Red Nose roundup

March 27, 2017

If ever there was a day for red noses, then surely last Friday was it. Bankstone News’ nose was certainly red, as usual, on account, no doubt, of our habitual pre-lunch portballing (3 parts budget port to 1 part budget advocaat, if you fancy trying it). But for once, it wasn’t just us. Oh no, insurance folks (and civilians) across the county had (or were pretending for charity to have) red noses on a scale less open-hearted and generous nations could never – in their wildest foreign dreams – even aspire to be.

Leading professional outsourced claims handling providers Bankstone were, so to speak, doing their bit, raising [unspecified amount] by [deliberately making themselves appear entertainly ridiculous for some or all of the day] and having a ‘whale’ of a time while they were about it, we don’t mind telling you, although not in such a way as in any sense to dilute, degrade or otherwise impair the usual outstanding standard of customer service they maintain to at all times!

But what about other insurance-related organisations? Well there was certainly quite a lot going on up and down insurance land. Long suffering staff at Adrian Flux for example finally got a chance to take revenge on their bosses by gungeing them, raising a deeply impressive £10,000 in the process. Click here for full gory details.

Meanwhile Cornish Mutual somehow hacked the event so that all calls in the South West attempting to donate money to Comic Relief were mysteriously rerouted to the firm’s Truro call centre, with live coverage from something called Pirate FM and some other outfit called the BBC. Perhaps to atone for this highly irregular intervention, Cornish Mutual staff threw themselves into an ‘exhausting 5-hour Zumba fitness class on Truro’s Lemon Quay and a twelve hour ‘bowlathon’ at Truro Bowl’ and loads more besides.

And there was all kinds of other stuff going on, probably. Maybe you have some red nose stories of your own you’d like to share with the UK’s leading ‘weekly’ semi-factual insurance-related e-Zine (i.e. Bankstone News, if you’re a bit slow on the uptake). If so please zip them off the and we’ll know what to do with them.

And if you’re so mean that you haven’t already donated, do so at once by clicking here.


March 24, 2017

Are there no depths to which “experts” will not sink. You don’t get a question mark because that’s a rhetorical question (technically, an instance of erotema) to which no answer is required or expected. Because there aren’t, are there? (Again rhetorical, in case you wondered.)

Some shower going by the name of Capital Economics have accepted an undisclosed sum from some lawyers’ pressure group called Axes to Justice to put its name to the biggest old load of codswallop Bankstone News – or any other more-or-less weekly insurance themed news-zine, we’ll wager – has ever had the misfortune to hear.

Basically, they’re trying to make out that insurers aren’t really attempting to abolish personal injury claims to save hard-pressed motor insurance customers from paying even higher motor insurance premiums than they already have to, thanks to the government whacking up Insane Punishment Tax (IPT) like there’s no tomorrow and whacking down the Ogden rate like interest rates are never going to rise.

Oh no, if you listen to the paid-for propaganda research output of so-called Capital Economics, insurers are doing it so they can make an extra £700m a year for themselves.

Well, maybe that’s what you’d do, Capital Economics, if that’s even your real name, but, literally, how dare you accuse Britain’s insurers of being motivated by any such base and shallow motives. If insurers say they’re doing it for decent honest claim-free motorists like you and me, you can be pretty darned sure they mean it!

You don’t need an expert – let alone a whole gaggle of experts like Capital Economics – to see that it’s not insurers who are putting up the price of motor insurance – it’s dodgy people pretending to have neck pain and literally stealing your money and mine from out of the insurers’ pockets.

That’s why personal injury claims have been multiplying like randy rabbits with a point to prove, while the overall number of motor accidents has plummeted like lemmings in tiny little diving boots.

But, oh no, according to so-called analysis carried out (read: faked up) by Capital Economics, the only reason why the number of accidents appears to have fallen (by 32% between 2003 and 2014) is that (get this) there are fewer traffic police officers around these days (37% fewer over the same period) due to them all having been cut or whatever.

