/ Money, Motoring

Whiplash claims are a pain in the neck

MPs are on their soapbox again about personal injury claims. The Transport Select Committee wants to make it harder for people to claim for whiplash by requiring objective medical evidence. Have they got a point?

Today MPs called to reduce the number of whiplash claims made after car accidents. The Transport Select Committee wants more insurance companies to challenge claims, and if they don’t the government may have to change the law.

The Committee’s chairman, Louise Ellman, said that a claimant should have to provide objective evidence for both the whiplash injury and whether this has had a significant effect on their life, before any compensation is handed out.

The pressure to make a bogus claim

Last year Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, criticised the insurance sector for encouraging a claims culture among consumers. And he had good reason – around 70% of personal injury claims centre on whiplash.

Whiplash payouts cost us all, as the sheer amount of successful claims drive up the cost of car insurance premiums. This is all because people who have had an accident are then prompted to reconsider whether their neck actually aches. If it does then they could be in for a windfall, making the temptation to play act pretty high – especially given that we’ll probably never claim on the insurance we’re all paying for.

In some cases the authority that opens potential claimants’ eyes to a personal injury claim isn’t the insurer. It’s been proved that the police, garages and medics have all signposted people to make a claim. Commenter Ekc told us on our previous whiplash Conversation:

‘Years ago I was in an accident and my car scooted across the road and ended up on the pavement, luckily no-one was hurt. I was dazed and had a bit of an achy knee. The policeman that came round more or less suggested I should claim for whiplash.

‘As I had no whiplash I would not do this but it shows how easy it is when the police is behind you all the way. Stop the advertising of injury lawyers.’

To claim or not to claim?

So, what to do? Well, if you have been legitimately injured as a result of a road traffic accident, claim, claim, claim away, that’s your right. But if you haven’t, don’t! Every spurious claim adds pounds to all our insurance premiums, so it’s a false economy and morally wrong.

However, the Transport Select Committee’s idea to require objective medical evidence for whiplash claims may not work in practice. It’s very hard for medical experts to prove whether someone sustained injuries to their neck during a particular car accident. And it might be downright impossible to offer a categorical diagnosis months down the line when your case reaches the courts.

This means that such a requirement might negatively impact legitimate whiplash claims. Nonetheless, it’s downright wrong to invent an injury.

Perhaps the Transport Select Committee’s comments will garner enough support to ban the practice of encouraging dodgy whiplash injuries. It must be wrong to use insurance to gain a windfall at the expense of our fellow drivers, mustn’t it?


I was involved in a car accident last March where a young driver, doing double the speed limit, failed to stop and hit me from behind in queuing traffic.

This caused significant stress, not only because it was my father’s car (!!) but also because of the legal minefield that followed.

Needless to say, following this injury I didn’t decide lightly whether I should pursue a claim for personal injury, despite my insurers insistence. Eventually I put in a claim and have spent months and months waiting for the legal process to end. Now that it has, my solicitors costs are more than 20% what I was offered as compensation.

If you want to reduce the costs, dear old government, create a streamlined cheaper solution for claiming with the corresponding medical evidence (which I should add, I was given by an independent doctor). Oh, and whilst you’re at it, take these crazy drivers off the road too.

Actually, I made a typo. My solicitors costs are more than 20% higher than I was offered as compensation.

That’ll teach me to forget about proof-reading.

If your solicitors were handling your case on a ‘no win no fee’
basis, there is nothing to worry about any costs reasonably incurred,
including Counsel’s fees, in pursuit of your claim.

You did not say which track of the County Court your
claim was brought under.

Not unusual both solicitor’s and Counsel’s fees exceed actual
damages recovered, whether or not case proceeds to trial.

Hi, my worry is not about the legal costs being incurred to me as such. As you quite rightly point out, these are recovered from the third party.

My point here is that it’s the legal firms making a pretty penny out of it all and that they encourage such claims knowing it’ll make them a fortune. In the meantime, it’s costing the insurance industry a fortune and driving up the premiums for everyone. Find a way to make these cases less appealing to solicitors (eg less money!) and you’ll soon find case numbers dropping.

