Gagging Clauses and Compensation Payments

All too often, someone is offered compensation by a big company, but only if they sign a gagging clause. For ever after they cannot alledge that chemical X produced by company Y caused birth defect Z, so similar. They cannot say company M has unsafe working practices. Even to a Parliamentary investigation. Certainly not to a TV journalist or scientific researcher.

If they are offered compensation but refuse to sign the gagging clause, courts will refuse to grant their legal costs, on the grounds that they could have settled.

Change the law. Limit compensation terms to finance and expicitly ban any restrictions on speech.

Why is this idea important?

All too often, someone is offered compensation by a big company, but only if they sign a gagging clause. For ever after they cannot alledge that chemical X produced by company Y caused birth defect Z, so similar. They cannot say company M has unsafe working practices. Even to a Parliamentary investigation. Certainly not to a TV journalist or scientific researcher.

If they are offered compensation but refuse to sign the gagging clause, courts will refuse to grant their legal costs, on the grounds that they could have settled.

Change the law. Limit compensation terms to finance and expicitly ban any restrictions on speech.

End the barmy compensation culture, lets be human!

Criminals' now have a new career path. Their new get quick rich scheme is to sue the victims and claim crazy amounts of compension in the full knowledge that the court of law will reward them handsomely.Laws and legislation should be there to protect the victims and the vulnerable, how did common sense become so backwards? i find it astonishing!

Why is this idea important?

Criminals' now have a new career path. Their new get quick rich scheme is to sue the victims and claim crazy amounts of compension in the full knowledge that the court of law will reward them handsomely.Laws and legislation should be there to protect the victims and the vulnerable, how did common sense become so backwards? i find it astonishing!

PRISON SERVICE CROWN IMMUNITY AGAINST CONVICTED CRIMINALS CLAIMING COMPENSATION AMENDMENT

That the  HMP Prison Service or its employees when acting on its behalf are given crown immunity or current laws are amended to prevent convicted criminals/offenders from being able claim compensation in regard to incidents occurring on/within crown property.  

OR 

If this is  deemed impracticable then any future compensatory legal action instigated by convicted criminals/offenders against HM Prison Service or its employees acting on its behalf SHOULD NOT  be commissioned at the taxpayers expense UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  Any cost borne by the litigator are solely theirs and their representatives alone unless they win their action.

 

Why is this idea important?

That the  HMP Prison Service or its employees when acting on its behalf are given crown immunity or current laws are amended to prevent convicted criminals/offenders from being able claim compensation in regard to incidents occurring on/within crown property.  

OR 

If this is  deemed impracticable then any future compensatory legal action instigated by convicted criminals/offenders against HM Prison Service or its employees acting on its behalf SHOULD NOT  be commissioned at the taxpayers expense UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  Any cost borne by the litigator are solely theirs and their representatives alone unless they win their action.

 

tackle the compensation culture which is driving up insurance premiums..

1. People who make more than one claim within a period of three years should be automatically checked to see if they are engineering multiple claims.

For instance: those who have road traffic accidents should have to declare if they have had any other accidents in the previous three years and not be allowed to 'stage' multiple accidents as is done by many.

2. Make it a necassary requirement for anyone who is involved in an accident to visit a 'Government' doctor for them to properly perform the necessary medical checks and not allow solisitors to send them to the doctors and practices who they employee and tell the claiments what to say.

3. Ban radio, TV and printed advertisements from solisitors who offer these services.

4. Make it a requirement that law firms and solisitors can be awarded no more that 50% of what is awarded in any claim filed.

Why is this idea important?

1. People who make more than one claim within a period of three years should be automatically checked to see if they are engineering multiple claims.

For instance: those who have road traffic accidents should have to declare if they have had any other accidents in the previous three years and not be allowed to 'stage' multiple accidents as is done by many.

2. Make it a necassary requirement for anyone who is involved in an accident to visit a 'Government' doctor for them to properly perform the necessary medical checks and not allow solisitors to send them to the doctors and practices who they employee and tell the claiments what to say.

