Welcome to the summer 2014 edition of the Hill Dickinson counter fraud group’s quarterly newsletter, fraud watch. We hope that you will find this both an enjoyable and informative read.
Our cover story takes the temperature of 2014 so far and highlights those
developments that have kept us all on our toes! Fundamental dishonesty may have made the headlines, but there have been many other newsworthy stories. We take a look behind the headlines.
In addition, we look at the post-Mitchell landscape following the Court of Appeal decision in Denton. We also speak to Iceland insurance and claims manager, Aileen Spencer, about her role and the responsibilities it brings.
Our Netfoil database confirms the hunch held by many that white vans are targeted by fraudsters. Ian Emery looks at the data regarding fraud and commercial vehicles… with some interesting results.
We do hope that you enjoy this latest edition of our newsletter. If you would like any more information about the areas covered, would like to discuss any of the issues featured or make suggestions for
what you would like to see in future editions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with any one of the team.
Best wishes, Peter Oakes
Partner, Head of Fraud
April 2013 – the introduction of fundamental dishonesty The civil justice reforms introduced the concept of qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) for personal injury claims. CPR 44.13-17 limits
the circumstances in which an unsuccessful claimant is liable to pay
the defendant’s costs. A claimant loses QOCS protection where their claim is found, on the balance of probability, to be ‘fundamentally dishonest’. The claimant then becomes potentially liable for the defendant’s costs. However, the concept of what might amount to a finding of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ was not defined in the rules and was left to case law to determine.
April 2014 – the development of fundamental dishonesty
Gosling -v- Screwfix
A year after the concept was introduced, the courts finally indicated what would equate to fundamental dishonesty. Gosling -v- Screwfix was a first instance county court decision, and while not binding, did provide an indication of how fundamental dishonesty might
be defined. The judge found that the claimant had suffered an injury as a result of an accident and did not accept the defendant’s
submissions that the claimant had been dishonest about the accident circumstances. However, the court did accept that the claimant had significantly exaggerated the extent of his on going symptoms and considered that the effect of the dishonesty was to reduce the value of the claim by half. As a result, the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the action on an indemnity basis. Interestingly, the court applied the QOCS exception to extend beyond fraud in the
conventional sense to dishonesty in relation to any significant aspect of a claim, in this case, quantum. This is contrary to the previous leading authority in Summers -v- Fairclough Homes where the Supreme Court found that a claim could in theory be dismissed if it was ‘tainted by dishonesty’, but only in ‘exceptional circumstances’. In Summers, the court found that the claimant had exaggerated his injuries, but did not consider that sufficient for dismissal.
June 2014 – the Law Commission decides not to include personal injury fraud in its twelfth programme of law reforms
The Law Commission opened its consultation for law reform following criticism of the decision in Summers -v- Fairclough Homes for not doing enough to deter fraudsters. As a result, various industry bodies campaigned for reform and the Law Commission received
a number of responses asking for greater deterrents, such as dismissals.
Despite this, the Law Commission disappointed the industry by deciding not to pursue this further.
June 2014 – the MOJ step in Despite the Law Commission’s reluctance to follow through on
personal injury reform, the Ministry
of Justice (MOJ) published its own proposals for whiplash reform. These included bans on inducements, introduction of independent medical panels, bans on pre-med offers and a
requirement for judges to dismiss claims for fundamental dishonesty.
Again, no definition of fundamental dishonesty was given and, while welcomed in principle, the industry became concerned about the conflicting development of two separate definitions of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ across the separate contexts of QOCS and dismissals.
June 2014 – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) publishes proposals to deal with competition distortion in the private motor insurance market.
Having completed its first report in 2013 identifying market features
that restrict or distort competition in the private motor insurance market, the CMA published its proposed remedies in June 2014. These include provision of clearer information for consumers when incepting policies, specifically in respect of ‘add-ons’ - such as courtesy cars and no claims bonus protection.