CE also try to make out that just because the number of people being hospitalised didn’t fall during those years it means the number of accidents didn’t fall. In reality of course it simply shows that dishonest drivers have been piling more and more people into their cars in the hope that they might have an accident!

And if that doesn’t strike you as sufficiently like having a laugh, CE also expect us to believe that whiplash claims have nothing to do with rising motor insurance premiums!

“There are other explanations,” CE maintain, in defiance of all reason. “With the insurance business model reliant on firms generating investment returns on their reserves and capital, low interest rates following the financial crisis have been partly responsible.”

By some utterly indefensible massaging of the figures, CE somehow manage to adduce that “the insurance industry’s own estimates indicate that, after accounting for inflation, the total amount they paid out on what they describe as ‘whiplash’ or soft-tissue injury claims declined by 17% between 2007 and 2016, while over the same period, official statistics suggest that premiums increased by an average of 71%.” I think we all know what to think about junk statistics like those!

I suppose they’re going to try and pretend that premiums won’t even come down once personal injury claims have been outlawed. That’s probably what you’re thinking they’re going to try telling us now, isn’t it. Well, isn’t it? We’d love to disappoint you, but, of course, you’re absolutely right as usual!

“Instead of resulting in meaningfully reduced premiums for motorists,” Capital Economics claim eccentrically, “the reforms are more likely to boost insurers’ profits by up to £0.7 billion per annum.”

Not content with that vile and sleazy allegation, Capital Economics go on to question the very idea that fraud is running rife throughout our rotten compensation culture of an excuse for a degenerate nation. They cite ABI figures indicating that last year 99% of motor insurance claims were paid out and that there are “hardly any” successful prosecutions for fraud each year.

Do they acknowledge that this is only because insurers are so generous and good natured about paying anything other than the most outrageously flagrant of claims? Do they heck! CE reckon the ABI’s definition of fraud is so broad that it goes “well beyond any legal basis – and, arguably, any common-sense meaning,” alleging that insurers view claimants accepting a substantially reduced settlement offer as tantamount to a confession.

There’s plenty more of this nonsense we could bore you with, but quite frankly we expect you’ve had enough. The government must act now – without any further delay or discussion – to rid the Great British motoring public of the scourge of scrounging scroungers once and for all.

March 24, 2017

Leading 70s fashion retailer BIBA is calling for a probe. Nothing unusual about that, you might think. Who among us, after all, has not at some time or other in their lives conceived an urgent desire to lay hands upon a probe of some kind. But why specifically at this particular moment in time is BIBA seeking a probe, you may still perfectly reasonably wish to understand. Aha! Bankstone News was just coming to that, if you could just be a little more patient.

BIBA wants the Comparison and Meerkats Authority (CMA) to use the probe in question to get to the bottom of what’s up with insurers and their comparison engines. According to the retro fashion house that time couldn’t kill, there’s something rotten in the state of comparison, and a nasty whiff of collusion and conflicting interests about the whole arena of comparement.

BIBA alleges that insurer-owned price comparison websites (PcWs) are rank with the filthy reek of conflict of interest (CoI) and should probably be banned or something, because they are so untransparent. It seems more than a little bit fishy, claims BIBA bloke Graeme Troutgills, that no sooner has one of its ‘broker members’ changed their rates on a PcW, than the insurer who owns that PcW mysteriously changes theirs too. If that’s not a thing that makes you go hmmm, Bankstone News would like to know what is! (Not really, we’re just being polite, but you know what we mean, presumably.)

BIBA thinks PcW users – or people who are merely PcW curious – should be warned about the sinister hidden agendas of the PcWs in question and the shadowy owners who lurk behind their beguiling cuddly anthropomorphic facades. Surely they have a point.

