High Court Judge refuses whiplash damages, describing Britain's compensation culture as a "national phenomenon"

A High Court Judge recently dismissed the claims of two women for whiplash as lies as he said Britain's compensation culture, which costs billions every year, is getting out of control.

Mr Justice Mostyn dismissed the claims as inaccurate and evasive, based on "an improper pecuniary motive," as he refused to grant damages to two women to "stem the tide" of fake insurance claims.

The women, both immigration officers, took at least a week to report any pain from the crash, described as a "little bump" by others. The court heard it took 18 days for her to complain to her GP about any pain, and Miss Hennessy waited a week before she went to her doctor to report any injury as a result of the impact.

Describing Britain's compensation culture is a "national phenomenon", Judge Mostyn said: "It is proper that I should go on to record that I do not accept the evidence of either of them, which I find to be inaccurate, evasive, partial and advanced for an improper pecuniary motive".

"This is yet a further example of the national phenomenon of false whiplash claims being made and it is in an attempt to stem the tide that I do not shrink from making firm adverse findings against them".

Mr Justice Mostyn said expert medical evidence which appeared to back up the accounts of both women was so similar it cast doubt on the professional objectivity of the expert. In identical terms, medical reports said both had suffered "nervous shock and psychological trauma" and endured "recurrent obtrusive memories of the accident and obsessional thoughts as to how she might have been seriously injured."

Both reports, prepared by a consultant physician, said the women had described their physical symptoms as "severe and constant", having taken many months to clear up.

However the court heard that there was no visible damage to the car after the accident and neither woman reported any injury at the time or asked for time off work.

Mr Justice Mostyn added: "Obviously it is, in terms of probability, almost inconceivable that each of these women would have suffered physically or mentally in precisely the same way."

The court heard Denise Withey, the driver of the Skoda Octavia, had described the accident as minor and her account was backed up by Raymond Stevens, a front seat passenger.

Miss Withey had taken photographs of the car which showed no damage was caused by the impact, and Mr Justice Mostyn described her as a "completely honest witness."

He said: "The contemporaneous material clearly shows that the impact was trivial; that no damage was caused to the vehicle; no hurt was suffered by the front passengers and that any hurt suffered by the rear passengers was trivial, of short duration and therefore non-compensable".

He said Miss Withey had no motive to lie and accepted she drove at low speed and the impact was minor.

He also accepted Miss McIntyre had immediately shouted about her neck and said she could make a compensation claim, and dismissed the cases of both women.

Paula McIntyre and Louise Hennessy made the claim against the Home Office after the work car they were in hit a bollard as it drove out of Seaforth Dock in Liverpool in October 2008.

After the crash a colleague heard Miss McIntyre say: "My neck, my neck, I can make a compensation claim."

http://www.motorworldarc.co.uk/news.asp

Competition Commission warned ruling against "best offer" clauses would "rewind" motor insurance by 10 years

Price comparison website Compare the Market hopes the Competition Commission's will leave "most favoured nation" clauses untouched in review of private motor insurance.

Ahead of the Competition Commission (CC) publishes their provisional findings, which has been delayed again as reported by News from ABP on Friday, Paul Galligan, the managing director of Compare the Market, has warned the market would "rewind" by up to 10 years if the CC rules against controversial "best offer" clauses that are insisted upon by price comparison websites (PCWs).

The Sunday Telegraph outlined the scope of the investigation, which has extended to also look at motor insurance PCWs after requests from insurers who are angry about "most favoured nation" (MFN) clauses. The MFN clauses stipulate that insurers have to offer their "best prices" in order to for their premium quotes to appear on PCWs.

However, Mr Galligan, whose firm has attracted particular anger for insisting on "wide" MFN clauses, defended the practice.

He said they are essential to the effective operation of price comparison sites and vowed that Comparethemarket.com would fight for their continued use.

"We know these clauses have made us unpopular in the marketplace with insurers," he said. "But, if you're going to appear on Comparethemarket, we expect your very best price. As a price comparison site, I can't possibly imagine a time when we could compare anything but.

"If you look at some of the language and hype that surrounds these clauses, the legalistic jargon and the arguments between insurers and the Competition Commission, there's a real risk that the needs of the consumer get lost.

"Without these clauses, the market would rewind eight, nine or 10 years and lose a lot of the transparency we've brought to bear. It would be a massive step backwards."

"Narrow" MFN clauses mean that insurers whose premiums are quoted on PCWs can only offer the same or higher rates on their own websites.

However, Comparethemarket is unusual in insisting on a "wide" MFN clause, forbidding insurers from offering a cheaper price anywhere in the market.

"We're not the focus of this investigation but I think we have the most proactive stance and that's something we're going to maintain," said Mr Galligan.