The CMA also proposed to address the separation of cost liability of ‘at fault’ insurers and costs control by ‘non fault’ insurers by introducing
a two-tier cap on rates for credit hire depending on liability. The CMA later retracted this proposal when the industry raised concerns that it wouldn’t work and was outside the scope of the CMA powers.
July 2014 – The Transport Select Committee (TSC) publishes its fourth report on whiplash reform
This latest report from the TSC reviews the Governments plans for whiplash reform. Amongst other things, the committee recommends increasing the small claims limit, creating independent medical panels, banning pre-medical offers, banning inducements and better data sharing. It also supports action
to challenge dishonest claims and, while not implementing any measures themselves, invite the Government to further consider and consult on these proposals.
July 2014 – House of Lords consider dismissal of claims for fundamental dishonesty Following on from the MOJ proposals
for whiplash reform, a clause was
added to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill which requires judges to dismiss personal injury claims where there is a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The draft wording provides that when a court finds both that (1) the claimant is entitled to damages; and (2) the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, then on application by the defendant, the court must dismiss the claim in its entirety - unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice as
a result. This extends the concept of fundamental dishonesty beyond
QOCS to not only deprive a dishonest claimant of costs protection, but to deny them their damages award as well.
The draft wording of the bill provides no definition of fundamental dishonesty or substantial injustice. However, when considering the clause, the House of Lords indicated that it would apply to dishonesty that goes to ‘the heart’ of the claim. The subjectivity of ‘substantial injustice’ should allow the court to use its discretion where appropriate.
July 2014 - House of Lords propose ban on offering inducements for personal injury claims
Following further debate in Parliament, another last minute provision has
been included within the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to formally ban solicitors from offering inducements for personal injury claims. This
follows on from the MOJ and TSC recommendations and should, in our view, be applauded as a long overdue step to help tackle fraudulent claims.
The new Civil Procedure Amendment (No.6) Rules will come into force on
1 October 2014. These set fixed fees for obtaining medical evidence and remove CPR 36 protection for ‘pre- med’ offers.
At the time of going to press, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill is at committee stage in the House of Lords, and the expected date of assent is not yet known. The CMA has promised their final decision in remedies by September 2014.
It is clear that the Government is seeking a range of reforms to tackle fraudulent claims. Of course, whether they are able to follow through ahead of the general election in 2015 remains to be seen!
In July, the Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated decision in Denton, Decadent and Utilise. Reviewing what had happened since Mitchell, the decision sets out clear guidance on the proper application for relief from sanctions under CPR3.9. Hill Dickinson national head of costs, Paul Edwards, discusses the new test and how it should be applied.
Looking back: the Mitchell era
Mitchell -v- NGN (2013) emphasised the need for parties to comply with orders, rules and directions, or risk severe penalties. The decision guided judges to consider whether an instance of non- compliance was trivial: if it was, relief would usually be granted so long as the application was made promptly; if the breach was not trivial, the court should move on to look at whether there had been a good reason for the breach. All the circumstances of the case could still be considered as part of the decision, but the factors specifically set out in CPR 3.9 would be given more weight.
The robust nature of the decision led to reduced co-operation between the parties, as many have sought
to capitalise on their opponents’ breaches, even minor ones. The decision was interpreted inconsistently by different judges with some,
at lower level even, anecdotally claiming not to have heard of it.
The Mitchell decision was ripe for further judicial scrutiny and guidance, and the judgment in
Denton, Decadent and Utilise seized the opportunity to provide this.
Looking forward: the Denton era
Since Mitchell, controversial and inconsistent decisions have been made as illustrated by the three cases of Denton, Decadent and Utilise. Denton was criticised as being an example of too lenient an approach being taken by the judge. Decadent and Utilise were both examples of too harsh an approach being taken.
Sitting in the Court Of Appeal, LJ Dyson MR, Vos and Jackson said that the correct approach to an application for relief from sanction requires consideration of a three stage test:
Assess the significance and seriousness of the default
Triviality is no longer the standard. This concept, while useful, is not part of the rule. Instead, parties must consider the seriousness and significance of any breach. There is no hard and fast rule about what will be considered significant or serious,
but it is hoped that in time courts will apply the test in a consistent manner, guided by the Denton decision.