And BIBA aren’t the only ones. Some bloke called Jim Daley from Fairer Fiancé reckons the whole comparison site thing represents one big Ratnerization of insurance. It only looks like the insurance that people buy on PcWs is cheaper. Whereas in fact it’s actually more expensive, because insurance providers selling their wares on PcWs have to pay a flipping fortune for the privilege (160 quid according to BIBA’s GT) and can only afford to do it by stripping out cover and charging vast sums for admin and cancellation fees.

“We don’t need more price competition,” Jim reckons, “we need more competition on quality and service.” Somewhat unrealistically, he also thinks people ought to be able to understand what they are buying when they purchase insurance via a PcW. Clearly that’s never going to work! It’s not like insurance is an undifferentiated commodity like water, or gas, or casual sexual encounters with indiscriminate strangers. No, insurance is special. And quite complicated as well.

“Coverage, limits, exclusions, conditions, claims service and levels of assistance often differ between providers,” Troutgills explains. Price isn’t everything, he stresses, especially seeing as consumers often have no idea what they’ve bought for that special low low price until they get it home and try to make a claim against it. “This is the absolute worst time to find out they bought a poor policy,” the man from BIBA observes.

It’s all a bit of con, basically, Troutgills reckons, because PcWs, like the GTO (whose tariff structures  UK plc will shortly be espousing), insist on something called Most Favourite Nation status which is where a status or level of treatment accorded by one nation to another nation in international trade agreements and which means that the nation which is the recipient of this treatment must be granted the same advantages as the most favourite nation by the nation doing the granting of treatment.

That basically means that even though the sale costs them £160 less, insurance providers who use PcWs have charge direct customers the same vastly inflated sums demanded from purchasers of the same product via the PwC. In revealing this, BIBA Troutgills is potentially allowing some kind of consumer cat out of the bag. Insurance buyers who learn they’re paying over the odds just so that their insurance provider doesn’t miss out on some sales via a PcWarehouse, might potentially be pretty peeved and demand that, not only PWcs, but also their broker or other insurance provider of choice, be immediately abolished and then perhaps punished a bit retrospectively, just for good measure.

Who knows. One thing remains perfectly clear, it’s the horrible realisation that insurance price comparison is very far from being the safe and carefree playground of innocent bargain-bagging that everyone had hitherto blithely supposed it to be.

There’s another rough fistful of fondly cherished illusions crushed like so many butterflies in a blender.

Thanks a bunch, BIBA!

March 24, 2017

As the our glorious homeland continues merrily along the Brexit-Scotexit-Nixit-Walejexit path, many core national institutions will find themselves in need of a name change. One that won’t is the good old Bank of England.

We say good old, but is it? Is it, really? Good, that is. Not old, which it clearly is. Because it seems to Bankstone News that there are many reasons on account of which it just might be that good is not best word for the so-called BoE.

Not only is it positively stuffed with… (just give us a second to stretch-slap on a pair of old Marigolds, wrinkle our dainty nose, and hold the word at arm’s length)… “experts”, but also it was the bad old BoE that tried to derail the whole Eurexodus project by pretending there would be some kind Brexaggedon if we rose up as one to overthrow the Libtard Elite.

Not content with that vile deception, it was BoE too – immediately after it lost the referendum – that cut interest rates and pumped the economy so full of quantitative easement that the rapidly rising inflation we are seeing now was the inevitable result (and nothing whatsoever to do with the falling purchasing power of Sterling, which needed some adjustment anyway).

So, yeah, plenty of reasons not to love the B0E. So perhaps you won’t be too surprised to learn that Mark Carnage and his cronies have been up to their old tricks again: baking up another rotten batch of doomsaying nonsense pies. The latest cod-prophecy unleashed by the so-called Old Lady of Threatenevil Street is that self-driving cars are somehow going to decimate the motor insurance sector.

That’s right, according to the B%E, the UK motor insurance market will contract by between 21 and 41% over the next 20 years, because driverless cars will account for four out of every five cars sold by the year 2040. This from the same people who claimed that Brexit would be bad for the UK and make everyone who wasn’t already a millionaire poorer!

