Personal Injury news & Compensation Claim info

Violent crime victims are to have their criminal compensation reduced if they have previously been fined for minor offences such as speeding.

The new Government policy could see rape victims and the families of murder victims lose £1,650 from a £11,000 state compensation payout. A brain injury victim could lose up to £37,500 from a possible maximum amount of £250,000.

Until now, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority could reduce payouts in instances where “the applicant’s character as shown by his criminal convictions makes it inappropriate that a full award or any award should be made.”

However the new measures will affect anyone who has a previous minor conviction within the last five years. Up to five million British motorists could be affected, as the courts issue up to one million speeding fines a year.

Tory Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve has called the new rule change “revolting.”

“The idea that a rape victim or the parents of a murdered child should have their compensation docked for a speeding conviction years earlier is a revolting proposition,” he said.

The Conservatives believe the move is an attempt by the Labour Government to save £25m in public spending.

The Ministry of Defence has come under fire after admitting to spying on wounded British soldiers claiming for damages for their injuries.

Since 2000, 284 claims have been secretly monitored in an attempt to stop false or exaggerated claims. The MoD has defended its actions, stating that the surveillance “is used in less than 1% of cases and should be of no concern to individuals with a legitimate claim.”

The MoD affirmed that the tactics have already found and stopped a number of fraudulent claims, although the exact number has not been made public.

In the past week, the solicitors representing all of the servicemen and women currently seeking compensation have received letters from the MoD warning that claims may be “investigated thoroughly,” with assessment “undertaken covertly by surveillance when necessary.”

Diane Dernie, the mother of Ben Parkinson, a paratrooper who was badly injured in Afghanistan, said she can “barely believe it.”

“We are talking about young men who are terribly maimed,” she said. “I’ve seen these people make incredible efforts to get well again, yet the MoD is treating them as potential fraudsters – and for what? To save a few quid on what must be a microscopic number of claims which are exaggerated.”

Plans to widen a busy part of the M62 in West Yorkshire have been publicly unveiled in the hope of easing traffic flow and reducing the number of road accidents and personal injury claims on the stretch of motorway.

The plans reveal that at peak times, the hard shoulder will be used between Brighouse and Rothwell – junctions 25 and 30 respectively – in an attempt to relieve congestion. Emergency lay-bys will then be constructed at regular intervals alongside the hard shoulder to allow for any vehicle breakdowns.

A similar scheme has already been tested on a trial basis on the M42 in the West Midlands. Transport Minister Chris Mole said: “We have been encouraged by results from the hard shoulder running pilot scheme on the M42 near Birmingham which has demonstrated significant reductions in journey times, plus a reduced number of personal injury accidents.”

Work on the ‘Managed Motorway’ scheme on the M62 is expected to start in late 2010 and is estimated to take two years to complete. The Highways Agency also has similar plans for other busy motorways across the country, including parts of the M1 in South Yorkshire and the M60 and M62 in Manchester.

A Sussex pensioner is claiming up to £150,000 in injury compensation after she was the victim of a hit-and-run road accident in Hastings.

Shelagh Leach, 83, suffered serious personal injury after she was hit by a car outside a petrol station. The driver, Paul Barnard, accidentally mounted the pavement when he swerved to enter the filling station entrance. He then hit Ms Leach and drove off without stopping, leaving her suffering by the roadside.

Barnard was convicted at Hastings Magistrates’ Court of driving without due care and attention. Ms Leach’s solicitors have now started legal proceedings, seeking compensation of between £100,000 and £150,000 from the motorist’s insurance company.

Ms Leach, a retired teacher, spent nearly two months in hospital recovering from the accident. She suffered two broken legs and needed emergency surgery upon arriving at the hospital. Her solicitors claim that before the accident she was healthy and active, but the road accident has since left her traumatised and immobilised by her injuries.

A man who was shot as he confronted armed raiders at a takeaway in Birmingham has lost his appeal for more compensation.

Raj Kumar Khushia, 37, said he was originally promised more than £15,000 in criminal compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), but the figure was later halved to £7,671 because he had armed himself in self-defence.

The incident took place on May 16, 2005 while Mr Khushia was waiting for an order at a takeaway in the Handsworth area of the city. After grappling with the two armed raiders, it is alleged that Mr Khushia armed himself with knives from a nearby pub and confronted the dangerous pair for a second time after spotting them from inside his car. This led to one of the raiders opening fire and causing him a near-fatal injury.

“The bullet virtually went through my stomach,” Mr Khushia explained. “I don’t know how I survived. I was given 72 hours to live at one stage. I lost my spleen and my spine had to be rebuilt. I have since been off work and can no longer play football or do weight training, which was my favourite hobby.”

The married father of four now requires the aid of a walking stick.

“All I got from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was £7,671. This had been reduced from just over £15,000 because I was told I was armed with knives at the time. Yet I had done this to defend myself.”

A spokesperson from CICA said: “The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme requires us to take into account the victim’s behaviour during the incident, and their character, when deciding whether to offer compensation, make a reduced award or no compensation at all.”

Three people face jail time and substantial legal costs after video evidence revealed that their compensation claim was a scam.

Andrew Singh, 26, his parents and dozens of relatives lodged compensation claims against a Bury-based coach company. One of the coaches they were travelling in was involved in a collision with another vehicle en route to Mr Singh’s wedding in Preston, Lancashire in July 2004. Later another coach they had hired clipped a wall in a car park. Altogether 73 personal injury claims were made, with claimants seeking damages against Hollins Travel for whiplash and other injuries.

However the claim soon began to unravel after video footage from the wedding reception – which went ahead unaffected later that day – revealed many of the supposed sufferers celebrating and dancing.