3. Ban radio, TV and printed advertisements from solisitors who offer these services.

4. Make it a requirement that law firms and solisitors can be awarded no more that 50% of what is awarded in any claim filed.

Amendments to Digital Economy Act 2010

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Why is this idea important?

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Repeal the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

This is another draconian piece of legislation, pushing a 4 metre wide "access corridor" round the coast, through whatever stands in its way.

This is about 13 feet, almost a two-lane road.

Most of us would support a coastal footpath, and this could probably have been achieved by negotiation and/or the threat of compulsory purchase.

This act, however, offers no compensation to those whose properties and/or businesses have been affected.

Why is this idea important?

This is another draconian piece of legislation, pushing a 4 metre wide "access corridor" round the coast, through whatever stands in its way.

This is about 13 feet, almost a two-lane road.

Most of us would support a coastal footpath, and this could probably have been achieved by negotiation and/or the threat of compulsory purchase.

This act, however, offers no compensation to those whose properties and/or businesses have been affected.

Bring the burden of proof in Civil Cases in line with that required in Criminal Cases

At the moment, the burden of proof required in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities" whereas in a criminal case has to be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt". I propose that we increase the burden of proof required in a civil case or claim to the same as that required in a criminal case, ie. a civil case should also have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, in order for a claim to suceed.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, the burden of proof required in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities" whereas in a criminal case has to be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt". I propose that we increase the burden of proof required in a civil case or claim to the same as that required in a criminal case, ie. a civil case should also have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, in order for a claim to suceed.

Courts and legal services Act,1990

I believe that this act,particularly Section 58 allowing contingent fees (no-win,no-fee) should be abolished.In addition,law firms should be forbidden to tout for business,beyond stating their name,address and contact details.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that this act,particularly Section 58 allowing contingent fees (no-win,no-fee) should be abolished.In addition,law firms should be forbidden to tout for business,beyond stating their name,address and contact details.

Compensation for the wrongly accused

A review of the compensation board should take place with the utmost urgency.

If a person has been wrongly convicted and later on has been cleared of all charges, he should be compensated for the miscarriage of justice that has taken place.

After all it is easier for the complainant to get compensation and have to do nothing.

How is that person being wrongly convicted going to feel. No job, no self respect, have to rely on their family to keep them. Let alone the physcological aspect of it, he doesn't get any help.

Why is this idea important?

A review of the compensation board should take place with the utmost urgency.

If a person has been wrongly convicted and later on has been cleared of all charges, he should be compensated for the miscarriage of justice that has taken place.

After all it is easier for the complainant to get compensation and have to do nothing.

How is that person being wrongly convicted going to feel. No job, no self respect, have to rely on their family to keep them. Let alone the physcological aspect of it, he doesn't get any help.

stop compensation payouts to criminals

stop all compensation awards to criminals .they get free legal aid .if a law abing citizen wanted legal aid and had a property they would be made to sell their home.human rights laws should be for the law abiding people of this country not for every tom dick or harry who decides he can live a life of luxury by living a life of crime. if i cant get dental treament because i cannot afford it and have to suffer who do i sue?.

Why is this idea important?

stop all compensation awards to criminals .they get free legal aid .if a law abing citizen wanted legal aid and had a property they would be made to sell their home.human rights laws should be for the law abiding people of this country not for every tom dick or harry who decides he can live a life of luxury by living a life of crime. if i cant get dental treament because i cannot afford it and have to suffer who do i sue?.

End compensation culture and reduce the deficit!

We need to eliminate the compensation culture by: –

(i) introduce a presumption of common sense (i.e. why didn't you look where you are going)

(ii) a presumption that 'sh*t happens, get over it'.  Accidents are part of life.

(iii) abolish no-win no-fee solicitors, litigation funding etc.