Consider why the default occurred
Stage two of the test requires consideration, as previously, of whether there is any good reason for the breach. The Master of the Rolls made it clear that this is to be determined on the facts of each individual case.
Don’t try to take advantage!
The court condemned the culture of non-cooperation that had developed since Mitchell. Litigation cannot be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost without
compliance and co-operation. Parties should agree reasonable extensions using the new buffer direction in CPR3.8. Contested applications
for relief should be very much the exception rather than the rule.
If parties do behave unreasonably in opposing applications for relief,
there should be heavy costs sanctions that extend beyond the application itself. Unreasonable opposition can
be recorded as a conduct issue to be taken into account when costs are dealt with at the end of a case.
Evaluate all the circumstances to enable the application to be dealt with justly
The correct approach at the third stage is to consider all the
circumstances of the case to allow the court to deal justly with the application, in line with CPR3.9 (1). The two factors set out in the rules must be considered - (a) the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and (b) the need to enforce compliance
with rules, practice directions and orders. These factors are of particular importance. Factors such as how promptly the application is made, and any other breaches, are mentioned as relevant considerations. This is where Lord Justice Jackson dissented. He stated that factors (a) and (b) are to be given equal weight to other factors rather than greater weight.
Mitchell has not been overruled and its guidance has not been confined to history. However, that guidance has certainly been ‘tweaked’ and the case law which had developed since Mitchell, swept under the carpet. Denton is the new Mitchell and all those involved in civil litigation must take heed of its terms and conduct litigation accordingly. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and there will undoubtedly be a few brave (?) souls willing to push at the boundaries of this decision.
Private motor insurance market investigation – CMA publishes provisional decision on remedies
In September 2012, the Competition Commission now the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), began its investigation into the UK private motor insurance market, tasked with identifying market features restricting or distorting competition. The Commission published its provisional findings in December 2013 and has now published its provisional decision on remedies. James Bilham takes a look at the report and considers the effect the proposed remedies may have.
Better understanding of rights The CMA wants insurers to provide clear, standardised information to consumers
at policy inception and first notification
of loss. It believes that with a better understanding of their rights, entitlements and obligations, consumers will be better placed to assess the level of service
they receive, thus driving competition and supporting other remedies.
Competition softening strategies The CMA has focused on no claims bonus discounts (NCBs) and protection policies,
as they lack clarity and consumers find it
difficult to assess the value of the discount. Some insurers use the selection of NCB protection as a risk indicator and so the ‘cost’ of the benefit is unclear. The CMA insists upon clearer information about
the actual cost of the NCB provided to consumers at the point of sale, in order to improve consumer understanding of the premium, the discount ‘earned’ and the cost of protecting that discount.
The CMA has recommended that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) look at how insurers inform consumers about other add-on products, such as breakdown cover.
Separating cost liability and cost control
Another issue which the CMA identified as key, was disparity of control between service providers (such as non-fault insurers and credit hire companies) and
at-fault insurers. It considered this most prevalent in credit hire. The CMA found that there was a significant difference between the costs incurred by service providers in providing a replacement vehicle and the costs charged to the at-fault insurer when the replacement vehicle was provided by others. The CMA has sought to simplify credit hire claims, stripping them down to the bare bones of rate, need and period.
The CMA made what at first glance appeared to be a valiant attempt at controlling the alleged disparity in cost by simplifying credit hire claims. It originally proposed restrictions on period, along with a two-tier rate cap dependent on liability. However, after the industry provided responses, the CMA accepted that it did not have the power to implement these measures. Instead, it is considering a cap on the amount that the consumer could
be charged for a replacement vehicle, although it is unclear how this would distinguish itself from the current GTA already in place. Interestingly, the CMA cannot make the GTA mandatory and, as such, this is a complete turnaround with what is in effect no change
at all. The CMA has invited further consultation on this proposed remedy.