Personal injury solicitors and Counsel on contentious civil cases
make their living that way, I’m afraid…it’s their bread and butter.

Won’t say such lawyers are making a ‘pretty penny’ or a ‘fortune’,
those I know work very hard to earn their fees that I know for a fact
…. of course in any trade or profession there are rogue elements
within and it’s for outside/professional bodies to control or regulate, and
ultimately are themselves answerable to the law like everyone

Of course, in any trade or profession, some may be making
more money than others, as being more successful. But that is a
fact of life.

To me it is simple

Have fixed compensation and legal fees – That would make it far less attractive for lawyers to “car chase” as they now do. Then car premiums would fall to the benefit of car owners with a probability the insurance companies start to make a reasonable profit.

Nick Martin says:
13 January 2012

Last year I had a minor collision with another car causing a small scratchlike dent in the side. I offered to pay for the repair as the damage was small and I did not want to affect my no claims. I never heard any more directly but needed to fill in a claim form. Later on enquiring from my insurance I found that the total claim by the other party was for £900 including the replacement of a broken rear lighting plastic unit. Luckily I had taken a picture of the damage which clearly showed the perfectly undamaged rear lighting unit so I forwarded that to my insurance.
I have heard nothing further from my insurance but this does show a level of corrupt practice in the car insurance sphere

Anon the mouse says:
14 January 2012

Whiplash claims following car accidents are now so standard that there is a whole hidden “money making scheme”. An average claim for whiplash is between £2k and £3k depending on the severity of the accident.

Unscrupulous drivers that purposely hit the brakes and drive erratically in front of other drivers trying to get hit in the back so they can claim whiplash. I know of someone that has insurance premiums of £2,000 per year as they do this. Their solution, have another bump to pay the insurance.

I wonder how many whiplash injuries (real or claimed) are sustained in vehicles with head restraints set too low. These are difficult to adjust in some cars. Ideally the driver should ensure that passengers adjust their head restraint before setting off.

Sybilmari says:
17 February 2012

How about compulsory airbags + compulsory correct adjustment for head rest so that whiplash is not possible at low speeds? I used to live in Bradford where cars stopping suddenly after setting off in order to claim whiplash was a game! I had it happen to me at a clear roundabout. The driver in front also claimed I had broken his tow bar and smashed his bumper – not a scratch on my car!! What was more infuriating was that my insurance company (SAGA) paid out and it affected my premiums for years. How about also retesting for drivers who are repeatedly in car accidents like this?

The problem with whiplash is that there are no tests that will prove that a person has NOT suffered it and ahardly any that will conifrm that it has occurred either. So it comes down to whether or not the offended party can give a good story. However insurance companies cannot economically argue that it has not occured – it would take too long and would increase the legal fees without any certainty of winning the case. So dishonest drivers can get away with it; unscrupulous lawyers (and some doctors) make a nice easy living; the cost of false claims is passed on to all drivers when the premiums rise. How else can the enormous increase in these “injuries” in the past few years be explained. The only easy answer is to ban “No win, no fee” claims when whiplash is cited. That way the playing field would be more level and the insurance industry might take a harder line because fraudsters would think twice about incurring the risk of financial loss of a failed claim.
As to the disgusting scam, in which many insurers connive,of the contracts for car hire during extended repairs – don’t get me going!

Germany has a minimum speed below which whiplash injuries cannot be claimed – make sense to me – especially as modern cars have crush areas to minimise injuries – yet still whiplash injuries are claimed here.

Not doctors but orthopaedic surgeons and having a cosy chat or two and
no serious physical examination of course!

barry strong says:
4 July 2014

my wife accidentaly reversed into a FIESTA pushing the crumple zone in !the girl in the car drove 30 miles to collect ins details, sat between my wife and I turning her head back and fore at least 10 mins .A week later get a solicitors letter + medical report to say she had whiplash and would be claiming .The result of this action is that my wife has been refused ins on our camper van , even that cost me £25 as they had to remove her name off the policy!!!