"We're confident the commission will see through a lot of the bluster and hype and realise that if these clauses are done away with, there's only one winner – the large insurers. And only one loser – UK consumers."

PCWs are now estimated to be used by more than half of UK consumers seeking new insurance quotes.

http://www.motorworldarc.co.uk/news.asp

BBC - high level of used car complaints prompts government action

The government is expected to announce the creation of a commission to look at the reasons behind high levels of complaints surrounding used car sales.

Second-hand car sales by independent traders consistently top the list of gripes according to the Citizens Advice consumer helpline.

Consumer and industry groups are being invited to discuss the trend and report back by the spring next year.

Trade bodies say complaints are dealt with quickly by reputable dealers.

Used car buyers are being given purchasing tips and reminded of their rights as part of National Consumer Week, which starts on Monday.

The campaign is aimed at preventing the kind of situation that 22-year-old graduate Natasha Akintunde found herself in.

She bought a used Nissan Micra, with low mileage, for more than £1,000, only for the clutch to fail within weeks.
She said she found out later that the car had been an insurance write-off.
She was given a replacement, but said the brakes failed when her mother was driving it home from the seller.

"It has put me off driving for a while, because of the worry of what happened. I just want my money back, I don't really want to buy another used car," she said.

Buyers are being encouraged to go through a checklist before they buy a second-hand car. Tips include:

- Checking documents such as the MOT certificate, service history and V5 registration document
- Checking the mileage and other history details, using a free online database
- Getting a mechanic to check the technical aspects of the car

Consumer minister Jo Swinson said it was vital, with seven million used cars sold every year , that consumers were "better equipped to make good decisions" when buying cars.

"Rogue dealers are going to find there is action taken against them. They need to shape up, because they are not going to get away with it," she said.

Stuart James, director of the RMI, agreed there were unscrupulous operators in any business, but said many car sellers were reputable and would deal quickly with genuine complaints.

He said many of the calls to Citizens Advice were from people seeking information about their rights, rather than actual complaints about traders.

There are many approved schemes that have independent arbitration if things go wrong.

The RMI has set up the Trust My Garage scheme that ensures members that carry the badge adhere to a code of practice.

There are certain rights that people can fall back on if they discover a problem soon after driving off the forecourt.

Any purchase must be as described by the seller, of satisfactory quality given its age and the price paid, and be roadworthy.

Andy Foster, director of operations and policy at the Trading Standards Institute, said this meant traders should generally offer a repair if something goes wrong within a few weeks, assuming the problem was not pointed out at the time the car was sold.
A replacement or even a refund could be available.

If the problem occurred after a number of months, then the buyer might have to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale in order to get a repair.

However, buyers have fewer rights if they buy the car from a private individual, such as through an internet auction site.

http://www.motorworldarc.co.uk/news.asp

Thatcham Research - Crash prevention will be the ultimate key to 5-star cars

Coveted 5-star safety ratings may soon be awarded only to those cars that can avoid or reduce the impact of a crash, as Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) marks the way forward for future road safety, according to Thatcham Research.

Euro NCAP today releases data on AEB crash tests, collected from approved test centres around Europe. Half of the tests* were carried out by Thatcham, the British motor insurers' automotive research facility.

Thatcham has been researching and testing Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems on behalf of insurers for the last 3 years and has carried out hundreds of tests on a wide range of new vehicles.

Peter Shaw, chief executive of Thatcham Research said: "The vast majority of major vehicle manufacturers are already providing AEB technologies on their vehicles and such is their effectiveness, we are delighted that international safety body Euro NCAP will incorporate the Thatcham led test as part of their overall vehicle safety standard in 2014. We expect that, by 2016, cars will find it increasingly difficult to achieve a 5-star rating unless they have this powerful safety measure. UK insurers are already offering favourable insurance groupings on vehicles fitted with AEB as standard – a clear sign of its effectiveness."

"The evidence from our testing is undeniable, and combined with a growing body of real world research and evidence we firmly believe that AEB and other ADAS (Advanced Driver Assist Systems) have a critical role to play in avoiding both common low-speed bumps that can cause injuries such as whiplash, and mitigating injuries and fatalities from medium-speed crashes," said Shaw.

*Thatcham carried out AEB testing on the following vehicles:
Ford Focus (Active City Stop)
Volvo XC60 (City Safety)
Volvo V40 (City Safety + Collision Warning with Full Autobrake)
Mercedes E-Class (Pre-Safe Brake)

http://www.motorworldarc.co.uk/news.asp

Car park scratches cost UK drivers £500 million

Parking spaces that are too small are costing motorists over £500 million a year in repair bills for damaged paintwork.