Price parity agreements between insurers and price comparison websites (PCWs)
Price parity agreements between insurers and PCWs (Most Favoured Nation Clauses, MFNs) restrict the prices that an insurer can offer either directly or through other brokers/PCWs, by preventing them
from making their products available to consumers more cheaply elsewhere.
The CMA value the choice offered by PCWs and believe they drive competition.
However, it has expressed concern that the restriction on competition between PCWs is not desirable.
The CMA therefore proposes to allow price parity agreements covering
an insurer’s own website, but to ban them from covering other PCWs. It is hoped this will encourage competition, while also protecting the PCW
from being cut out of the loop.
The CMA has chosen not to take action on a number of issues, specifically referral fees and credit repairs. It originally stated
that reducing the cost of hire would in itself squeeze out the practice of referral fees, but in light of the embarrassing response to the credit hire proposals, we are no closer to a workable remedy. It certainly seems incredible that following two years of research, we are back where we started.
As a result, while the report makes some interesting proposals, it falls short of expectations.
The CMA’s report sets out provisional remedies only and, after further consultation, promises its final decision in September 2014.
Separation of cost liability and cost control Lack of information to consumers, resulting in possible under-provision of services. Market concentration or horizontal effects. Competition softening strategies by sellers (focus on add-on products such as courtesy cars or protected no-claims discounts). Price parity agreements between insurers and price comparison websites suppressing competition and leading to higher prices overall
2014 – the decision
Better information for the consumer at point of sale and first notification of loss. Referral to FCA to look at how insurers inform consumers about add-on products. Clearer pricing of the true value of NCB protection at point of sale. Overhaul of credit hire claims to introduce a two tier cap on rate depending on the liability position (since retracted).
Restrict price parity agreements so that insurers are covered but other price comparison websites/brokers are not
Ian Emery speaks to Aileen Spencer, insurance and claims manager for Iceland Foods,
about her experiences with claims fraud.
Q What is your role?
I am the insurance and claims manager for Iceland Foods. I oversee all insurance matters and associated claims to ensure that the best outcome is achieved.
How did you get to where you are?
Determination and a little bit of luck! I didn’t choose the insurance industry – it sort of chose me. I joined a firm of insurance brokers on a two week placement and left 18 years later! From this role
I moved into retail and haven’t looked back. I guess I’ve had good mentors over the years, but I would never tell them this!
What do you most enjoy about your job?
That question is very easy to answer - it’s /winning. Having the comfort of knowing that every claimant is put through Netfoil is reassuring and has worked wonders for us over the last five years. I haven’t seen any other system like
it and it has certainly helped Iceland protect themselves from fraudulent claims.
How do you think fraud has impacted upon what you do and upon the home delivery sector generally?
Unfortunately, we have been the target of fraudulent claims and, at one stage, the overall
reserve was horrendous. As Iceland is pretty much self- insured, it would have had a huge financial impact. However, the fraud department pulled out all the stops and thanks to their efforts, together with fantastic engineering evidence, we have been successful in the main. These matters have now been referred to the police. I believe that fraudulent third parties see retailers undertaking a home delivery role as easy targets. Clearly, we have the larger vehicles which will ultimately do the most damage and they have greater difficulty in stopping. However, with the introduction of telematics and cameras, I am hoping that Iceland will become less of a target in the long term.
What is the most satisfying claim that you have dealt with?
In fairness, I did very little and it was all down to the fraud
department - but the information obtained was enough to make
all but one claimant discontinue. I even had an argument with one of the third parties on New Year’s Eve at home… much to the surprise of my husband!
I’m not even sure how he got my mobile number, but to say he was a little worried was an understatement. I suppose the biggest challenge now is to have them prosecuted. That would be the icing on the cake.
What do you see as the biggest challenge facing the home delivery sector over the next 12 months?
The biggest challenge in the next 12 months is to reduce accidents. With home delivery growing in popularity and the introduction of online shopping, we are making more deliveries and unfortunately increased incidents go hand in hand.