When “experts” come out with this kind of scaremongering idiocy, you can always be sure they’re up to something. Bankstone News has yet to work out exactly what they’re up to this time. But it’ll be something, alright. You can take that to the bank (not the BoE, obviously) and bet your bottom on it.

It might be something to do with tricking insurers in to some kind of partnership, because BoE says that “in order to succeed in the age of driverless cars” insurers need to “increasingly rely on partnerships with technology firms and manufacturers.” Uh-huh. Is that right?!

Why would they want to do that when they have a perfectly good partnership already with a government which, quite frankly, looks well placed to last at least another thousand years?

So thanks for sharing, B0E, but you can take your self-serving self-driving ‘advice’ and stick it in your deepest darkest vault.

March 17, 2017

As winter wanes and spring springs, a motoring man’s thoughts inevitably turn to motoring. One such hombre of the highway is Bankstone News’ sometime motoring correspondent Christopher Belgian, who’s fairly raring to get back in the saddle, so to speak, and put another of our readers’ rides through its paces.

You may remember how young Christopher beat off some pretty stiff competition last year to clinch the coveted role of Bankstone News test drive correspondent. You may remember also his memorable trip down to Asda in a Chrysler Ypsilon. Or not, whatever.

Anyway, the thing of it is, we need someone to lend us their motor so the Belgemeister can tool about in it a bit and record his thoughts thereupon for the edification of you, our beloved readers. So if you’d like to volunteer – and you’re not too worried about the odd dink or scratchlet – please email us by clicking here.

Simply tell us where and when you’re vehicle will be available and we’ll have CB over there with his driving gloves and sensible shoes to she what she can do!

Then all you need do is sit back, relax (no music this time, sorry) and wait for Christopher’s considered thoughts to feature in a forthcoming issue of Bankstone News.

Following some complaints that his previous contribution was rendered just a tad incomprehensible due to our over-faithful phonetic-style reproduction of CB’s bizarre regional accent, we’re getting it translated this time, so you might even be able to understand what he’s going on about.

Incidentally, if anyone knows what a ‘babber’ is  please let us know!


March 17, 2017

It’s easy to see how experiences like skinny dipping with Narge Farge or quite literally rubbing shoulders with Donald J. Thump might turn a boy’s head, but the world of insurance can ill afford to lose one of its leadingest of leading lights to the cruel and cynical world of national politics.

Who are we talking about? Why, Arron F.A. Banks, of course, a man so quintessentially British he was (very nearly) named after a Scottish Island, and who, as main man of kangaroo-themed car, van, bike and home insurer Go Skipping, is a key insurance move-and-shaker.

On hearing last week that AFAB had severed his ties with UKIP, the political party he almost single-handedly bankrolled to a narrow but decisive victory in the recent Will of the People Euro play-offs, Bankstone News was briefly buoyed by the hope that Question Time’s loss might be motor insurance’s gain.

Such hopes were quickly dashed, however, when the Bankster announced to the national press that he intends to set up a new political party called, apparently, “Ukip 2.0, the Force Awakens”.

Whether Mr Bank’s erstwhile naked bathing partner NF will be coming over to join him at #UKIP2TFA or sticking around to see off UKIP1’s turbulent ‘renegade MP’ Dougie Carswell remains unclear.

We looked at AFAB’s Brickbat-style online news thing Westmonster to see if that would tell us. But it didn’t – only that McDonalds and the State of Hawaii have taken gratuitous pops at political outsider Donald J. Tramp, who ‘continues to face opposition from entrenched establishment interests in the media and the judiciary’ and that we should buy some insurance from Go Skipping.

With his strong connections in New York, Washington and Palm Beach (i.e. with the man whose golden touch is currently creating greatness by the bucketload across the pond), and a proven ability to perform at the highest level on politically-themed TV and radio discussion programmes, it’s easy to see why AB might be tempted to pursue the path of public life.