(iv) Bring back Crown immunity in respect of negligence claims, (local authorities, schools etc) but especially for NHS. OK, things go wrong but we should be grateful we have an NHS at all.  Better to spend the money on nurses rather than lawyers.

Why is this idea important?

We need to eliminate the compensation culture by: –

(i) introduce a presumption of common sense (i.e. why didn't you look where you are going)

(ii) a presumption that 'sh*t happens, get over it'.  Accidents are part of life.

(iii) abolish no-win no-fee solicitors, litigation funding etc.

(iv) Bring back Crown immunity in respect of negligence claims, (local authorities, schools etc) but especially for NHS. OK, things go wrong but we should be grateful we have an NHS at all.  Better to spend the money on nurses rather than lawyers.

Stop Companies settling out of court for Industrial Accident Victims

Many UK citizens are injured at work and haven't the money or backing to sue for proper compensation, instead often being left with no choice but to settle for a paltry compensation offer as an out of court settlement or face the bureden of continueing on at high cost and taking the chance of failing and subsequent bankruptcy. They are then left on the Benefit system with the tax payer footing the bill for their care . I know -I'm one, No compensation, no future, no hope, and currently being targetted as a burden on society just because someone else acted stupidly at work 22 years ago.

Nick CLegg -Do what the Tory government, Labour Government AND Trade Unions have all failed to do – stop this injustice in the system.

Why is this idea important?

Many UK citizens are injured at work and haven't the money or backing to sue for proper compensation, instead often being left with no choice but to settle for a paltry compensation offer as an out of court settlement or face the bureden of continueing on at high cost and taking the chance of failing and subsequent bankruptcy. They are then left on the Benefit system with the tax payer footing the bill for their care . I know -I'm one, No compensation, no future, no hope, and currently being targetted as a burden on society just because someone else acted stupidly at work 22 years ago.

Nick CLegg -Do what the Tory government, Labour Government AND Trade Unions have all failed to do – stop this injustice in the system.

No win, no fee and presumption of liability

I would like to see the law changed to make it more difficult for people to claim against other organisations for accidents.  There should be more weight given to whether the person/organisation against whom the claim is made acted reasonably and – most importantly – more weight given to whether the claimant might reasonably expect a risk to arise from what he/she is doing. 

In addition, law firms should be prevented from advertising their services beyond stating simply that personal injury is a service they provide.  They should not be permitted to encourage claims with adverts such as:  "Had an accident or had an injury?  Mrs Bloggs from Bradford won £8,000…." etc.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the law changed to make it more difficult for people to claim against other organisations for accidents.  There should be more weight given to whether the person/organisation against whom the claim is made acted reasonably and – most importantly – more weight given to whether the claimant might reasonably expect a risk to arise from what he/she is doing. 

In addition, law firms should be prevented from advertising their services beyond stating simply that personal injury is a service they provide.  They should not be permitted to encourage claims with adverts such as:  "Had an accident or had an injury?  Mrs Bloggs from Bradford won £8,000…." etc.

Get rid of “no win no fee” compensation claims

Remove the laws which have created this infuriating, crazy and ultimately self-destructive culture where everyone is too terrified to do anything, like a rail company can't serve you a cup of tea because they've run out of paper bags (!!!), just because people, goaded by fat lawyers, might sue.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the laws which have created this infuriating, crazy and ultimately self-destructive culture where everyone is too terrified to do anything, like a rail company can't serve you a cup of tea because they've run out of paper bags (!!!), just because people, goaded by fat lawyers, might sue.

A Defence of Personal Injury Laws

 

It is important to bear in mind the following data when considering attacking personal injury laws on the basis of an alleged compensation culture. It is often exaggerated, and hopefully the following data can undermine such allegations.

 

The Empirical Evidence for a Compensation Culture

 

(a) Claim Rate

 

The greatest problem in establishing the claim rate is the absence of systematic long-term surveys. As Lewis et al explain, there has been “no comprehensive empirical investigation of the system” since ‘the Oxford Survey’. However, the Pearson Commission of 1978 is of some use. It approximated that there were 250,000 claims for personal injury in the United Kingdom that year.