A new study from Halfords and paint renovation experts G3 Pro has revealed that over 10 million car owners have suffered annoying scuffs or scratches as a result of unwanted contact in car parks over the past year – with two thirds of them having to pay more than £50 to fix bodywork.

Car doors are the most likely area to suffer scrapes as a result, accounting for 50% of reported damage, followed by bumpers (14%) and wings (13%).

Halfords paint protection expert David Howells said: "There is a squeeze on the nation's car parks and the consequences are hitting frustrated motorists in the wallet.

"The majority of drivers we questioned blamed their scratches and repair costs on inconsiderate drivers parking too close to them but our research shows that the size of parking spaces is leaving them little choice."

Despite the size of the average car growing – as manufacturers strive to offer more interior space, crash protection and comfort - Transport Department rules governing car park space sizes have remained the same since 1994.

The width of cars has increased by around 16% over the same period, making the average British car 2 inches wider than the 1.80m (5ft 11in) minimum parking space - that's 40mm smaller than a Ford Focus* and incapable of accommodating a BMW 3 series measuring over 2metres (6ft 7in).

Donna Howard from G3 Pro said: "Even the smallest scratch can be very annoying and reduce the value of a vehicle by hundreds of pounds. But with car park operators looking to maximise visitor volumes and revenue, there is little incentive for them to exceed the recommended minimum size requirements."

The research found that supermarkets were reported as the worst offenders by 38% of drivers, followed by shopping centres (29%) and railway stations (18%).

Donna Howard added: "Until drivers learn to take greater care of how they park, as well as how they open car doors in tight spaces, G3 Pro offers a range of professional quality products that can help banish unsightly scuffs and scratches to leave paintwork looking like new."

Trial underway of team of fraudsters who sold bogus car insurance from a fake call centre

Prosecutor Ann Mulligan said, "It was a fraud factory. There were printers, faxes, telephones, bank cards, chequebooks, mobile phones, shredders.

Bukharee had realised the earlier websites were under investigation and had decided to set up a new campaign."

A total of £40,733 had been paid by 38 customers for car insurance in the three weeks the First Direct website was up and running, the court heard.

Miss Mulligan said: "The case involves a ghost brooking website fraud - a website created for the purposes of fraud.

"It is not in dispute that this was a sophisticated fraud and it was masterminded by Danyal Bukharee.

"He used the four ghost broking websites to carry out car insurance fraud. He was responsible for setting up the websites, each of them purporting to offer genuine motor insurance at around a 15 per cent discount below the average price offered by genuine companies.

"Unsuspecting members of the public were duped into buying this non-existent car insurance and paying money for it.

"What he identified was he could target innocent members of the public, in particular young first time drivers for whom insurance premiums are extremely high, often inhibitively so."

It is claimed Bukharee recruited Giovanni Recchia, 47, to run the First Car Direct fraud from the flat by answering phones and dealing with customer enquiries.

Recchia was with Bukharee when police arrived at the flat and acted as a witness to the tenancy agreement, the court heard.

Detectives found a whiteboard featuring the names of nine invented employees next to their roles in claims, admin and compliance, it is claimed.

One victim remembered being put through to David Wood in sales and offered a quote of £2,018 for insurance, jurors were told.

Miss Mulligan said: "You may think Bukharee has a sense of humor. Detective Chief Inspector David Wood is in fact head of the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department."

Police also found an iPod connected to sound system with only one track uploaded titled 'Office Noise.'

Jurors heard Recchia is likely to claim he was an innocent dupe and was led to believe this was a genuine business.

"Recchia cannot have failed to be aware that something was amiss," said Miss Mulligan.
"Using a name that wasn't his has to have alerted him to the fact this was a fraudulent enterprise."

Andrew Goward, 38, Gary Heaven, 37, and Mohamed Saleh, 26, were recruited to open bank accounts to receive the money paid in by the victims, it is claimed.

"Once these were opened Bukharee would take over control of the accounts to enable him to access the money," said Miss Mulligan.

"These three men may not have known it was a car insurance fraud specifically but what the Crown say is that at the time they opened bank accounts they did so in circumstances such that it can safely have been inferred they must have known or at the very least suspected they were doing it for criminal purposes."

Goward is said to have received proceeds from the Astuto Insurance and Car Insurance Warehouse between May and August 2011.

Heaven and Saleh are said to have received the proceeds from the Aston Midshires Insurance fraud between August 2011 and January 2012.

Buckharee, from Putney, south London, has admitted two counts of fraud by false representation and three counts of money laundering.

Recchia, from Retford, Nottinghamshire, denies one count of fraud by false representation.

