tinyurl.com/mf8cm2
Hopefully it will make other people think twice before putting in a false claim for injuries. The coach company dosn't exactly come out brilliantly in this though either. I must have taken more than 100,000 (probably) bus journeys and never once been in a crash in one.
I won't say what I think about the people that did it as I think I know the family involved but it is a lesson hopefully for anybody thinking of making up a false claim.
|
Good, about time too.
£73K costs against them too, that'll make a few think twice he hoped optimistically, probably a better punishment than prison.
I like most here are fed up to the back teeth in paying huge insurance premiums to feed the greed of these shysters and scamsters.
I do blame the insurance companies somewhat for not having the backbone to contest more claims though when they smell a rat.
Thanks for posting that Rattle, quite cheering.
|
|
|
|
Its about time some of the dodgey geezers in our society had a firm slap on the wrists. The country is too full of these sorts of leeches who survive on ducking and diving around our laws.
Edited by Roly93 on 11/07/2009 at 13:21
|
|
Hopefully incidents like this will change the compensation culture and people won't put in claims unless its genuine. E.g if I brake my wrist in an ancident I cannot work and if the accident was not my fault would not think twice about putting in a genuine claim for lost income. If I hurt my hand and was unable to work for a few days so what I just reshedule jobs until I am better. I think that is the big difference when working out if you should put a claim in.
|
I think the (total) penalties these people got were harsh.
In my (perhaps) simple way of calculating, getting a year prison sentence & £73K 'fine' is too much for making a false compensation claim of £1500 each.
Yes I know they told lies & carried that on during the court appearances, but jail on top of the quite onerous award of costs must come close to being exemplary rather than proportionate & just in my view. A suspended sentence and/or probation together with a fine would have sent a strong deterrent message. When I think what people don'tget sent to prison for...
Edited by woodbines on 11/07/2009 at 13:54
|
|
I suspect there is quite a bit more to this story than the article suggests. I cannot go into any more details but I am sure the judge made his decision fairly.
|
|
|
What these people committed was FRAUD. Simply as that. No different from buying goods on a credit card then claiming they'd been damaged or stolen when in fact they hadn't, in order to get a refund.
It's people like this which are helping to put the insurance premiums up for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
And that just the MPs - ducking and diving. Think duck houses!
|
|
It's quite a common offence. Evidently a lot of people get away with it. Sometimes one can't help feeling that this country has become an unclean toilet full of creepy-crawlies, native born for the most part. It's worse than depressing, it's sinister.
Edited by Lud on 11/07/2009 at 15:43
|
These fraudsters brought the case for the fake personal injury claim, therefore they should be liable for the costs. Why should we pay it for them?
I don't think we should either, my previous post doesn't say that - it's the criminal prosecution with the prison sentence - (rather than a suspended option) that I think is harsh.
It's disproportionate to imprison 3 people a year each for a £1500 fake injury claim. Just like it is locking up shoplifters who get caught pinching food.
Compare & contrast with recent examples of MPs claiming vast but entirely 'legitimate' expenses & failed bankers 'negotiating' multi-million pound pension rights. The difference in intention (with the insurance scam) is moot, but the legal outcome vastly different.
|
did you read the link?
the bit is here for you
All three were jailed at Manchester Crown Court after pleading guilty at a earlier hearing to conspiracy to defraud and individual counts of committing perjury.
perjury---------its one of the last bastians we have where people definately get jailed for it
dammed right too
|
|
|
Whilst thinking that the fraudsters should get a heavy sentance, there is no mention whether they thought up the scam themselves.
I say this because a good few years ago when I was bashed by a lorry, the solicitor appointed by the legal protection policy made it very clear that he had a tame doctor who could get me £650 for whiplash. Another driver involved (who I know) did so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must have taken more than 100 000 (probably) bus journeys ...........
That's an average of over 10 a day for the last 26 years!
|
|
i tried to work it out too but got lost in the sums
|
|
|
That's an average of over 10 a day for the last 26 years!
He's the conductor.
|
|
I've worked it out and I get it 7300 bus journeys. The way I have worked it out is two buses a day for every day in the past ten years. Some days I won't have got any busesd at all but other days would have been more than one. It wasn't uncommon to catch 6 buses a day.
|
|
|
>> That's an average of over 10 a day for the last 26 years! >> He's the conductor.
I prey to Allah he is not the driver. Mind with two coaches out of two crashing that entirely possible
(all said TiC of course ;) )
|
AE, thought you would have been the last contributor to a thread involving bus crashes........ :)
You been in the Manchester vicinity??
|
Funny thing is - busses now steer clear of me like I have swine flu.
|
A good verdict IMO - these sort of rackets, and more importantly the perjury, need jail time
MVP
|
I agree - I think the courts will look at the perjury as being more of a crime than the 'criminal act' itself.
