report concluded that firms did not appear to have adequately considered or recognised their regulatory obligations in connection with these arrangements, with a major cause of this being that some insurers did not treat the delegation of authority as outsourcing.
By drawing this link with outsourcing, the FCA aims to remind firms of the importance of having the right systems and controls in place to manage delegated authorities. Having clear and comprehensive contracts is an important part of achieving this aim. It also emphasises the importance of managing delegated authorities through other means as well: effective risk-based due diligence of all new opportunities; appropriate monitoring and control of the delegated authority and the product itself throughout the relationship; and effective post-termination rights in respect of the product and policyholders.
The report: the customer experience
Insurers use delegated authority, or 'coverholder', arrangements, to outsource certain functions to third parties. These can include underwriting and claims handling activities. During its review, the FCA focussed on the potential conduct risks associated with delegating these activities to third parties and the allocation of related functions between those parties. It found that, in many cases, firms did not consider these arrangements to be outsourcing.
When an insurer outsources 'significant functions' to a third party, these functions remain subject to the relevant requirements in the FCA Handbook. The most relevant of these are within the Threshold Conditions, Principles for Businesses, SYSC, ICOBS and RPPD. Outsourcings under Solvency II, the EU-wide regulatory regime that comes into force on 1 January 2016, will also be subject to EIOPA's guidelines, which expressly include the external delegation of underwriting authority.
RPPD is the FCA's regulatory guide on the responsibilities of providers and distributors for the treatment of customers. This guidance sets out the FCA's views on what the rules require of providers and distributors which supply products and services to retail customers. Crucially, it confirms that it is not the firm's status as insurer or intermediary that determines its responsibilities but their function and role throughout the product lifecycle. For example, where an intermediary specifies the criteria for an insurance product, many of the responsibilities fall to the intermediary as 'retail manufacturer' rather than to the insurer as 'pure manufacturer'.
The customer experience has always been a central element of the FCA's agenda, so it was not surprising to read the FCA's focus on customer outcomes as part of its thematic review. The final report emphasised that neither insurers nor distributors should consider the customer's experience as the sole responsibility of the other. This relates not just to the product itself but also to the way that it is distributed under the delegated authority. This can pose a real challenge for insurers and wholesale intermediaries that may not have any direct dealings with the customer, particularly in extended distribution chains. However, the FCA report makes it clear that they will nonetheless have responsibility in these cases as well.
The FCA's future expectations of firms
The regulator's renewed emphasis on the customer's experience of a particular product will require a considerable shift in the relationship between the insurer and its distributor, at least in relation to some distribution arrangements. Going forward, it may be necessary for some insurers to have relationships with their distributors that are much more akin to partnerships, with clearly apportioned responsibilities, in the way in which products are developed, marketed and sold, and also to the way in which claims are handled under delegated authorities.
The FCA has said that it will focus on the issues highlighted in the report in its ongoing supervisory work with firms. Some of its expectations for UK firms are outlined below.
These increased expectations around oversight and control of delegated authorities will almost certainly give rise to additional costs for insurers and intermediaries. This may well lead to a reduction in the number of delegated authorities in some markets and products, and to change in some insurers' distribution models.
Iain Sawers and Alexis Roberts are insurance experts at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com
Man jailed for attack on Aviva's phonesAuthor: Ida Axling
Source: Insurance Age | 25 Aug 2015
Tags: Aviva | Technology | Legal
Richard Neale sentenced to 18 months in jail following hack into 900 mobile phones belonging to Aviva employees.
A former computer firm boss who hacked into 900 mobile devices belonging to Aviva employees has been jailed for 18 months after a case at Guilford Crown Court, according to reports.
Richard Neale, 40, of Stoke Road, Guildford, carried out the attack on Aviva's mobile devices in May 2014 and was, as previously reported byInsurance Age, charged under the Computer Misuse Act by the South East Regional Organised Crime Unit (SEROCU).
Neale worked at IT company Esselar, which ran the security network for Aviva, and according to the Daily Mail, he hacked the mobile devices as revenge after leaving the company following a bitter fall-out.
According to SEROCU, the attack on Aviva resulted in financial loss for the insurer after hundreds of mobile devices were wiped of data.