Heaven, from Tulse Hill, south London, Goward, from Nottingham, and Saleh, from Greenford, north west London, all deny money laundering.

VBRA - Code of Practice passes Trading Standards audit

The Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association (VBRA) recently had the operation of its code approval and conciliation processes scrutinised by the Trading Standards Institute (TSI) under the TSI Consumer Code Approval Scheme (CCAS).

VBRA's is the first code to be formally audited in this way since TSI took over the mantle of code approval from the OFT earlier in 2013.

After a thorough review of VBRA's processes, and interviews with the operating staff, TSI's report on VBRA's dealings with customer complaints says;

"VBRA's conciliation process is excellent [demonstrating] that they will provide additional support to consumers... [they] seek out and pay for independent experts to examine vehicles in order to resolve disputes.

"The very low number of disputes that reach arbitration (none in the last two years) is a reflection of the quality of the in-house conciliation service.

"VBRA are fulfilling their obligations as a code sponsor and ensure their members comply with the CCAS core criteria and their own code.
The in-house conciliation process is excellent and an example of best practice."

Commenting, Malcolm Tagg, VBRA Director General said

"The audit process was painless and endorses that what we have always done, regardless of external Code Approval, is good for customers and adds an extra comfort factor to inform motorists decision to use a VBRA member for their repair.

"We are fortunate our members are very good at what they do and very few complaints need to cross our desks – testament to the high regard in which they hold their customers and their dedication to getting it right first time."

Leon Livermore, Chief Executive, Trading Standards Institute said

"It is essential that TSI ensure code sponsors are complying with the requirements of the consumer codes approval scheme and that consumers can be reassured that the high standards of the scheme are being adhered to.
I would like to congratulate VBRA on their commitment to raising consumer standards."

'Flash-for-cash' labelled as the new motor insurance scam

UK motorists are being warned about a new insurance scam, being labelled by anti-fraud experts as "flash-for-cash", whereby criminals flash their lights to let other drivers out of a junction, then crash into them on purpose, according to the BBC.

The gangs tend to target new, smarter vehicles or vulnerable road users, including older people and women with children in the car.

The scam is costing insurers hundreds of millions of pounds every year.

It is a new tactic for an already well established crime, called "crash for cash", where criminals slam on the brakes for no reason so that the victim drives into the back of their car.

Police investigators said the criminals will often remove the bulbs in their brake lights so other road users don't know they're stopping.

However, "flash-for-cash" is more crafty, because it is harder to prove in court, often coming down to the innocent driver's word against the criminal's that they flashed their lights to let them out.

Fake claims

Each "accident" can net the gangs tens of thousands of pounds in a variety of ways.

Firstly, they put in false personal injury claims for whiplash, sometimes including claims for people who were not even in the car. Added to that, they might charge the insurance company for loss of earnings, then they put in fake bills for vehicle storage, recovery, repairs, and replacement car hire.

Detective Inspector Dave Hindmarsh from the Metropolitan Police is an expert at catching them out. He says this kind of crime costs the industry a fortune and, as ever, it's the honest, insurance-paying motorist who is footing the bill.

"The problem is a growing problem. Financially it costs insurers £392m a year - that impacts on motorists as it's an extra £50 to £100 on every person's premium so that's a financial cost.

"[There are] emotional costs [as] if you're involved in a crash you could well lose your confidence, and if your passengers are children they may well become wary of being passengers in cars, and of course you may get injured or killed," he said.

This latest "flash-for-cash" warning has come from Asset Protection Unit (APU), a company which helps the police and the insurance industry investigate fraud. Neil Thomas at APU says the criminals pick on people who are not going to put up a fight,

"Perhaps single females in the car with children in the back, perhaps doing the school run. Where they know there's going to be no resistance, no real argument at the scene. The children are going to be upset".

Good intentions

Generally speaking, drivers are not meant to flash their lights to let people out onto busy roads. It is meant to be used as a warning.

The Highway Code says: "Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users. Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully."

However, the reality is that most people do use it as a friendly gesture, and law-abiding motorists feel it's a shame that something that is meant to be so positive, a rare show of good manners on the road, is now being abused by criminals.

The police and fraud experts believe that by raising awareness, and making people more wary, there is a good chance many drivers won't take the bait when the criminals lay a trap.

Nearly HALF of women apply make-up behind the wheel, causing as many as 450,000 car accidents A YEAR

- 43% admitted putting on their face while driving cars on the daily commute
- Most commonly applied at traffic lights or in a traffic jam
- Confess they know it is dangerous, but still continue to do it anyway
- Lip gloss is most popular cosmetic to apply while driving - 35% do it
- Average time spent applying make-up before work is 10 minutes
- Just 5% of women don't wear any make-up to work

It is not so much a case of mirror, signal, manoeuvre as mirror, signal, mascara.