In court is where the lies need to stop.
Must have been a whole web of carp to build up such huge costs. As Ratlle says - probably more going on than is in the report.
|
My view has changed on this - I hadn't quite realised the extent of the perjury when making my post earlier - it does now seem to have been a sustained 'tale' they told & I'm not surprised now they got prison terms enforced.
I am surprised though that their counsel didn't counsel differently, i.e. tell them to come clean & not to compound their perjury. I'm sure that's what 'annoyed' the court so much & made it almost certain they'd get a custodial.
|
'I am surprised though that their counsel didn't counsel differently,"
Why should they. They get paid a great deal of money to try and keep guilty people out of jail. The whole thing has just become one big game.
|
>>They get paid a great deal of money to try and keep guilty people out of jail.
Which is precisely my point - they didn't keep them out of prison.
'Good' counsel in my view would have aimed to minimise the downside, e.g. pleaded some sort of mitigation in the face of the evidence against them and/or changed to a guilty plea - I'm sure defence counsel has/had access or pre-knowledge of signifigant prosecution evidence.
|
...All three were jailed at Manchester Crown Court after pleading guilty at a earlier hearing to conspiracy to defraud and individual counts of committing perjury....
Woodbines wrote: ...against them and/or changed to a guilty plea...
Woodbines,
They did plead guilty.
|
Eventually.
I must presume that this happened after irrefutable evidence of their guilt was made known after the initial stages of court proceedings (either in the civil case or after the CPS decided to prosecute).
As far as I am aware, if you actually tell your lawyers that you perpetrated a crime, they can't make up a story to get you off - they can only 'repackage' the facts to minimise the trouble you get into.
|
As far as I am aware if you actually tell your lawyers that you perpetrated a crime they can't make up a story to get you off - they can only 'repackage' the facts to minimise the trouble you get into.
that's the theory...and i'm sure in most cases it's a fact...trouble is in some cases it isn't fact....and those sorts of people soon get a reputation for being helpful to their clients..and the word goes around, so the true oiks use them more and more.
I should imagine the majority who do it properly get miffed at the few who sully their reputation..but isn't that true of most professions
|
|
miffed of Tunbridge Wells.
|
|
sorry PU.... my lot don't always harbour saints.....and it doesn't half taint everyone else when the odd few let their standards drop
|
Lygonos wrote: ...pleaded guilty eventually...I must presume that this happened after irrefutable evidence of their guilt was made known....
Well, you'd hardly expect a barrister to advise a guilty plea if there was no evidence of his client's guilt, would you?
As regards telling your barrister you've done it, that has become a grey area with more and more horsetrading between defence and prosecution.
Even the judge can be involved when asked for what is known as a "Goodyear indication".
"If my client pleads guilty, what is the maximum sentence he can expect?"
I've seen cases where the defendant doesn't like what he's told on a Goodyear and has a trial - the same barrister acts throughout.
Of course, the jury is not told the defendant offered to plead guilty half an hour before his trial.
Can't have the panel being in possession of the full facts, can we? They might find him guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Rattle, I was involved in collision last year. Just a bump, some body damage no-one hurt. I have lost count of the number of texts and e-mails I have received urging me to claim for injuries. The latest one last week !! I can see why some why some lame brains are suckered into this situation. It seems like easy money for no risk. I took photos at the scene showing vehicles, damage and the other driver. It was his fault and he should really have taken photos to protect himself against future claims from me for bogus passengers and late onset injuries etc. etc. What a world. I would make it illegal for these legal firms to approach 'victims'. Concrete
|
Just over three years ago another car bumped into mine.
A rear light was broken on my car, which I replaced at a cost of £56.
I've still got the old light, and all that happened was the outer coloured lenses got broken off - the silver reflectors are untouched.
The other driver claims I reversed into him. Damage to his car around £1000, and of course he got the inevitable whiplash. I personally believe that prior to the bump, the front bumper on his car was only loosely tied on to exaggerate the effect of any collision.
Anyway, my insurance company have refused to admit liability. They are using a firm of solictors which specialise in fraudulent insurance claims.
I've seen the documents issued by the other driver / his solicitors and his claims seem very weak and inconsistent. His latest document states that he didn't see me prior to the collision! Presumably, he doesn't want to perjure himself.
Anyway, its now booked into the county court next month. Doesn't matter to me whether I win or lose, as I've now got a company car, so no claims bonus is no longer relevent. Unfortunately, I've now had to book a day off work.
|
|
|
|
