This is another example* of the insurance industry lobbying their government lapdogs to legislate in their favour (*the other case I refer to is the recent sex discrimination legislation which has resulted in allowing insurers to charge women the same high rates as men, rather than the other way around).

It's well known that insurance companies have encouraged? ... pressurised is a more appropriate word to use ... claimants to make personal injury claims. You would think that this would be madness on the part of the insurers, but not when you consider that the insurers know that the cost of claims would simply be passed onto the customers. Imagine if insurance claims demisished to almost nothing (in our safety concious world that could happen little by little). Insurers would find it difficult to justify even the smallest policy price. And yet we are compelled by law to pay for motor insurance, no matter what the cost and no matter how corrupt the suppliers. So high and rising claims will always be in the interests of the industry because it justifies it's very existance.

The insurance industry attack the consumer from 2 angles. On the one hand it has always made it as difficult as possible to make a claim and will go to almost any length of deviousness to avoid paying a valid claim. This is why solicitors are cashing in, it takes all of their (expensive) skills to overcome the insurers' devious claim avoidance tactics. They call it loss adjustment, a more appropriate word would be cheating. On the other hand claims are encouraged in oder to justify premium increases. As long as the payment of the claims can be controlled (as described) there is profit to be made.

So why would the industry now want to lobby for claims to be reduced? Perhaps because, with the help of the legal proffession, it has gone out of control. The personal injury monster the insurance industry created in it greedy little money making lab has now grown so big it cannot be controlled by it's masters. So big brother government must shoot it dead.

I agree with peeved and annoyed,I have had the misfortune to be involved in 2 rear end shunts 10 & 7years ago,the insurance company settled both claims within 21/2 years of each accident,I was assured that the whiplash injurys I susstained would disappear within 2yrs of settling the claims.Todate I still suffer tremendous pain,headaches, stiff neck I take prescibed anti inflamatory medication & at present am awating to be refered to pain management clinic.I think the Government should make sure of its facts before tarring everybody with the same brush,EG fraudulent Whiplash Claims.

Before looking at the insurance industry, the Govt should look at its own actions and set their house in order. For many years the Govt has stated that the 'know' how many unregistered, untaxed and uninsured cars are on the road but to date have failed to do anything about it. It is not the whiplash claims which push up premiums but the sheer number of uninsured drivers on the road.

With regard to whiplash claims, the Govt should introduce legislation which states that for EVERY phone call a victim receives trying to 'sell' them third party claims management should have a refund of £100/call. The selling of personal details by insurance companies should be made a criminal offence, or at least punishable by hefty fines by the ICO which should be passed to the victim, NOT the ICO or treasury.

Information passed to third party claims management companies by Police should be acted on by suspending the officer involved with a view to dismissal. Again the punishment for the Police selling details should be as above.

No win no fee solicitors should be allowed to continue and that rich and poor have equal access to justice but there must be an end put to the procrastination of the solicitors involved and the fees they charge. For example, in a rear end shunt which is clearly the fault of the other driver, solicitors send letter after letter, all at a fee until the case is 'settled' resulting in £3000 for the victim and £22000 for the solicitor. Compensation for whiplash is not driving premiums up, the exorbitant fees charged by the legal profession does that.

Just one last point.. if the govt 'know' about the number of 'bogus' claims then why have they not instructed Police to investigate for insurance fraud. When a Govt state that they 'know' in reality it means either 'we are guessing' or 'we are making it up to justify actions' Either way.. PROVIDE SOLID EVIDENCE or SHUT UP.

I understand the current state regards to whiplash cheats, but what is the government going to do about clamping down on the insurance companies.

1. Insurance comapnies are the ones passing details of their customers to 3rd parties to initiate most of the said claims to push their drive to give them a reason to justify their hike in quoting high premiums, they are the winners in all cases not the consumers

2. All insurers base premiuims against yeras of NCD built up by each individual, these careful drivers should be protected against the postcode high codes which insurers follow to gain high sums for premiums?

3. Insurers only accept upto 5 years NCD whilst a few accept up to 7 years, but with consumers like myself who have earned 14years free claims, the eaxtra 7years I have earned does not do anything to lower my premium why not, surely something needs to be done?

4. Insures now advise, if you have not insured a vehicle for a year / perhaps 2, then you automatically loose all your previously earnt NCD, surely this policy should be looked at and updated to the removal of a years NCD to each year you are not insured eg, A man/woman has 9 years NCD, has through personal circumstances not taken out car insurance for 2 years, when they next apply for insurance only 2 years is removed leaving the consumer with 7years NCD on their insurance premium?

There has to be a change, carefull drivers should be given the greater discount of course based upon the years NCD they earnt over the yeatrs, and NCD protection should only protect part of your NCD in an incident of their own fault and a years NCD should be removed per fault, eg 2 fault incidents in a year = 2 years removed off their policy that year, though the remainder of NCD is still protected for renewal of their insurance the following year.

Any comments

PB