Almost half of women admit applying make-up while driving – mainly because they get out of bed at the last minute, a poll reveals.

Some 46 per cent go for last-minute beauty top-ups – most often at traffic lights or while queuing – and 43 per cent say they do it even though they know it is wrong.

Insurers estimate that as many as 450,000 accidents a year are caused by women drivers being distracted while applying cosmetics.

Yet only 14 per cent said using make-up in the car affected their driving, according to a poll of 1,000 women by semi-permanent make-up specialist Debra Robson.

Lip gloss, mascara and lipstick were the most commonly applied products by commuters.

But the reason for their haste is time pressure. A fifth are so rushed in the morning they spend just five minutes doing their make-up.

And it isn't just behind the wheel that women are carrying out an on-the-go beauty regime.

More than six out of ten (63 per cent) put on make-up on the train, and a further 43 per cent on the bus.

The most popular make-up products applied by commuters are lip gloss (35 per cent), mascara (30 per cent), lipstick (25 per cent), bronzer (6 per cent) and eyeliner (4 per cent).

Furthermore, a panicked one fifth (21 per cent) are so rushed they spend just five minutes doing their make-up, while 42 per cent spend 10 minutes and 22 per cent spend 20 minutes.

Only 10 per cent of women spend 30 minutes or more putting on their faces before work, and just 5 per cent don't wear any make-up at work.

Debra Robson, of Harley Street clinic Debra Robson LDN, who commissioned the survey, said: 'We all know putting make-up on in the car is wrong - but nearly half of us do it.

'It's because most professional women do everything in a rush, particularly in the mornings when they are juggling a multitude of tasks.

'That's why so many women are finishing off their make-up routine on their daily commute - whether that is in the car or on the bus or the train.

'Faced with such time pressures, increasing numbers of women are trying semi-permanent make-up.

'It saves vital minutes in the mornings and means your make-up looks great from the moment you wake up.'

Government - increase fixed-penalty roadside fines to £100 and extend coverage to middle-lane hoggers; uninsured driving fine now £300

- Will also penalise those who cut up, tailgate or block the outside lane
- Penalty to increase from £60 to £100 for a range of existing offences
- Include using phone, speeding, jumping lights and not wearing a seat belt
- Fines for uninsured drivers are set to rise from £200 to £300.

Drivers who hog the middle lane of a motorway face £100 fines and three penalty points.

In a crackdown on anti-social motoring unveiled today, a new fixed penalty offence of careless driving will also target those who cut up other cars, tailgate or block a dual carriageway's outside lane.

Ministers are at the same time increasing from £60 to £100 the fines for a range of existing offences.

These include using a hand-held phone at the wheel, speeding, jumping lights and failing to wear a seat belt. All bar the last also carry three penalty points.

Police officers, guided by the Highway Code, will have to decide who is guilty of hogging the middle lane or tailgating – getting too close to the car in front.

They will issue the fines at the roadside. It is likely that only the worst drivers, who misbehave over half a mile or more, will be fined and given penalty points.

Occasional offenders will be given the chance to go on a driving course similar to those offered to speeders.

Edmund King of the AA said middle-lane hogs, tailgaters and mobile phone users were the top three most hated types of driver in a poll of members.
But he said the bureaucratic difficulty and expense of securing convictions would mean only the most serious offenders would be targeted.

"There has to be discretion. If someone is driving for half a mile in the middle lane when the inside lane is clear, then it's a clear case. Under this system it will be easy for a police car to stop you and give you a ticket."

He said using fixed cameras to track tailgaters was technically difficult and had not worked in other countries.

The £100 fines are to be announced in a written statement by road safety minister Stephen Hammond and follow a public consultation exercise last year.

They will apply to motorways, dual carriageways and three-lane highways such as the A3 from south-west London through Surrey and Hampshire, which is notorious for 'middle-lane hoggers'.

Stephen Glaister of the RAC Foundation welcomed the crackdown but insisted tougher fines must be accompanied by tougher enforcement.

"Anti-social behaviour is as big a problem on the roads as it is in wider society. Giving police more discretion to act, and freeing up resources to allow them to do so by cutting procedural delays in court, is good news.
'We are also pleased to see that the stick is accompanied by the chance of re-education for moderate offenders.

"Raising the fine level to £100 is justifiable to tackle the plague of handheld mobile phone use which slows drivers' reaction times even more than being at the drink drive limit or taking cannabis. The police need to target the large number of motorists continuing to flout the law daily."

Last month the Mail reported that Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin was preparing action against antisocial drivers with increased fines.