Neale was charged on three counts of unauthorised acts with the intent to impair the operation of, or prevent access to, a computer and one count of unauthorised access to computer material.
According to the Daily Mail article, Judge Neil Stewart sentenced Neale yesterday.
He said Neale's actions had "damaged confidence and reputations in a way that can be far-reaching and serious".
The article noted that Fiona Alexander, for the prosecution, had said: "The aim of the attack was to ridicule Esselar.
"There was a degree of sophisticated planning. The offending persisted over a period of five months. The defendant was motivated by revenge: a serious aggravating feature. There was a grave breach of trust."
She added: "It wasn't intended to target just Esselar but also MobileIron and Aviva. Over 900 devices were wiped by the defendant's actions."
An Aviva spokesperson told Insurance Age: "The issue was specific to some of our employees' mobile devices and no Aviva business or customer data was affected.
"It was an overnight issue and by the start of the next day we had restored the affected devices."
For all the latest industry news direct to your inbox, sign up for our daily newsletter.
Author: Emmanuel Kenning
Source: Insurance Age | 25 Aug 2015
Tags: Direct Line | Ageas | RSA | Axa | Aviva | PPI |complaint handling | FOS
Axa and Ageas complete top three at Financial Ombudsman Service.
The Financial Ombudsman Service has revealed the most complained about firms for the first six months of 2015.
Direct Line was outed as the most complained against firm in general insurance (excluding payment protection insurance) with the ombudsman receiving 1,536 new cases.
Axa came in second in the same category with 636 cases and Ageas totalled 493 new complaints.
Completing the top five were Aviva and RSA with 466 and 444 customers respectively dissatisfied with the business' response to their complaint.
A spokesperson for the ombudsman confirmed that total number of general insurance cases received in the period was up again at 16,378.
In the previous six months from July to December it received 14,164 cases and in the same January to June period of 2014 it saw 15,539 complaints.
The figures came as the ombudsman stated that it took on a total of 173,994 new cases in the first half of 2015 - an overall increase of 8% on the previous period when it received 161,649 complaints.
According to the FOS, the number of PPI complaints actually fell by 10% but there were still 94,091 making up over half - 55% - of its total workload.
For complaints about financial products other than PPI, the number increased to 79,550, a rise of 45%.
The watchdog said this was largely the result of an increase in complaints about packaged bank account complaints brought by claims-management companies during this period.
Chief ombudsman Caroline Wayman said: "It's been seven years since the ombudsman first began to publish data about individual financial businesses.
"This has coincided with a period of volatility and challenge for much of the financial services sector - and this is still reflected in the data we publish today.
She added: "Complaints about PPI continue to make up over half of our workload. And though the number of new PPI cases has reduced in the first half of this year, the decline has not been as steady or as marked as generally expected.
"This is as least in part due to the continued high levels of activity by claims managers in this area."
For all the latest industry news direct to your inbox, sign up for our daily newsletter.
Did you know that the FOS(financial ombudsman service) is a private LTD company, and makes profit? in fact their doing so well having to handle the ever rising amount of complaints they have had to take on more staff... the amount of staff being recruited is mind boggling..especially when insurers are making redundancies like Aviva..so why the increase in need for staff at the FOS? is it because insurers and the financial institutions are treating customers fairly? here are there staff levels below
Number of Employees Number of Employees Year 3,389 2014 2,288 2013 1,438 2012 1,178 2011 1,051 2010
Read more at: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03725015/FINANCIAL-OMBUDSMAN-SERVICE-LIMITED/directors-secretarieshttp://companycheck.co.uk/company/03725015/FINANCIAL-OMBUDSMAN-SERVICE-LIMITED/directors-secretaries
And look at the cash the have, complaints are lucrative.
FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE LIMITED
Not Verified Verified
Basic Info Mini Icon Active - 03725015
Address Mini Icon EXCHANGE TOWER, HARBOUR EXCHANGE SQUARE, LONDON, E14 9SR
Address Mini Icon Cash: £230,558,000 Net Worth: £137,683,000 Assets: £288,679,000 Liabilities: £117,602,000
How safe is your #car Hackers reveal flaw in over 100 cars kept secret by Volkswagen for TWO YEARS: Bug can be used to unlock everything from a Kia to a Lamborghini
MOT meltdown: Thousands of motorists face being forced off the road after a new government system failed, leaving garages unable to issue certificates Read more:
Regulator finalises senior managers' rules for insurers,if you are in charge, YOU ARE responsible personally!
Regulator finalises senior managers' rules for insurersNew rules governing how senior managers at large insurers will be held individually accountable for failures in their area of business responsibility by the regulator have been published by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).14 Aug 2015
The senior insurance managers' regime (SIMR) is based on similar rules that will apply to senior bankers from March next year, but "tailored to the different business models and associated risks of insurers", the PRA said. The new rules will replace the PRA's current approved persons regime (APR) for the most senior insurance staff, and make it easier for the regulator to hold these individuals personally responsible for regulatory breaches. The APR will continue for other insurance staff.
PRA chief executive and Bank of England deputy governor Andrew Bailey said that the new rules would embed "the simple principle that you can delegate tasks and work, but you cannot delegate responsibility for the safety and soundness and conduct of your firm" at "all levels of banks and insurers".
The PRA intends to introduce a modified version of the new regime for smaller insurers, who will not be subject to new solvency and risk management standards when the EU-wide Solvency II regime takes effect next year. It has also published "near-final" rules setting out how the banking senior managers' regime (SMR) will be applied to senior staff at UK branches of banks headquartered outside of the European Economic Area (EEA).
By publishing the documents far in advance of the entry into force of the new regime, the PRA said that it intended to provide insurers with the "clarity and certainty" necessary to make the new regime a success. However, financial regulation expert Michael Ruck of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said some of the detail was still up for debate.
"Although the policy statements do provide some clarity around the application of the regime – including the requirements applicable to individuals at a 'group entity', the role of non-executive directors and the various key functions, there continues to be room for some interpretation and flexibility in how firms apply the requirements," he said. "This will require input from the business and external advisors, culminating in a conversation with the regulators to identify their views on the firm's proposals for application of the regime."
"The regulators' clear aim is to hold individuals accountable for failings in areas for which they have taken responsibility. Whilst the reverse burden of proof in the SMR is not included in the insurance regime, the statement that 'senior managers will be held individually accountable for the areas they are responsible for' puts down a clear marker that individuals will need to be able to evidence the steps they took to meet the relevant regulatory requirements. Any senior manager responsible for an area in which there is a regulatory breach will be for the regulatory high jump," he said.
The SIMR will apply to senior managers who are running insurance companies, or who have responsibility for certain 'key functions'. These functions will include risk management, compliance, internal audit and actuarial as a minimum, with additional functions covered based on their importance to the "sound and prudent management" of the individual firm. The rules cover the assessment of fitness and propriety of senior managers, the allocation of certain responsibilities to those individuals and new conduct rules.
The PRA's final policy statement extends the basic requirement to require a reference from the former employers of a senior manager to cover current or former non-executive director (NED) roles. It does not, however, contain substantive rules on the form and content of such references, for either NEDs or senior managers. These will be finalised as part of the PRA's response to the Fair and Effective Markets Review (FEMR), which issued recommendations about these references in its final report in June.
Senior staff at 'non-directive firms' (NDFs) with assets of more than £25 million, which will not be caught by the Solvency II regime when it comes into force across the EU on 1 January 2016, will be subject to a "streamlined" version of the rules. These new rules, which will be finalised after a further PRA consultation, would also apply to run-off firms that are not covered by Solvency II transitional measures. The PRA has already finalised the rules for NDFs with assets of less than £25m.
The PRA also intends to extend the SMR for banks to UK branches of foreign banks, known as 'incoming branches'. It has now published final and near-final rules, tailored to reflect the characteristics of these branches and aligned with its approach to branch supervision; although it will not be able to fully finalise these ruled until the UK parliament approves legislation extending the definition of 'relevant authorised persons' regulated by the PRA to cover incoming branches.