But before you do anything rash or irreversible, Mr Banks, please think again! Don’t go over to the Darkside. Insurance needs you. Kangaroo-themed insurance in particular needs you. It wouldn’t be the same without your Herbert-Lom-like presence round these parts, and it’s scant consolation watching from afar as your shiny star scuds brightly across the rarified political firmament.

Just this once, we beg you, please don’t LEAVE.

March 17, 2017

If you’re a young person, you’re probably feeling a bit anxious about life these days. There’s all kinds of stuff you could be fretting over. Bad hair, spots, Brexit, Trump, those naked selfies Mark says he deleted but I bet he hasn’t, etc. etc. Let’s face it: there’s plenty for you young folks to worry about.

You may be worrying about some of these things while you’re driving – assuming you’re not too busy texting, snapchatting, jizzvoxing or whatever. Or, more likely, you’ll be worrying about one of the five top causes of young driver anxiety identified, with pinpoint forensic infallibility, by leading provider of cars and/or telematicized motor insurance for young drivers, Marmalade.

Yes, yes, stop your endless wittering, you’re probably thinking. Why don’t we just cut to the chase and tell you what’s eating junior drivers. Alright, then, we will. Sit back, relax and, to the accompaniment of Brian Faherty’s immortal Pick of the Pox theme At the Sign of the Swinging Single, and in a voice not altogether unreminiscent of the late grape Alan ‘Fluff’ Freeman, allow us to count you down.

Alright? Not half!

Daaah-daaah-daaah dah-duh-daaah daah-duh-duh-daaah

Greetings, Worry Seekers!

In with a splash at number five it’s Driving in Bad Weather by Gayle Warning and the Deluge.

Da-duh, ting-tinky-ting

Moving up two places at 4, it’s Three Point Turn with their their new number Parking and Manoeuvres.

Duddle-uh, Duddle-uh, Duddle-uh, Duddle-uddle-uddle-aah

A non-mover for the second week running at 3 it’s Stan Dinsdale’s Busy Traffic in Town.

Da-duh, duh-duh, Da-duh

Second time around for the Gyrotones at number 2, it’s Junctions and Roundabouts

[Extended pre-climactic musical bit, which Bankstone News can’t really be bothered to spell out in words for you]

A surprise new entry on the top of the charts this week, it’s a lovely ballad from the equally lovely Kara Rye. This week’s number one is Breaking Down.

[Cue Kara]

So there you have it. We’re back in our normal voice now, btw (kind of a Telly-Salivas-meets-Peter-“Wallets”-Sallis sort of a voice). Who would have thought youngsters were anxious about things like bad weather, parking and manoeuvres, busy city traffic, junctions and roundabouts and breaking down. When you’ve been around the block as many times as Bankstone News has, you’re more likely to worry about things like remembering to take a pound for the trolleys at Aldi, getting pulled over by the cops ‘after lunch’, where to wipe those KFC-greasy fingers, which pedal does what, and, of course, not driving the wrong way up the motorway again.

The good news, if you have the misfortune of knowing any anxious young drivers, is you can stop them worrying by simply getting them to put a ‘black box’ in their cars! It’s true! Just ask 21-year-old shop assistant and Marmalade customer Mike Haslam. “When I first passed my test I had a few concerns about certain roads,” Mike admits, “and it made driving more stressful that it had to be.”

But, Mike says, having a black box in his car is “great.” The box told him, for example, “that I am most unsafe on roundabouts. As a result I have changed the way I drive, being careful to slow down earlier and not brake as hard.” Net result: worries banished!

That’s right, adds, Marmalade CEO Crispin Mover: “Feeling anxious behind the wheel can put a lot of stress on a young driver and make them more at risk on the road, as it affects their concentration.” But, however badly things go out there on the road for anxious young motorists, Crisp consoles: “For those using our black box policy, they always have a way of looking back at their journeys.”

So if you’re an anxious young driver, maybe you should get a Maramalade box too.

Although, if you’re a young driver, shouldn’t you be reading our sister publication BS Newz-Buzz?

March 16, 2017

Fair’s fair.