Mr McLoughlin said unacceptable and potentially lethal behaviour such as texting, tweeting or using Facebook at the wheel was causing fatal accidents.

Hands-free mobile phone use while driving is legal. But the use of hand-held phones has been banned since 2003 and became an endorsable offence in 2007.

Fix Auto appoints Portsmouth-based Motorworld Car Bodyshop to its national network

Fix Auto UK has further strengthened its national bodyshop network with the appointment of Portsmouth-based Motorworld Car Bodyshop Ltd.

The latest signing comes less than two weeks after Fix Auto Tavistock joined the operation and cements Fix Auto's position as the UK's largest fully-branded body repair network.
Owned and managed by brothers Chris and Terry Clemens who started the business in 1996, the new appointment will trade as Fix Auto Portsmouth and is strategically placed in the heart of the historic naval city.

The BSI Kitemark-accredited 10,000 sq ft operation employs 10 people and has the capability to repair up to 150 cars and LCVs each month.

"We have succeeded so far by providing a high quality repair service," said Terry, "but my brother and I recognise that despite our high standards, to continue to flourish we needed the very best business support and guidance the industry has to offer. Fix Auto UK brings those qualities, and far more besides, to our business. We're very proud to be working alongside like minded repair centres who share the same vision."

Chris added: "We are extremely excited to become part of Fix Auto UK. We have been working behind the scenes with the Fix Auto UK team over the past month and in that short amount of time we are already reaping the benefits with the implementation of new working practices and systems. We're looking forward to seeing the tangible impact on our bottom line and we believe that we will have a bright and prosperous future."

Commenting on the latest appointment, Fix Auto UK's Managing Director Ian Pugh, said: "These are really exciting times for the entire business. Adding Fix Auto Portsmouth is a major coup for our network because it strengthens our service offering in the south of England to insurers and motorists alike. It dovetails nicely with our existing bodyshops in Petersfield and Brighton in the area, and fits perfectly with the requirements of our major clients. I'm delighted to welcome Chris and Terry on board!"

Road Safety Insight: Councillors Deem Potholes As ‘Annoying, Common And Uncontrollable’

The top road safety priority for local councillors is improving road surfaces and reducing potholes, according to a survey conducted by road safety charity, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

74 per cent of councillors placed potholes in their top five road-safety priorities while 61 per cent think that the budgets for repairing them will decrease or stay the same.

Almost half of councillors surveyed think that road safety targets should have been kept. Fifty-eight per cent of local councillors agree that budget cuts are having a negative impact on roads and road safety, with one in four councillors strongly agreeing.

Although councillors agreed that transport was a priority half of them thought that their transport budget would reduce in the next year.

In a separate Motortrades Insight survey of councillors across the UK, nearly one in four (23.8 per cent) say potholes in their local area are ‘very annoying, common and uncontrollable’.

Road safety is a huge topic for councillors, with 80 per cent of those in Motortrades Insight’s survey knowing a person who has been ‘dramatically affected by drink driving’.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “It’s good to see that potholes are councillors’ top priority as this is a big concern for motorists.  More must be done to fix our roads before the backlog of repairs becomes unmanageable.

“The results show that different political parties offer the electorate real choice on their transport priorities. Conservative councillors are more likely to focus on road building, road surfaces and car parking, while Labour councillors appear to be more likely to prioritise road safety and the use of public transport. Liberal Democrats are more likely to focus on cycling and walking.

“Councillors say that road safety is a priority so they must put up a stronger fight to protect road safety budgets.  It’s also clear that there is a need to set up smart new targets that will help everyone in road safety focus on the highest risk groups in society.”

AA reveals motorists concerns about bogus claims - 46% would consider a dashboard camera

An AA Motor Insurance survey of almost 10,000 people reveals that more than 46% of people would consider using a dashboard camera to protect themselves and for greater peace of mind in the event of a personal injury claim.

AA Consumer Affairs Director Conor Faughnan said, "There is no doubt that it is a driver's nightmare to be innocently involved in a minor collision only to find a major claim is being taken against you."

AA Insurance included the question in its most recent poll of motorists because the issue was highlighted, rather strangely, by the amount of remarkable footage of the meteor strike in Chelyabinsk, Russia last February. The reason so many dashboard cameras caught that event is because Russians have taken to the technology in a big way to protect themselves against bogus crash claims, and it is clear that Irish drivers think this is a good idea as well.

"Ten years ago we had a serious problem with the 'compensation culture' in Ireland. It was a key reason why our motor insurance was so high at double the typical cost of the UK," said Mr Faughnan.

The AA is concerned that the number of injury claims is creeping back upwards again despite fewer road crashes and a reduction in traffic volumes in the economy downturn. According to data from the Personal Injuries Board claims numbers increased by 5% last year and are up by a quarter since 2007.

