be so?

On the one hand, there are calls for injury claims companies to be professionally regulated and to offer unbiased advice (a good thing) and on the other hand, there is a suggestion that a body with a vested interest in minimising claim settlement values (Insurance companies) should be in control of the process.

If the arbitration limit rose to ?5000.00, that would cut over 50% of valid injury claims out of the legal system and straight into the control of insurers. If

If you are injured in an accident and it was not your fault, you are entitled to make a claim for compensation. Once you have decided that you wish to make a claim, you duly contact a solicitor or claims management company for advice and set the wheels in motion. The professionals then guide you through the process until your claim is concluded. Meanwhile, you get on with the important task of recovering from your accident as quickly as possible. This is, ideally, how the system works.

Ultimately, a solicitor handles your claim, either directly or via the claims management company. In order for that solicitor to work on your behalf, he expects to get paid. His/her bill is paid by the third party insurers if your claim is won. However, if your injury claim is worth less than ?1000.00, the solicitor is not entitled to costs. Needless to say, your claim is assessed early on to establish if it is likely to reach a value of ?1000.00 or not. The vast majority exceed that value and the solicitor is able to get on with the job of working on your behalf.

So what happens if the arbitration limit (the point at which legal costs can be applied to a case) is raised? The simple answer is, solicitors will take on less claims unless they are likely to reach the new minimum value. There is talk of raising the arbitration limit to ?2500.00 or even ?5000.00.

Insurance companies view this as a positive way forward. Not surprising as they ultimately pay for the compensation claim and the associated legal costs, and any raising of the limit will benefit them on both counts.

In addition, the suggestion is that claimants can submit their own claim on a form provided by the insurer, and the insurer will make an offer of settlement, based on that information and, presumably, a mutually agreed medical report. This suggested plan is said to considerably cut the time a claim takes from beginning to end, without affecting settlement values. How can this be so?

On the one hand, there are calls for injury claims companies to be professionally regulated and to offer unbiased advice (a good thing) and on the other hand, there is a suggestion that a body with a vested interest in minimising claim settlement values (Insurance companies) should be in control of the process.

If the arbitration limit rose to ?5000.00, that would cut over 50% of valid injury claims out of the legal system and straight into the control of insurers. If i

p>Ultimately, a solicitor handles your claim, either directly or via the claims management company. In order for that solicitor to work on your behalf, he expects to get paid. His/her bill is paid by the third party insurers if your claim is won. However, if your injury claim is worth less than ?1000.00, the solicitor is not entitled to costs. Needless to say, your claim is assessed early on to establish if it is likely to reach a value of ?1000.00 or not. The vast majority exceed that value and the solicitor is able to get on with the job of working on your behalf.

So what happens if the arbitration limit (the point at which legal costs can be applied to a case) is raised? The simple answer is, solicitors will take on less claims unless they are likely to reach the new minimum value. There is talk of raising the arbitration limit to ?2500.00 or even ?5000.00.

Insurance companies view this as a positive way forward. Not surprising as they ultimately pay for the compensation claim and the associated legal costs, and any raising of the limit will benefit them on both counts.

In addition, the suggestion is that claimants can submit their own claim on a form provided by the insurer, and the insurer will make an offer of settlement, based on that information and, presumably, a mutually agreed medical report. This suggested plan is said to considerably cut the time a claim takes from beginning to end, without affecting settlement values. How can this be so?

On the one hand, there are calls for injury claims companies to be professionally regulated and to offer unbiased advice (a good thing) and on the other hand, there is a suggestion that a body with a vested interest in minimising claim settlement values (Insurance companies) should be in control of the process.

If the arbitration limit rose to ?5000.00, that would cut over 50% of valid injury claims out of the legal system and straight into the control of insurers. If

e and the solicitor is able to get on with the job of working on your behalf.

So what happens if the arbitration limit (the point at which legal costs can be applied to a case) is raised? The simple answer is, solicitors will take on less claims unless they are likely to reach the new minimum value. There is talk of raising the arbitration limit to ?2500.00 or even ?5000.00.

Insurance companies view this as a positive way forward. Not surprising as they ultimately pay for the compensation claim and the associated legal costs, and any raising of the limit will benefit them on both counts.

In addition, the suggestion is that claimants can submit their own claim on a form provided by the insurer, and the insurer will make an offer of settlement, based on that information and, presumably, a mutually agreed medical report. This suggested plan is said to considerably cut the time a claim takes from beginning to end, without affecting settlement values. How can this be so?

On the one hand, there are calls for injury claims companies to be professionally regulated and to offer unbiased advice (a good thing) and on the other hand, there is a suggestion that a body with a vested interest in minimising claim settlement values (Insurance companies) should be in control of the process.

If the arbitration limit rose to ?5000.00, that would cut over 50% of valid injury claims out of the legal system and straight into the control of insurers. If

pensation claim and the associated legal costs, and any raising of the limit will benefit them on both counts.

In addition, the suggestion is that claimants can submit their own claim on a form provided by the insurer, and the insurer will make an offer of settlement, based on that information and, presumably, a mutually agreed medical report. This suggested plan is said to considerably cut the time a claim takes from beginning to end, without affecting settlement values. How can this be so?

On the one hand, there are calls for injury claims companies to be professionally regulated and to offer unbiased advice (a good thing) and on the other hand, there is a suggestion that a body with a vested interest in minimising claim settlement values (Insurance companies) should be in control of the process.

If the arbitration limit rose to ?5000.00, that would cut over 50% of valid injury claims out of the legal system and straight into the control of insurers. If

be so?

On the one hand, there are calls for injury claims companies to be professionally regulated and to offer unbiased advice (a good thing) and on the other hand, there is a suggestion that a body with a vested interest in minimising claim settlement values (Insurance companies) should be in control of the process.

If the arbitration limit rose to ?5000.00, that would cut over 50% of valid injury claims out of the legal system and straight into the control of insurers. If injury victims still felt they needed professional representation, (and many would want this for a number of reasons), they would end up paying for that representation out of their own pockets which ultimately means, they would not receive 100% of their compensation. Isn’t that exactly what the proposed Compensation Bill is trying to tighten up on?

--