 

In 1988, the Civil Justice Review approximated the annual level of negligence claims at 340,000. Although this shows substantial rise, Morris points out that “there is no information… as to how it was obtained”. Moreover, according to Lewis et al, it was “very small-scale and paid disproportionate attention to tried cases”.

 

It can be inferred that although no comprehensive long-term data can be determined, the Pearson Commission can act as a yardstick from which to ascertain subsequent developments. Thus, the contemporary figures, which will be analysed next, can be extrapolated from the Pearson Commission to deduce a certain trend. However, this remains to some extent doubtful, because even if a broad trend can be identified, it cannot be very precise. Furthermore, its lack of certainty adds little weight to the assertion that a compensation culture exists.

 

Nevertheless, substantial evidence accrues from 1998 which may provide an answer to the question of whether compensation culture is a real problem. The Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), which collects social security benefits back from those who receive compensation, and therefore records the number of negligence claims, ended its exemption from notification of small claims that year. Lewis et al argue that this holds “the most comprehensive and reliable data on the number of current personal injury claims”. The CRU’s responsiveness, together with the public interest in precision on the numbers acquired in order for resources not to be wasted, gives force to this assertion.

 

In 1998, there were 705,232 claims. This indicates almost a tripling in the claim rate between 1973 and 1998. However, after this period of relative increase, the statistics do not continue to reveal an upward trend, but stagnate:

 

2000/1: 735,931

2001/2: 688,315

2002/3: 706,697

2003/4: 770,243

2004/5: 755,875

 

This represents a 2.7% rise over 5 years, compared with an average 38.8% rise per 5-year period between 1973 and 1998. Thus, a plateau appears to have been reached.

 

Furthermore, accident claims (as opposed to all negligence claims) have actually reduced in this period:

 

2000/1: 612,120

2001/2: 614,126

2002/3: 615,546

2003/4: 557,186

2004/5: 579,282

 

This reversed trend – of a 5% fall in accident claims – counters the view that the issue is accelerating quickly; indeed, accident claims are reducing in number.

 

It is necessary to briefly consider more specific sectors of claims, which highlights which areas which are more susceptible to claims. If the above set of accident claims is divided up, the following trends are apparent:

2000/1: 612,120

2001/2: 614,126

2002/3: 615,546

2003/4: 557,186

2004/5: 579,282

With the exception of motor claims, every other sector has seen statistical falls. Employer’s claims have fallen by 21%, public liability claims by 7% and medical claims by 34%. Miscellaneous claims have fallen by 43%. Thus the overall 5% decline in accident claims is obscured by motor claims. As they represent 70% of all accident claims, and over half (53%) of all negligence claims, they appear to prevent the overall figure from dropping in the same manner that the other categories fall by.

 

As Williams point out, Datamonitor can provide an alternative insight into recent statistics. It puts the 2000/01 overall claim levels at 744,060; followed by a 7.4% fall to 689,000 in 2001/02; followed by a 2.6% increase to 706,914 in 2002/03 (due to an increase on disease claims bucking the generic trend of decline). They are very similar to those shown by the CRU, and thus lend support to the CRU figures.

 

Clinical negligence statistics provided by the NHS replicate this trend, continuing up to the latest figures from 2009. There were 6,932 claims in 1997/8, falling to 6,257 by 2003/04, 5,470 by 2007/8, and 6,080 in 2008/9, never rising above 7,215 (in 2002/03).

 

(b) Propensity to Claim

 

Another element of compensation culture is the individual likelihood, or propensity, to claim. This could be established by examining the claim rate relative to the rate of negligent injury. Morris suggests that the propensity to claim increased in the last three decades of the 20th century. She points to the traffic-related injuries, where claims rose despite casualties not increasing. Furthermore, clinical negligence claims rose 100-fold between the Pearson Committee and the new century, despite accidents not increasing.