"We have been here before and we do not want to go back. It will wind up costing every motorist money in rising insurance costs if we don't control it. Certainly we do not want to see the emergence of 'claims-farming firms' as has happened in the UK. These are as insidious and unwelcome as 'payday loans' and we do not want them in Ireland," concluded Mr Faughnan.

Experian - insurance fraud more than doubled since 2007

The level of fraud on insurance policies has more than doubled since the start of the credit crunch, and the ongoing squeeze on household finances is likely to lead to more cases, a credit reference agency has claimed.

Figures from Experian show that since 2007, the number of fraud cases involving insurance policies has increased more than two-fold, from 5.44 in every 10,000 cases in 2007 to 12 in every 10,000 in 2012.
In this sector, 86% of frauds involved the person applying for the policy or making a claim.

Across the board, Experian said the group responsible for the most fraudulent applications for financial products in 2012 was a group it classifies as "Terraced melting pot".
This group, which represents people in routine urban occupations, was responsible for 21% of first-party fraud cases over the year.

The "Liberal opinion" group, which consists of young professionals and well-educated people, came next accounting for 14% of first-party cases. In total, about 70% of financial services application fraud was down to first parties misrepresenting their circumstances.

Experian said it expected fraudulent applications to continue to rise throughout 2013, driven by the ongoing squeeze on household incomes and benefits, and stricter credit and lending criteria.

"As a result of poor or patchy credit, more and more 'non-professional' fraudsters are clearly attempting to ease their position, misrepresent applications or make exaggerated claims over their income and personal finances," said Nick Mothershaw, UK director of identity and fraud at Experian.

"Mortgages, current accounts, insurance and cards will continue to come under pressure from fraudsters keen to get their hands on cash facilities."

Whether or not to protect your NCD (No Claims Discount)

• Not protecting a car insurance no claims discount (NCD) could lead to premiums rising by 30% in the event of a claim
• Protecting a five year NCD will add just £23 on average to annual premiums
• Costs will vary greatly between providers, warns MoneySupermarket

Drivers making a claim on their motor insurance policy, with an 'unprotected' no claims discount (NCD), could see the cost of their premiums increase by as much as 30% if they make a claim, according to research by MoneySupermarket.com.

The UK's number one comparison site analysed the cost benefit of protecting or not protecting a no claims discount.

The research reveals if a motorist who had five years 'unprotected' NCD and made a claim, they would see premiums hiked from £322 to £417, an increase of £95, or 30%.

However, motorists with five years protected NCD making a claim would only see an 8%increase, or £28 - from £345 to £373 - to the cost of their annual premium.

Furthermore, the average premium for motorists with zero years NCD stands at an expensive £700 a year.

Peter Harrison, car insurance expert at MoneySupermarket, said:

"Having reached the "Holy Grail" of five years no claims discount, many motorists will be reluctant to run the risk of losing it and may consider paying extra to protect it.
Building up your no claims discount over a number of years can be a valuable commodity and can help reduce the cost of your premiums.

"With premiums on average rising by almost a third (30 per cent) if you make a claim, paying extra to protect your policy against this hike might be worthwhile.

"But be warned, if you protect your policy but don't make a claim for a number of years, you could find that you are eroding any potential savings."

TIPPING POINT: PROTECTED NCD vs UNPROTECTED NCD 

Motorists looking to 'protect' a five year no claims discount (NCD) will pay an extra £23 on average on top of the cost of their annual car cover, however this can vary widely between providers ranging from around £4 to over £34.1

The longer a motorist protects their NCD and doesn't make a claim, the less cost-effective it becomes.
In the first year, for example, a motorist who protects their five years NCD, and makes a claim, will be £21 better off on average, compared with a motorist who made a claim on an unprotected policy.
However, the tipping point comes in the second year when a motorist would be £2 worse off. Looking forward into the third year, motorists protecting their NCD would be almost £25 worse off.

Pete Harrison said: "If you are looking to protect your no claims discount, shop around for the best deal available for your circumstances and if you do find a better deal with another provider, you can take your no claims bonus with you.

"It's crucial for motorists to understand the costs involved with premiums; additional fees for protecting a no claims discount entirely depends on your personal circumstances and motoring history, as well as the provider.

"Furthermore, in the event of a claim, many insurers will take to a sliding scale when it comes to reducing your no claims discount.
How much of this you will lose is down to your insurer so read through policy wordings first so you know where your no claims discount will stand.

"Finally, motorists should remember it is the discount they are paying to protect, not the premium amount- so if you do make a claim, it is likely premiums will rise as a result anyway."