Tony, the best man, claimed to have badly hurt his wrist in the road accident, but was seen in the video clapping along to music. Mr Singh’s mother had testified that she had suffered a painful injury to her shoulder, but was caught on camera dancing and lifting her arms in the air. The video also showed footage of the groom dancing, waving his arms around and at one point being carried aloft by some of the other guests.

When it transpired that Mr Singh and his father were not even riding in the first coach that crashed, the judge threw out their claims and a criminal investigation was launched.

Mr Singh and his parents, all of Manchester, eventually pleaded guilty to committing perjury and conspiracy to defraud. They each face one year in jail and over £70,000 in costs. Judge David Heaton QC said that he wanted the sentence to act as a deterrent to other potential fraudsters.

“Offences of this type are far too serious to warrant anything other than an immediate custodial sentence,” he said. “Insurance companies in this country are highly vulnerable to the making of fraudulent claims.”

It also emerged that Mr Singh’s bride has subsequently left him after giving evidence against him at the trial.

A man could face criminal prosecution after making an accident claim against his local authority that turned out to be fake.

Craig Alan Johnson, 31, of Wigan, attempted to sue for compensation, alleging that he had suffered personal injury by tripping over an uneven paving stone in Hindley in 2006. It was claimed that his alleged fall was due to the council’s failure to safely maintain the pavement for pedestrians.

However, shortly after the investigation began, the council found inconsistencies in Johnson’s version of events. This led to Judge Peter Main QC deciding to completely reject Johnson’s version, suggesting that the evidence was “not accurate or acceptable,” and that he felt as though he was “being misled” by the attempted compensation claim.

Paul Prescott, Wigan Council’s Cabinet Lifestyles Champion, said: “We are pleased with the court’s decision because it shows how effective our investigations can be. It sends the message that if you make such allegations and they are not true, you are very likely to be caught out. Compensation claims cost money, hit council services and they hit the people that pay for those services through their Council Tax.”

As a result of his actions, Johnson could now face a criminal investigation for his fraudulent personal injury claim.

A 12-year-old boy is due to receive a substantial payout in compensation after medics failed to spot that he was suffering from a brain injury.

Rees Ross, of Lincoln, is now disabled as a result of the accidental injury, which happened five years ago. According to the family’s solicitors, West Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust have agreed to pay compensation towards the boy’s care after doctors admitted delays in sending him to hospital.

Rees had returned home from school complaining of feeling ill, after he had bumped heads with another boy while participating in a football game. His mother, Lisa Ross, phoned NHS Direct for medical help on three occasions, but each time she was told to give her son painkillers and to let him sleep.

However hours later he suffered a seizure and was rushed to hospital, where doctors found that he had internal bleeding. After surgery, Rees now has difficulty speaking and can only walk short distances without the aid of a wheelchair.

Tim Annett, from Irwin Mitchell solicitors, is in the process of calculating the amount of compensation required to pay for the youngster’s long-term care.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) have called for a change in the Dangerous Dogs Act, in order to protect workers who are vulnerable from attacks by dogs.

The calls from the CWU come after Angela Smith MP advised that the law should be updated so that workers can claim for compensation if they are attacked and injured by dogs on private land. An amendment of the Act could also allow the owner to be prosecuted if a claim is made.

Workers that regularly travel to and enter people’s homes, such as nurses, police officers, utilities workers and postal staff, are at a high risk of suffering personal injury as a result of dog attacks. However, at present the law does not cover incidents that take place on private property.

Billy Hayes, the general secretary of the CWU, claims that around 6,000 postal staff are injured in dog attacks every year, but up to 70 per cent of these incidents happen on private land, where the law currently does not apply.

“Angela Smith’s Bill comes not a moment too soon,” he said. “The Dangerous Dogs laws in the UK currently leave thousands of postal workers at risk from debilitating dog attacks with no legal right to pursue damages or to have action taken against dangerous dogs and their owners.”

“If a person wishes to own an animal, particularly a dog, then they have a duty to ensure that it doesn’t cause personal injury and damage,” he added.

Not enough motorists are aware of a dangerous scam currently taking place on roads across the UK, which has been dubbed ‘crash for cash’.

According to research carried out by More Than, the UK insurance group, 41 per cent of British drivers have never heard of this particular criminal act, which sees fraudsters intentionally causing car crashes in order to claim insurance, often claiming whiplash compensation.

Although it is widely believed that fraudulent claims such as these are currently on the rise in the country due to the on-going recession, the research discovered that over the last two years, incidents have dropped by 11 per cent, mainly as a result of insurance companies and the police making an effort to crack down on the fraudsters.

However, Pete Markey, a spokesperson for More Than, thinks that more people need to make themselves aware of the scam. “If more drivers were made aware of the dangers they are facing, it becomes more likely that they will be able to report anything unusual to their insurance company.”

The research also found that of those involved with such a crash, two-thirds did not realise that it was staged and a further third would not know what to do in such a situation anyway.

If you are involved in a road accident and believe that it could be an attempt of a ‘crash for cash’ scam, you should get in touch with your insurance company immediately and alert them of your suspicions. Not only will they then have your side of the story on file but they will be more prepared to look out for anything out of the ordinary.

Also, in addition to exchanging insurance details with the driver, try to make a note of how many passengers are in their car. For example, if it is a fraudulent claim, they may be claiming whiplash compensation for themselves and three passengers, when they may have only had one passenger when the road accident took place. This will help you to protect yourself from any phantom passenger claims, which could otherwise increase the claim being made against your insurance.

Lastly, this scam can be avoided with safe, careful driving. Always keep a safe braking distance from the car in front, as you will always be liable if they brake suddenly causing you to hit them in the rear, even if you argue that there was nothing causing them to brake. Don’t help them out by driving too close to them, as the fraudsters will be on the lookout for distracted drivers or those who are driving close behind them in the first place.