How have you seen the use of technology change the way you deal with claims?
The business has very recently introduced telematics and cameras so we are at an early stage for determining savings. However, what it does assist with is exonerating drivers when we receive customer complaints. One particular third party thought up the idea of reversing into one of our new Mercedes (twice) without realising that we have forward facing cameras. His allegation was that we had rear ended his vehicle and he has just signed a statement of truth around the accident circumstances! All I can say is watch this space!
If you could change one thing about the claims process what would it be?
I could say many things here, but I have to control myself! What would be nice is to be able to dispute the whiplash-type injury, especially at low speed. At the moment, it is far too easy to obtain a generic medical report which states the injured party has suffered whiplash. Wouldn’t it be lovely to finally have documentary evidence that would allow us to dispute this type of claim? It could potentially save insurers and
self-insured companies millions.
What is your top tip for climbing the career ladder?
It has to be determination and passion. If you aren’t passionate about wanting the best for the business you work for, then you might as well give up. These are two things that you can’t teach, but being self-insured makes it my money, although I’m not sure my FD would see
it quite like that. The day you stop being passionate about any type of claim - whether fraudulent or not - is the day you need to pack the job in.
What are your greatest achievements personally and professionally?
Working for Iceland… I have to say this because I don’t know who will read it! Seriously though, my greatest personal achievement has to be my wonderful son - who costs me a fortune, but is well worth it. He has done so much and I am so proud of him. Professionally, reducing Iceland’s claims costs year on year since I started with the business, but I don’t do it alone. I have a fabulous team who are also passionate about their role and without them, I simply couldn’t do it.
From Ian: I’d just like to thank Aileen for taking the time
to talk to us and share her insight and experience.
An easy target
It has long been suspected that fraudsters target commercial vehicles to induce accidents and bring a claim. Ian Emery analyses data from our Netfoil database which indicates that this is more than just a hunch…
The motor insurance industry has long suspected that commercial vehicles are vulnerable to fraudsters looking to induce an accident to make some cash.
The fraudsters orchestrating these claims are often involved in other, sometimes serious, criminal activity. Many defendant drivers report ‘decoy vehicles’ used to force purportedly innocent vehicles
to brake, causing the defendant driver to collide with the rear of the vehicle. This often happens on a slip road or the approach to a roundabout. Multiple personal injury claims are then made, along with claims for vehicle damage,
storage, recovery and credit hire charges. A typical staged accident can cost an insurer or self-insured company around
Evidence of this trend has been anecdotal
– until now. With details of over 12 million road traffic accidents now held in Netfoil, it is time to see whether that trend can be confirmed.
Vans account for approximately 10% of the 35 million licensed vehicles currently on the road in Great Britain. While the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) is decreasing, the number of vans is increasing. Many hauliers are becoming less reliant on HGVs and are using an increased number of vans. While vans accounted for approximately 10% of new vehicles registered in 2013, the figures so far for 2014 suggest that van sales are up 16%.
Analysis of data within Netfoil shows that the top four vehicles likely to be involved in a non-specific, or general, claim are: Ford Focus (10.21%), Vauxhall Astra (10.2%), Vauxhall Corsa (8.9%) and Ford Fiesta (8.6%). Fifth on the list (at 7.3%)
is not a car, but a van: Ford Transit - the only van that features in the top 20.
However, analysis of the data for induced accidents paints a different picture. The
most common vehicle in induced claims is the Ford Transit van with 15.2% - a much higher percentage than any of the vehicles for general claims. In fact,
there are six vans featuring in the top 20 vehicles for induced accidents, compared with only one for general accidents.
This data strongly indicates that van drivers are being targeted.
Vans are probably seen as easy targets because:
as commercial vehicles, they are more likely to be insured; they are larger and heavier than cars which increases the stopping distance, making a rear end shunt in a slam on type accident more likely; drivers are likely to be working to a tight deadline and, on the basis that the insurance policy is not their own, are less likely to dispute liability or take an interest in defending the claim.
