Personal Injury Fraud

Debate between Chris Philp and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate. The subject is not totally unfamiliar; indeed, it was debated quite a lot in the last Parliament. I refreshed my memory earlier about a debate we had almost exactly two years ago—on 7 November 2013—entitled “Motor Insurance (Whiplash)”. I spoke for 30 minutes in that debate, and I refer hon. Members to that speech to spare them from having me repeat the whole of it now. Much of it is still relevant, which is sad in a way, and that might be an indictment of the Government for not having done more. Perhaps we can blame that on the coalition, which was a completely different organisation—there are no Liberal Democrats around to protest any more, so we can always blame them.

I dealt with this issue for five years, and I thought I had finally got rid of it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is responsible for dealing with it, is away somewhere, so I am reprising the subject. The last time we debated it, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), had just taken over the brief, and now the current Minister is acquainting herself with it. It is an interesting subject, and perhaps I may say without any disrespect to the hon. Member for Lincoln that there was good and bad in what he said. I was with him for much of his speech, until at the end he drew conclusions that did not all perfectly derive from the facts at his disposal. One of the problems is that we do not always have the facts that we need on this issue.

I think we all detest cold calls, because we believe they are parasitical, and they are severely irritating. As far as I am aware, cold calls from law firms are already banned. Many of the cold calls that we receive come from call centres run outside the UK, which have become an industry in themselves. I do not think a single Member of the House, or indeed member of the public, would not want a crackdown on them, and want them to be banned and excluded. The problem is that it is difficult to do that, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government intend to do along those lines.

[Chris Philp]

Even if one cannot ban calls emanating from outside the UK, there could certainly be a ban on any UK organisation, including law firms, using information derived from such extraterritorial calls. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government to institute such a ban?

[Andy Slaughter]

As I have said, I believe that calls made in that way are banned. I will come on to say a bit more about law firms in a moment, but I think that would be the case for any such form of abuse.

The other area where I am entirely at one with the hon. Member for Lincoln is on referral fees. Again, the previous Government came to the issue late in the day. There were late amendments—on Report, I think—to the Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, banning referral fees. We thought that that did not go far enough and would have liked them to be criminalised. I am afraid that the implementation by the Ministry of Justice was rather cack-handed and amateur for a while. That is getting better, and there has been a crackdown on claims management companies, which I welcome, as well as an extension of the ban on referral fees. Referral fees do not have any place in the British legal system. Those are the key ways of stopping such abuse.

The percentage of personal injury claims being made for whiplash has fallen, but Members are right to ask why the number of personal injury claims is increasing while the number of motor accidents is falling. One reason, undoubtedly, is greater use of advertisement, which encourages more people to claim. That does not necessarily mean that the claims are fraudulent, but it does mean that there is an industry encouraging the making of claims.

Thus far, so good, but the hon. Gentleman suddenly shoehorned into the end of his speech the conclusion that the small claims limit for personal injury should be extended to £5,000, the limitation period should be 12 months, and the quantum in such cases should be rigidly enforceable. I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that. It would be to attack a basic principle of English law—the principle of the courts’ discretion.

We already have clear Judicial Studies Board guidelines on quantum. There are reasons for the relatively short limitation period of three years. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) mentioned that injuries are not always immediately evident. As for the old chestnut about raising the small claims limit to £5,000, I am entirely in agreement that after 16 years, if that is how long it has been, it is right to raise the limit proportionally by whatever the inflation rate has been during that time. It might mean taking the limit up to £2,000 or something of that order. Raising it to £5,000, however, would exclude 90% of all personal injury claims. For someone on a low income in particular, £5,000 is a substantial amount of money, and it is wrong for people in that situation not to have the benefit of legal advice. I see an ABI agenda there—that is what it always wants. Insurance companies are particularly keen on effectively taking lawyers out of the personal injury process, so that the relationship is between the victim and the insurer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to argue about statistics endlessly, given that part of my argument is that the statistics are not robust. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looked at the briefing for the debate by the Law Society, which is of course the professional body for solicitors. There are concerns that insurers use figures about levels of fraud as it suits them.

The point that concerns me is that the remedies that insurers resort to are, in some cases, more likely to encourage fraud. The principal one is third-party capture. There is an increasing trend for insurers to contact victims directly, offer a settlement and discourage them from contacting solicitors—and, if they have contacted them, to ask for information about that. They are not entitled to that information, but rather in the manner of claims managers who, as we have heard, use bullying behaviour to try to substantiate fraudulent claims or exaggerate claims, I am afraid insurance companies increasingly approach people in the same way, to try to get a quick, early settlement without medical reporting or professional advice. That may well minimise the value of the claim—I have no doubt that that is the intention—so someone who has a genuine and possibly quite serious injury may settle for a relatively trivial sum of money. However, it may also encourage fraud, because if there is no medical report or lawyer to act as an arbiter of whether a claim is genuine, the insurer, for commercial reasons, might settle a claim that could well be fraudulent. We should be worried about the growth of third-party capture, which would undoubtedly be massively encouraged if small claims were lifted disproportionately.