 

However, she also notes that the propensity to claim for clinical negligence remains low: at 2% of all negligent events resulting in injury. Moreover, the overall propensity to sue has remained “relatively stable” since 2000, or potentially since 1997-8. Furthermore, these statistics cannot convey the worthiness of the claims. It cannot be assumed that there has necessarily been a rise in unmeritorious claims.

 

An Ipsos MORI poll in 2000 revealed that 72% of people would “consider pursuing a compensation claim if they suffered a personal injury which they felt to be someone else’s fault”. This percentage falls to 57% when the defendant is a school, whilst 48% would feel “concerned at the prospect of taking their doctor or hospital to court”. This may seem high, but it includes people who would only consider claiming, and ultimately, 27% would abstain altogether. As with other categories, there is no such poll from earlier decades in order to show a change, thus reducing the ability to make inferences.

Why is this idea important?

 

It is important to bear in mind the following data when considering attacking personal injury laws on the basis of an alleged compensation culture. It is often exaggerated, and hopefully the following data can undermine such allegations.

 

The Empirical Evidence for a Compensation Culture

 

(a) Claim Rate

 

The greatest problem in establishing the claim rate is the absence of systematic long-term surveys. As Lewis et al explain, there has been “no comprehensive empirical investigation of the system” since ‘the Oxford Survey’. However, the Pearson Commission of 1978 is of some use. It approximated that there were 250,000 claims for personal injury in the United Kingdom that year.

 

In 1988, the Civil Justice Review approximated the annual level of negligence claims at 340,000. Although this shows substantial rise, Morris points out that “there is no information… as to how it was obtained”. Moreover, according to Lewis et al, it was “very small-scale and paid disproportionate attention to tried cases”.

 

It can be inferred that although no comprehensive long-term data can be determined, the Pearson Commission can act as a yardstick from which to ascertain subsequent developments. Thus, the contemporary figures, which will be analysed next, can be extrapolated from the Pearson Commission to deduce a certain trend. However, this remains to some extent doubtful, because even if a broad trend can be identified, it cannot be very precise. Furthermore, its lack of certainty adds little weight to the assertion that a compensation culture exists.

 

Nevertheless, substantial evidence accrues from 1998 which may provide an answer to the question of whether compensation culture is a real problem. The Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), which collects social security benefits back from those who receive compensation, and therefore records the number of negligence claims, ended its exemption from notification of small claims that year. Lewis et al argue that this holds “the most comprehensive and reliable data on the number of current personal injury claims”. The CRU’s responsiveness, together with the public interest in precision on the numbers acquired in order for resources not to be wasted, gives force to this assertion.

 

In 1998, there were 705,232 claims. This indicates almost a tripling in the claim rate between 1973 and 1998. However, after this period of relative increase, the statistics do not continue to reveal an upward trend, but stagnate:

 

2000/1: 735,931

2001/2: 688,315

2002/3: 706,697

2003/4: 770,243

2004/5: 755,875

 

This represents a 2.7% rise over 5 years, compared with an average 38.8% rise per 5-year period between 1973 and 1998. Thus, a plateau appears to have been reached.

 

Furthermore, accident claims (as opposed to all negligence claims) have actually reduced in this period:

 

2000/1: 612,120

2001/2: 614,126

2002/3: 615,546

2003/4: 557,186

2004/5: 579,282

 

This reversed trend – of a 5% fall in accident claims – counters the view that the issue is accelerating quickly; indeed, accident claims are reducing in number.

 

It is necessary to briefly consider more specific sectors of claims, which highlights which areas which are more susceptible to claims. If the above set of accident claims is divided up, the following trends are apparent:

2000/1: 612,120

2001/2: 614,126

2002/3: 615,546

2003/4: 557,186

2004/5: 579,282

With the exception of motor claims, every other sector has seen statistical falls. Employer’s claims have fallen by 21%, public liability claims by 7% and medical claims by 34%. Miscellaneous claims have fallen by 43%. Thus the overall 5% decline in accident claims is obscured by motor claims. As they represent 70% of all accident claims, and over half (53%) of all negligence claims, they appear to prevent the overall figure from dropping in the same manner that the other categories fall by.