Couple this with the ever increasing levels of online shopping and home deliveries, there will be more of these ‘target’ vehicles on the road.
What can be done?
The first step is to ensure that drivers are aware that they may be targeted and are aware of the methods that may be adopted by organised fraudsters when trying to induce a collision. Delivery drivers may well be driving under tight deadlines, but it is still important to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle
in front and to be aware of other vehicles driving in a suspicious manner.
The next step is to ensure that drivers know what steps to take if they are involved in an accident. Some companies use ‘Bump Cards’ to be completed at
the scene and used as a checklist for the driver to obtain standard information. This information or card can then be used as evidence if the claimant pursues a claim.
It is important that drivers complete
these and that they make a specific note of the damage to each vehicle, along with the number of occupants in the third party vehicle. Drivers should also take photographs of both vehicles at the scene, if at all possible.
Developments in technology are also making it easier to defend fraudulent claims. A number of clients have introduced on-board camera systems that combine with GPS to assist in the defence of induced accident claims. Footage from on-board cameras can lead to spurious claims being dropped instantly and the prosecution and conviction of those involved.
Awareness of the tactics adopted by fraudsters, and the resultant vulnerability of vans, will go a long way toward reducing exposure to these types of accidents. At Hill Dickinson, we are committed to delivering this message
to drivers and have introduced driver awareness pyramid training programmes which will hopefully enable clients to protect themselves from these types of claims.
The Netfoil data should serve as a warning to those operating fleets of vans, as fraudulent insurance claims could quite easily become an unnecessary financial burden on their business. It is important that clients make themselves a hard target and to actively promote the steps they are taking in order to deter the organised fraudster.
film company to make a number of fraudulent VAT repayment claims. He claimed that his production costs included the salaries of famous Hollywood actors – and he also impersonated Hollywood producers,
some of them dead, when he contacted HMRC to validate and progress his claims.
involved in staged incidents, as to a lesser extent are Vectras and Corsas. These three models are involved in 27.4% of fraudulent claims, but only 23% of all insurance claims.
Going under… In New Zealand, a 24 year old submarine entrepreneur has been charged with attempted fraud after claiming that two of his submarines, worth $11million each, had been stolen. Police found the submarines concealed at a rural property.
The sky is the limit...A recent survey by Gocompare.com indicates that travel fraud is on the rise, with 7% of 18-34 year old UK holidaymakers admitting to inflating or fabricating a travel insurance claim. In the past
year, 23% of posts on the Insurance
Fraud Investigators Group (IFIG)
website relate to travel fraud cases/
Son of a preacher man… The son of a
The Italian job… A study, carried out
by Italian news agency ANSA, reports that 8% of vehicles on Italian roads are uninsured. According to the report, the highest
percentage of uninsured vehicles are found in
the south, which also holds the record for the highest percentage of fraudulent claims made (25%).
Planet Hollywood… A Hollywood conman has been jailed for three years and eight months, after stealing £1.6 million in VAT from the UK taxpayer
while living a life of luxury in the United States. Since 2006, Damita Nikapota
has used his Los Angeles- based
investigations and in June 2014, the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department
(IFED) made 11 arrests as part of a nationwide travel fraud operation.
Model behaviour… After analysing 5500 claims, we have identified that owners of Vauxhalls are more likely to be targeted by cash for crash
scammers. Astras are most likely to be
Methodist minister stole his father’s car
whilst banned from driving and crashed into two parked cars. Impersonating
his father, he then called the insurance company and tried to claim for £2500 of damage. He was given a three month suspended prison sentence and ordered to do 150 hours of community service.
Oh deer… 41 people in Philadelphia are facing charges for
taking part in a $5 million insurance fraud scam operating out of
an auto body shop. The scam involved using dead deer to fake car accidents.
deer carcasses, blood and fur found in the shop were used as props.