If Chancer Philip Hammond can make a u-turn on National Insurance Contributions for the self-unemployed, surely he can do the same with that Ogden discount rate thing.

That’s what Jimmy Dalton of the Association of Brush Insurers has been thinking this week – and not, indeed, been too shy to say in near enough as many words.

More than this, however, Jim’s cooked up a genius scheme whereby Spread-Sheep Phil (or Chuckles as his parliamentary colleagues prefer to call him these days) can fill the hole left by his abrupt change of course on NICS in the UK’s under-pressure public finances.

Not requiring insurers to pay so much money to people with life changing injuries, Jim suggests, could actually be a win-win thing for government and business.
Wait, you may be thinking (because you know what you’re like, always getting hold of the wrong end of the stick), does that mean that if HMG backtracks on its plans to change the discount rate to 0.75% insurers are saying they’ll slip it some notes?

No, of course it doesn’t. Jim’s not the kind to go around splashing his members’ cash on influencing government policy. What he’s suggested to SS Phil is as follows:

‘As last week’s budget confirmed, the ill-judged decision to reduce the discount rate to -0.75 per cent will lead to a massive £6bn hit on the NHS.’ So, basically, HMG would be saving itself money by putting the discount rate back where it found it (and maybe reviewing it sensibly when everything’s settled down a bit).

The fact that insurers won’t have to pay out so much by way of damages awarded to people with so-called life-changing injuries is just a bonus!

So basically, no Ogden uplift (or downlift or whatever it is), no worries! Every one’s a winner. Everybody’s happy nowadays. Come on and let the good times roll. Etc.

Except that, as sure as eggs is eggs, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

A case in point being one legal expenses insurer (who shall remain nameless to spare their blushes) who bizarrely claimed this week that people might view insurers as ‘shallow, self-interested and heartless’ just because they’re trying to talk the government out of implementing Liz Truss’ quite literally crazy plans for discount rate revision.

Think of the poor old NHS, for heaven’s sake!

March 10, 2017

A lady MP is attempting to thwart the clear intent expressed by the Great British Motoring Public that car insurance premiums should be cut by £40 a year by banning personal injury claims.

Louise Ellman (LAB) has taken it upon herself to sneak round behind the backs of decent ordinary motorists everywhere in a blatant attempt to undermine the public’s overwhelming support for the long-overdue abolition of PI claims.

In a letter to Justice Minister Lord Ken, Loony Left Louise, chairlady of the Commons Trainspot Select Committee, claims outrageously that the government’s plans could penalise so-called genuine claimants!

She says she’s OK with the proposed ban on pre-medical offers because it would deter fraudulent claims. How very gracious of you, Your MP-ship. Glad you get that bit at least!

But then she launches in on ‘proposals to introduce a set tariff for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) and to remove or reduce compensation for minor injuries’ which she says are not targeted at fraudulent claimants. Of course they are! They’re targeted at all claimants you silly woman!

She says the government needs to ‘demonstrate how the proposals to reduce levels of compensation will deter fraudulent claims while allowing those with a genuine claim to get appropriate restitution.’ We say: she needs to put a sock in it and let us have our £40 quid!

Instead of just cutting off the scourge of claims at source, she wants the government to ‘support efforts to detect, investigate and prosecute those engaging in fraud’ and back post-bolt-stable-door-locking initiatives like the so-called Insurance Fraud Bureau, the so-called Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department, and the so-called Insurance Fraud Register.

Lovey-Dovey Libtard Louise wants government and insurers to ‘share’ data, so everyone can have a fascinating time finding out what’s really going on with fraudulent claims, and moans on about how ’it would be a poor outcome and represent an injustice for genuine claimants if the overall level of claims fell but the proportion of fraudulent claims rose.’

She claims to be ‘concerned that the proposal to increase the small claims limit could see claims management companies move back into this sector’ and wants a ‘ban on cold calling’ like that proposed for dodgy pension pilfering calls.