 

As Williams point out, Datamonitor can provide an alternative insight into recent statistics. It puts the 2000/01 overall claim levels at 744,060; followed by a 7.4% fall to 689,000 in 2001/02; followed by a 2.6% increase to 706,914 in 2002/03 (due to an increase on disease claims bucking the generic trend of decline). They are very similar to those shown by the CRU, and thus lend support to the CRU figures.

 

Clinical negligence statistics provided by the NHS replicate this trend, continuing up to the latest figures from 2009. There were 6,932 claims in 1997/8, falling to 6,257 by 2003/04, 5,470 by 2007/8, and 6,080 in 2008/9, never rising above 7,215 (in 2002/03).

 

(b) Propensity to Claim

 

Another element of compensation culture is the individual likelihood, or propensity, to claim. This could be established by examining the claim rate relative to the rate of negligent injury. Morris suggests that the propensity to claim increased in the last three decades of the 20th century. She points to the traffic-related injuries, where claims rose despite casualties not increasing. Furthermore, clinical negligence claims rose 100-fold between the Pearson Committee and the new century, despite accidents not increasing.

 

However, she also notes that the propensity to claim for clinical negligence remains low: at 2% of all negligent events resulting in injury. Moreover, the overall propensity to sue has remained “relatively stable” since 2000, or potentially since 1997-8. Furthermore, these statistics cannot convey the worthiness of the claims. It cannot be assumed that there has necessarily been a rise in unmeritorious claims.

 

An Ipsos MORI poll in 2000 revealed that 72% of people would “consider pursuing a compensation claim if they suffered a personal injury which they felt to be someone else’s fault”. This percentage falls to 57% when the defendant is a school, whilst 48% would feel “concerned at the prospect of taking their doctor or hospital to court”. This may seem high, but it includes people who would only consider claiming, and ultimately, 27% would abstain altogether. As with other categories, there is no such poll from earlier decades in order to show a change, thus reducing the ability to make inferences.

End “no win, no fee” personal injury litigation

Accidents happen, yet today we are encouraged to look for someone else to blame if we have one, rather than take responsibility for ourselves.

 

"No win, no fee" was introduced because Legal Aid was costing so much, even though personal injury work was a very small part of the total budget. In effect, the Government invited lawyers to devise ways of making money out of cases where there was no guarantee of success. They have done this, but with consequences that no one likes very much. The Government was warned this would happen.

 

Ending Legal Aid for personal injury claims left us in a world where we can apparently get money for nothing and where no connection is ever made between suing a school and a shortage of funds for books, or the banning of a sports day to avoid a lawsuit. Litigation has replaced common sense and taking responsibility for our actions, and, as a result, public bodies such as the NHS, schools, Local Authorities and Network Rail have become highly risk-averse and have curtailed many ordinary everyday activities.

 

We are being constantly bombarded with advertisements by claims management companies and by signs and announcements stating the obvious, e.g. radiators may be hot.

Why is this idea important?

Accidents happen, yet today we are encouraged to look for someone else to blame if we have one, rather than take responsibility for ourselves.

 

"No win, no fee" was introduced because Legal Aid was costing so much, even though personal injury work was a very small part of the total budget. In effect, the Government invited lawyers to devise ways of making money out of cases where there was no guarantee of success. They have done this, but with consequences that no one likes very much. The Government was warned this would happen.

 

Ending Legal Aid for personal injury claims left us in a world where we can apparently get money for nothing and where no connection is ever made between suing a school and a shortage of funds for books, or the banning of a sports day to avoid a lawsuit. Litigation has replaced common sense and taking responsibility for our actions, and, as a result, public bodies such as the NHS, schools, Local Authorities and Network Rail have become highly risk-averse and have curtailed many ordinary everyday activities.