Petty crime… According to the ABI, the number of fraudulent pet insurance claims rose 65% to a record £1.2 million
last year. Hikes in veterinary treatment
costs are being blamed, with the number of claims also increasing by 16%.
fraud watch summer 2014
Cycle for SANDS
Head of Fraud, Peter Oakes, has taken to his bike again to raise money - this time for the stillborn and neonatal death charity, SANDS.
Peter stepped in at the last minute for his latest challenge, to complete La Marmotte Sportive - one of the
oldest and most famous long distance cycling events in Europe. Covering a distance of 174.4 km (108.4 miles), and with 5,180 m (16,990 ft) of climbing, the route is considered to be one of the hardest of any cyclosportive and comparable to the most challenging high mountain stages of the Tour de France.
Peter began in the market town of Bourg d’Oisans, at the base of Alpe d’Huez, completing an immediate 40 km uphill climb to the first summit of the Hors Category Col du Glandon. Next was a long descent and valley ride to the bottom of the Col du Telegraphe, followed by an epic climb
of 2000m, over 30km, to the highest point of the sportive: the Col du Galibier. Once at the top of the Galibier, there was an exhilarating 50km descent to the bottom of Alpe d’Huez. It wasn’t over there, though, with another 13 km, 21 bend climb to the top of Alpe d’Huez!
Peter completed the route in a fantastic 9 hours and 18 minutes and reflected that ‘… overall it was easily the hardest bike ride I have ever done - the good cause kept me going.’ Peter also took the time to snap a picture from the
top of Galibier, seven hours in – what a view! Congratulations Peter!
SANDS, is dedicated to supporting anyone affected by the death of a baby. The charity works with health professionals to improve the quality of
care and services provided to bereaved parents and their families, and promoting changes in antenatal practice. They also fund research that could help to reduce the loss of babies’ lives.
Find out more at uk-sands.org
Hill Dickinson intelligence sharing forum
On 17 July, we hosted our first intelligence sharing forum at our London office. It was a fantastic opportunity to share intelligence with our clients and demonstrate our approach to dealing with fraud rings, where our lawyers work hand-in- hand with our intelligence analysts to derive a common MO and agree the
appropriate strategy for dealing with it.
The day included presentations from some of our lawyers Katherine Totty,
Natalie Barbosa, Zoe Alexander and Dave Toulson and intelligence analyst Dan Sanzeri - all of whom demonstrated our innovative and sophisticated approach to tackling
fraud rings, along with our continued success in pursuing sanctions and recoveries.
Following the success of the event, we will be hosting another seminar on 2 October 2014. Places will be limited, so watch this space!
On 1 October 2014, the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 6) Rules 2014 will come into force to reform soft tissue personal injury claims. Amendments include:
Hill Dickinson has a team of 100 experienced counter fraud lawyers and analysts. Supported by Netfoil, Hill Dickinson’s market-leading counter fraud database, they are able to provide advice to insurers and corporate clients to assist in defeating fraudulent claims, to implement fraud prevention and detection initiatives and, where appropriate to recover assets and payments made to fraudsters.
If you would like to know more about us,
or any other services we provide please visit our website or contact:
Partner, Head of Fraud firstname.lastname@example.org
Partner, Head of Fraud Operations
Fixed fees for medical evidence
– CPR 45.19
The fee for a standard first report will be limited to £180 (plus VAT if applicable) with fixed fees for specialist reports, for obtaining medical records and for replies to Part 35 questions.
A single medical report – CPR
Claimants will be restricted to one expert medical report. They will need to justify any request for permission to rely on further evidence or to step outside of the fixed fee scheme.
Medical expert to be impartial – CPR 45.19 (2B)
Experts will not be allowed to offer or provide treatment to a claimant and, if they do so, they will forfeit their report fee.
Medical expert to be provided with defendant’s version of events - Para 6.19A Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents
The defendant will be able to provide its own version of events in its portal response.
The claimant must provide the defendant’s version to the medical expert to consider.
Controlling pre-med offers – CPR 36.10A (5A)
An offer made without medical evidence will have no costs consequences until the medical report is served.