She claims to be all concerned that ‘efforts to reduce fraud can often displace rather than eliminate it. If you crack down on whiplash, she worries, fraud might simply up sticks and switch to something else like rehabilitation or repairs or credit hire or something – and La-La Lulu says she wants to know what the government plans to do about that!

‘The process of managing a claim through the small claims process, even with a McKenzie friend,’ she says, ‘will be a daunting prospect for many motorists.’ Well, duh! Yeah, actually! That’s the POINT, ya dopey bint!

But she clearly doesn’t get it, because she seems to think ‘unscrupulous claims management companies’ might find some way of exploiting the government’s best claims deterrence initiatives by encouraging loads of tiny little claims. ‘Even very small awards might allow them to make a profit if they can encourage enough claims,’ she rants wildly.

At about this point, her letter goes completely off the rails, with wild claims about how the government’s proposals might affect the management of claims where nobody got hurt and that people might have to manage these claims themselves as well!

She’s clearly making it up as she goes along now, throwing in the supposed need for further changes to The Portal TM and MedCo TM and how maybe everything is happening too fast and we should all just have a nice cup of tea and think about it for a while.

Bankstone News doesn’t know about you, but we want our £40 now and we don’t take kindly to jumped up so-called politicians wading in to tell us we can’t have it.  Loony Louise’s treacherous take on that? It’s all just a con, she reckons, hitting an all-time low with the ludicrous insinuation that we might not see our premiums come down after all.

‘There is little direct evidence that tackling fraud has reduced premiums,’ she asserts without a shred of evidence to support it, summing up with the ridiculous demand that ‘In opposing fraud the Government should not put genuine claimants at risk of an injustice.’

Well thanks a bunch for that unhinged elitist contribution Louise, Bankstone News says in bitterly ironic way. Given the choice between trusting a so-called Lady MP and the Association of Great British Insurers, we’re pretty sure we know which way to jump!

March 10, 2017

Controversial legal expenses insurer DAZ has put itself on a collision course with Her Majesty’s Government, the Association of Brush Insurers and all other right thinking persons or agencies by volunteering to perpetuate the despicable practice of aiding and abetting the making claims for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents.

That’s right, Bristol-based (though secretly foreign) DAZ has reportedly offered to ‘step up to the plate’ and help itself to a generous serving of the lashings of motor legal expenses insurance (MLEI) action it now anticipates going down.

DAZ MD Jimmy Henderson claims he’s really worried about people who might not be able to afford to syphon off decent hardworking motor insurance policyholders’ money via the (already sadly depleted) coffers of decent hardworking motor insurance companies.

“I am concerned,” he confesses, right hand doubtless draped with languid sensitivity across the upper section of his starchy shirt front, that “the Government’s response to the proposed reforms may pass too great a burden onto legitimately injured claimants.”

“Without legal representation,” he observes empathetically, “claimants could be responsible for obtaining and reviewing medical reports to support their injury, calculating financial losses and expenses, and obtaining evidence to prove fault such as a police report, witness statements or engineering evidence.

“In disputed cases claimants may need to issue court proceedings and put forward legal arguments concerning the accident circumstances, the injury and any financial losses incurred.”

How will the Poor Dears, cope?

As you and I, Dear Reader, both full well know, they’re not supposed to cope. But Jimmy DAZ persists in missing the point, volunteering that “legal expenses insurance will play a crucial role in mitigating any negative effects of these reforms.”

With new improved MLEI from DAZ, would-be claimants can blithely cock a snook at the best efforts of HMG and ABI and take “considerable” comfort” from the knowledge that they “have access to expert help and that their legal fees are covered by their MLEI policy.”

It’s guacamole all over again!

Exactly the kind of thing, in other words, you’re always going to get in any society whose rulers insist on separating their legislative and judicial arms.

Older Posts »

What our clients say about us

Telephone was answered quickly. The agent on the line was knowledgeable and efficient and polite. If have nothing but good things to say.
Mr. R - Hook