Car insurance doubled after 'phantom crash'

A pensioner said his car insurance premium doubled after a "phantom crash" with a bus.

Mike Brown, 69, received a call in May 2011 from his insurers Toyota to say he had been involved in the collision two months earlier.
(ABP - the date is correct, however the story has only been released today.)

When he dismissed it they apologised, only to ring back three weeks later saying they had CCTV of the incident on March 18.

The insurers said his Toyota Avensis pulled out from a bay in front of a First bus causing it to brake hard.

They said as a result a passenger on the bus had gone to hospital four days after the incident and undergone medical treatment for an eye injury.

Mr Brown lives near the site of the alleged accident so accepted in good faith that if there was CCTV it must have happened.

"I could not possibly remember whether I had been in that area two months ago," Mr Brown said.

"I trusted that if they were saying it was my car on the CCTV then it must be but wish I hadn't now. I had no recollection of the incident.

"When I apply for insurance now my driving record says I pulled out in front of a bus and hit a third party.

"That certainly is not the case. I accept that it's possible I was there but even if I was I certainly didn't hit or get hit by another vehicle.

"If I was involved in an accident there is no way that I would not have stopped at the scene for a start.

"I am cross that I didn't insist on seeing the CCTV. I have asked for statements from the scene because I would expect the police, ambulance and the bus driver to have reported it but I have had nothing."

The resulting claim was for £7,748.

Mr Brown, who has driven for almost 50 years, added: "Now when I search for insurance the incident always comes up and I am given much higher quotations that are sometimes double what they used to be.

"I feel like I have been in a phantom crash that is costing me a fortune."

A spokesman for Toyota Motor Insurance said: "An incident occurred on March 18, 2011 which resulted in CCTV footage being sent to Toyota Insurance via a bus company as a result of a passenger sustaining injury when one of their buses had to execute an emergency stop.

"The policy holder involved was contacted by letter explaining the circumstances and how he could view this footage at his local bus depot to see the incident for himself.

"No contact took place between the two vehicles.

"Liability could not be disputed on the basis of clear visual evidence from the event and another witness.

"A claim was subsequently settled and as with any motor insurance policy on the market today the premium will increase for the policy holder in such circumstances."

More than a million motorists DO NOT have car repaired following an accident, says Accident Exchange

More than a million cash-strapped motorists are driving on Britain's roads with accident-damaged vehicles, new research suggests.

Tens of thousands could be unaware that the safety of their vehicles has been compromised by minor prangs, according to Accident Exchange, which calculated the estimate.

As petrol prices soared, annual car travel fell by over 9 billion miles – or 2.9% – between 2006 and 2012. While the number of accidents remained largely static, the percentage reported to the authorities fell by 2.2% and the number of recorded repairs fell even more significantly – a massive 21%.

That leaves an estimated 1,092,000 drivers who opted not to have their vehicles repaired following an accident in the last 12 months alone.

Analysts at Accident Exchange, which manages thousands of accidents annually, say that a combination of crippling insurance costs and squeezed household incomes have underpinned the potentially worrying trend.

With motorists maximising excesses in an effort to reduce insurance premiums, the financial impact on already stretched household incomes has seen a rise in 'delayed repairs'.

Accident Exchange CEO, Steve Evans, said: "The double whammy impact of losing their No Claims Discounts and paying increased excesses on insurance claims has seen the number of private settlements between fault and non-fault drivers rise. The innocent party is then choosing to pocket the money rather than seeking to repair what they see merely as cosmetic damage."

For a driver with a £500 excess, cosmetic damage caused by a car parking bump or lower-speed accident is often cheaper to settle privately rather than claim through their insurance policy.

Some insurers are offering excesses as high as £750, which can dramatically reduce monthly premiums, but one in three motorists admit that they could not afford to pay the excess they agreed to on their policy.

The risk is that damage done by minor prangs is more than cosmetic and that the structural integrity of the vehicle may compromised, despite not being visible.

Components at the front of the car such as the 'crash box', radiator or airbag sensors, if damaged or moved even at low speeds, could compromise the effectiveness of the car's safety features in the event of another accident.

On some models in particular, hydraulic suspension parts at the front of the car can be shifted out of place and weakened by a minor bump, greatly increasing the risk of suspension collapse later.

The 'crash box' is a collapsible zone at the front of the car, specifically-designed to be weaker than the structure of the passenger compartment so that, in the event of a frontal impact, it absorbs the kinetic energy of the crash rather than the occupants.

At speeds of under 10mph, this safety feature will minimise repair costs but any weakening of the crash box could hinder its ability to dampen the effect of future collisions, decelerate the vehicle and protect those in the car from serious injury.