MPs attack insurers over referral fees and ABSs


Parliament: regrettable that insurers ignored earlier recommendation

MPs have attacked insurance companies for not being more transparent over the referral fees they receive from a range of sources.

The transport select committee said it was “regrettable” that motor insurers ignored its earlier recommendation that consumers “are entitled to know more about the financial and other links between their insurer and the many companies involved with each claim”.

Issuing its report following the committee’s whiplash inquiry, the committee noted that although referral fees have now been outlawed, links still exist between insurers and solicitors, vehicle repairers, credit hire firms and other organisations from which referral fees were received – particularly through alternative business structures (ABSs).

Several of those who provided written evidence to the committee highlighted the role of ABSs in allowing insurers to continue financial arrangements – including leading insurer AXA, which said there needed to be a specific code of conduct to govern insurer/law firm joint ventures.

The committee also cited survey evidence from national law firm Slater & Gordon “which suggests that a significant proportion of whiplash claims are generated by insurers themselves”.

This IPSOS MORI survey revealed that seven out of every 10 whiplash claims result from an approach to the consumer by an insurance company or from an approach arising from the sale of their databases.

The MPs concluded: “Transparency breeds trust and confidence in the market. Unfortunately the motor insurance sector remains as opaque as ever. This needs to change.”

More broadly, the committee opposed government plans to increase the small claims limit for personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000.

The report is covered in full on our sister site Litigation Futures. For the main findings, click here, for the reaction here and for editor Neil Rose’s blog here.

Tags:




    Readers Comments

  • The naughty insurers are exposed and take a kicking…lets see what spin Grayling puts on that !

  • voice for logic says:

    No mention of relationship of directors of insurance companies and their recommended contractors.

    Front door kicked in slit the frame stile cost to repair [ some years ago] £60. The insurance company recommended their 24 hr repair contractor £ 360.

    Some years ago car insurance increased by 30%. The excuse being increase in theft. When I asked for theft to be excluded I was told the cost was just the same.

    Insurance of any kind is just a rip off.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

15 July 2019

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Solicitors

In 1989, Stephen Covey published the famous self-help book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Deemed a masterpiece by many, this book remains very relevant today. So how to apply it to solicitors?

Read More

Loading animation