 

We are being constantly bombarded with advertisements by claims management companies and by signs and announcements stating the obvious, e.g. radiators may be hot.

Compensation culture

Do not allow any compensation to be paid to a person who has been treated by a NHS doctor or nurse .  In return adopt a stringent disciplinary policy to weed out non performing NHS staff.

Why is this idea important?

Do not allow any compensation to be paid to a person who has been treated by a NHS doctor or nurse .  In return adopt a stringent disciplinary policy to weed out non performing NHS staff.

Compension for disruption due to public works

Modify the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 to inflation link and fairly update the compensation mentioned in it.  In it the penalties on the public for interfering with railway authorities working on railway projects have subsequently been inflation linked.

But the penalties on bodies like Railtrack for interfering with the public have remained at £20 per day since this Victorian Act was written. Thus if say Railtrack closed a road that caused a business to loose much of their passing trade the maximum compensation is £20 per day and that is shared out amongst all businesses affected.

People affected by planning blight when major new schemes like railway and roads are announced should get better compensation too.

Why is this idea important?

Modify the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 to inflation link and fairly update the compensation mentioned in it.  In it the penalties on the public for interfering with railway authorities working on railway projects have subsequently been inflation linked.

But the penalties on bodies like Railtrack for interfering with the public have remained at £20 per day since this Victorian Act was written. Thus if say Railtrack closed a road that caused a business to loose much of their passing trade the maximum compensation is £20 per day and that is shared out amongst all businesses affected.

People affected by planning blight when major new schemes like railway and roads are announced should get better compensation too.

Cap compensation payments

We are fast becoming a nation that resorts to suing corporations, public bodies etc at the drop of the hat.  This has resulted in a mass of health and safety regulations and rules that are designed to protect public bodies from being sued. Bodies have become over cautious to the point of being ridiculous – e.g. the teacher who saw a child climbing a tree on school property, who went into the school and closed the door for fear of frightening the child into falling from the tree, whilst a passer by came and helped the child out of the tree and was warned for his reckless behaviour!  

These rules and regulations defy common sense and add millions if not billions to our overheads.   If we introduce a cap on the amount of compensation payment people can recieve for minor injuries or injustices to £1,000, it might deter people from suing with the aim of making a fast buck.  This would allow public bodies and government departments to cut through the swathes of ridiculous rules and let common sense prevail.  

There would have to be a proper definition of minor injuries and injustices, but it should not involve people being compensated for inconvenience.  That is part of life and we should live with it.  In capping compensation, we should also introduce more stringent rules about when a no win no fee agreement can be entered into – that should reduce the number of 'have you had an accident at work?' adverts too, which would be an added bonus!

 


 

Why is this idea important?

We are fast becoming a nation that resorts to suing corporations, public bodies etc at the drop of the hat.  This has resulted in a mass of health and safety regulations and rules that are designed to protect public bodies from being sued. Bodies have become over cautious to the point of being ridiculous – e.g. the teacher who saw a child climbing a tree on school property, who went into the school and closed the door for fear of frightening the child into falling from the tree, whilst a passer by came and helped the child out of the tree and was warned for his reckless behaviour!  

These rules and regulations defy common sense and add millions if not billions to our overheads.   If we introduce a cap on the amount of compensation payment people can recieve for minor injuries or injustices to £1,000, it might deter people from suing with the aim of making a fast buck.  This would allow public bodies and government departments to cut through the swathes of ridiculous rules and let common sense prevail.  

There would have to be a proper definition of minor injuries and injustices, but it should not involve people being compensated for inconvenience.  That is part of life and we should live with it.  In capping compensation, we should also introduce more stringent rules about when a no win no fee agreement can be entered into – that should reduce the number of 'have you had an accident at work?' adverts too, which would be an added bonus!