August 13, 2015 — 11:13 AM BSTUpdated on August 13, 2015 — 5:04 PM BST
U.K. insurers face tougher conduct rules as the Financial Conduct Authority makes it easier to hold individuals at financial firms to account for failures on their watch.
The FCA issued final rules on Thursday amending its accountability framework for firms covered by the European Union insurance law known as Solvency II. Unlike similar rules proposed for U.K. bankers, the insurance standards don’t contain criminal sanctions or reverse the burden of proof in cases of misconduct.
The rules are part of a suite of measures to tie the pay and personal reputations of senior managers at financial companies to the fates of their firms.
“These changes are an important part of our overall drive to raise standards of individual conduct across the financial services industry,” the FCA said in the paperpublished on its website.
Under Solvency II, insurance and reinsurance companies must ensure that “all persons who effectively run the undertaking or have other key functions are at all times fit and proper.” This assessment covers professional qualifications, knowledge and experience as well as honesty and financial soundness.
The PRA’s rules that implement Solvency II require insurers to have a “governance map” in place by Jan. 1 that sets out who carries out key functions as well as the responsibilities and reporting lines for each senior manager. They must also submit a grandfathering notification by Feb. 8 of next year.
Chief executive, financial and risk officers, heads of internal audit and others who perform a so-called controlled function must be pre-approved by the PRA.
“Having the final rules for the approved persons regime under Solvency II will help firms as they move toward the implementation of the regulations,” said a spokesperson for the Association of British Insurers. “We are working hard with our members and the PRA and FCA to ensure a smooth transition.”
#Co-operative Bank - comments on enforcement notices from #FCA and PRA; apologises to customers for their failings
Today, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have published the outcome of their enforcement investigations into the decisions, events and processes at The Co-operative Bank over the period from 22 July 2009 to 31 December 2013.
Although no fine has been imposed on the Bank, the terms of the PRA and FCA Notices and public censures demonstrate to The Co-operative Bank and others the seriousness with which the regulators regard its failings over the relevant period. These failings would normally have merited a substantial fine being imposed.
Dennis Holt, Chairman of The Co-operative Bank, said:
"On behalf of the Bank, I would like to apologise again to customers for these past failings and reassure them that the Bank is a significantly stronger organisation today under the leadership of the current senior management team.
"The investigations by the regulators into what went wrong at the Bank are very important and the Board takes the censures extremely seriously. The Bank has been co-operating fully with the regulatory authorities and the Board fully accept the lessons that need to be learnt, but it is important to remember these are not a reflection of how the Bank is run today. They relate to historical events and legacy issues and were not decisions made by the current senior management team.
"The facts underlying the failings were largely set out in Sir Christopher Kelly's independent report published in April 2014, and, since then, the Bank has made material progress in addressing these shortcomings by enhancing the Bank's governance, its processes, systems and practices, significantly strengthening its Board and in rebuilding the Bank's capital position.
"Nevertheless the Board is fully focussed on continuing to remediate the findings of the investigation and strengthening the culture of the organisation. Of course, we have always said the turnaround will take time and there is further work ahead towards a full recovery.
"We understand the details of the findings may once again cause customers concern but there is no impact on the resilience of the Bank, its strategic plan or on the quality of service we provide customers. I would like to thank our colleagues for their dedication and our customers and shareholders for their ongoing support as we continue to focus on rebuilding a bank that our customers deserve, and that will meet the expectations of all of our stakeholders."
"Since 2013, The Co-operative Bank has made significant progress in addressing the failings detailed today in the regulatory reviews, as acknowledged in the PRA's announcement today: "towards the end of 2013, following changes to its Board and senior management, the Co-op Bank began properly to address the concerns around its risk management framework structures and policies and procedures around corporate lending and capital management."
The Co-operative Bank is currently delivering a recovery plan which the PRA noted in December 2014 has achieved the targets set over the prior 18 months in terms of building its capital base and improving resilience. Since then, the Bank has completed the initial securitisation of £1.5bn of Non-core residential mortgage assets within the Optimum portfolio; and has also raised £250m of Tier 2 capital.
During the period of the investigations, the PRA has found that, The Co-operative Bank was in breach of Principle 3 (Management and Control) with respect to the Bank's controls and risk management framework. The FCA found the Bank to be in breach of UK Listing Rule 1.3.3 in relation to two statements in the Bank's 2012 Annual Report and Accounts. In addition the FCA and PRA have both found that, from 25 April 2012 to 9 May 2013, the Bank also breached Principle 11 by failing to notify the FCA and PRA of intended changes to two senior positions (and the reason for those changes).
Telegraph - return of whiplash scandal to add 15% to car insurance costs as criminal find ways round new laws
Drivers face a 15% rise in car insurance costs this year because the scourge of fraudulent whiplash claims is back and "worse than ever", it was claimed last night.
Insurance executives believe unscrupulous claims management firms, lawyers and doctors have discovered loopholes in new laws that were designed to end the scandal.
They said criminal outfits had returned to cold-calling susceptible members of the public and convincing them to fake injuries in front of doctors.
Data obtained by The Telegraph suggest 7,500 more whiplash claims are being submitted each month than last year – yet the number of road accidents has remained almost unchanged.
On Monday one of Britain's biggest car insurers, Esure, said its profits had fallen by a fifth as a result of the surge. It said it planned to increase premiums for all drivers to "mitigate against" the higher costs.
David Williams, managing director of Axa, another major insurer, said:
"We are seeing bigger and more fraudulent claims as companies find ways round the rules. It's as bad, if not worse, than before."
Annual car insurance premiums are now rising for the first time in three years as insurers struggle to cope with the return of whiplash fraudsters, according to the AA.
The "10 to 15 per cent" increase it predicts for the year would add around £80 to the cost of a new annual car insurance policy, which now averages around £550.
Premiums had hit £715 a year before they began to fall steadily when the Government introduced measures to tackle the Britain's "compensation culture" in 2013.
Since then there has been a ban on "referral fees" paid between lawyers, insurers, claims firms for potential clients; medical professionals have been blocked from charging more than £180 for preparing whiplash injury reports; lawyers have had charges capped at £500 for preparing a basic claim; and all claims must now be verified by a randomly-selected medical expert before they are looked at by the insurance company.
Following the reforms the annual cost to insurers of processing personal injury claims and issuing payouts fell by a third.
But the experts now believe disreputable claims firms were merely pausing to work out how to circumvent the restrictions.
Mr Williams, of Axa, said: "There was a bit of panic [in the claims industry] until the realisation that the Government's changes weren't as dramatic as people thought and money could still be made.
"In the early days after the reforms claims firms didn't know what they could get away with, but now they have established a number of ways around the rules."
The monthly total for personal injury claims dropped below 60,000 in June 2013 after the new rules were introduced, data collected by the Ministry of Justice show.
Now 73,500 a month are now being submitted on average, up from 66,000 last year.
Claims firms and lawyers are believed to be circumventing the ban on referral fees by asking clients to call carefully-selected partner firms, rather than passing names and telephone numbers between themselves.
Payment for this indirect referral is then made through an alternative, seemingly legal, route.
Some companies are thought to be submitting multiple claims for each whiplash case to increase the chances of their client being allocated a doctor with which the company has a relationship.
Stephen Gaywood, insurance counter-fraud director for the AA, said attempts by the Ministry of Justice to stop cold calling were failing.
"The rules are being openly flouted. These firms are getting hold of customer data from somewhere and it’s not from insurers.
I have no doubt that their pushy tactics lead many people to make claims that they otherwise wouldn’t even consider."
In a poll of more than 24,000 people by researchers Populus and the AA, 11 per cent of respondents said they saw "nothing wrong" with making a claim for injury, even if no injury was suffered.
"Many legitimate collisions are vastly inflated by injury claims that are extremely difficult to disprove, so the balance of probability in a court would fall in favour of the claimant."
Judge attacks insurer #Admiral for tactics “redolent of an era which had begun to fade into history”
Just had this published in the IAEA magazine today "Duty Calls" the role of the engineer @RMI_NAB @abpclub @IAEA_ORG
Support The 'Your Car, Your Choice' Campaign@NIBA_Tweet @RMI_NAB @abp @Bodyshopmarket @bodyshopmag@HowardCCox
Here to help ensure consumers are treated fairly by insurance companies.