I am not saying that there is not bad practice by law firms, because there certainly is. I am talking not even about dubious practice, but about sharp practice in marketing skills. However, as one would expect, the overwhelming majority of solicitors act in a proper and professional manner. They have the ability, through the askCUE system, to determine whether someone who comes to them with a claim has claimed previously, and they are encouraged to make such checks to see if that is happening.

I sound a note of caution not because I think that anything raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln is inappropriate. It is just that, as in many things, there is a balance to strike. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East speak about victims. Let us not forget them in this case. Political parties often speak up for victims of crime, but victims of accidents are also victims. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that genuine victims of accidents should not get access to justice or be properly remunerated.

I baulk at the constant refrain about a compensation culture. Time and time again it has been shown, including by the Government’s own experts, that no such culture exists in this country. On the contrary, recent consumer surveys have shown that only 17% of people say that their default position would be to seek compensation after receiving poor treatment. I do not think it is naturally British to think that, as a consequence of poor treatment or customer service or even an injury, the first thing one would do is immediately go to claim compensation.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman may well be correct, but the problem is that ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being harassed and incited by claims management companies to invent claims—I stand here today because I am one such person. That is why the Government need to go beyond the action they have taken already. I hope that he agrees, given that he used to practise personal injury law.

[Andy Slaughter]

I did indeed practise personal injury law, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that 90% of my practice was for insurers, so I do not think I can be accused of parti pris. I can see it from both sides of the fence, and if I am talking about claimants and victims, that is just to give a bit of balance to the debate.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will hear what is being done specifically to crack down on those calls. I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot about whether, in his case, he was able to report to either the MOJ or the police that he was being suborned in such a way, but I hope that people do that. If there were a couple of high-profile cases, perhaps instigated by Members of Parliament, in which pestilential claims management companies and cold callers were held to account, that would be a tonic for reducing the practice substantially. If the Minister can shed any light on what the Government can do on enforcement, I will be pleased to hear that.

We must look at both sides of the argument. We have to take action based on evidence, and we have to realise that there are many vested interests. Yes, the claims management companies have interests and we must be on guard against fraud, but we must also be aware of the interests of the insurance industry, which are not always at one with those of the motorist or consumer. It does not always follow that what the industry asks for is beneficial not just to victims or potential victims, but to motorists as a whole. I hope that we can crack down on fraud and relieve the consumer of the burden of calls—I get them myself on many issues—but I also hope that, on this as on other matters, we will bear in mind that the interests of victims and those with meritorious claims for personal injury should be respected.

Affordable Housing (London)

Debate between Chris Philp and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Philp]

Let me take the latter point made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) before coming on to the hon. Lady’s. On affordability, supply and demand clearly drive prices. I am delighted that under the current Mayor of London we have delivered 3,000 council houses, whereas under the previous Mayor virtually none were delivered. Taken together, the number of housing association starts and local authority starts under this Government is 5% higher than under the Labour Government.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I would like to make a little progress first; I will give way in a moment. The Mayor of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has brought forward 94,000 affordable units during his mayoralty —a considerably larger number than was brought forward by his predecessor, Mr Livingstone. We have a good track record on affordable housing, but more clearly needs to be done.

On foreigners buying property in London, there are two elements: who is buying it, and are they occupying it? On foreigners buying it, the phenomenon tends to be concentrated in prime central London places, such as Kensington and Chelsea—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

It is certainly not my intention to make the debate rabidly party political—I am not sure that I have been called “rabid” before, but I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the adjective. I want this to be a non-partisan and constructive discussion about London’s housing. I hope there are things that we can agree on during the debate.

[Andy Slaughter]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his Government’s policies to force the sale of high-value council homes in London and to restrict or cut the rents without compensating councils, which is completely decimating council building programmes, are not helpful in providing more affordable housing?

[Chris Philp]

I am sure that the Minister will comment later, but the sale of valuable houses might provide councils with the opportunity to use the proceeds to build two or three new social housing units. For example, I used to be a councillor in Camden and some of its housing stock, such as some units in Bloomsbury, was worth well in excess of £1 million—one of those units was occupied by the hon. Gentleman’s former colleague, Mr Dobson. Were such a unit to be sold, we could have built two or three council or social housing units elsewhere in Camden or London. There is some merit in that.

On the rent reductions, making housing more affordable clearly means making rents cheaper, which will help housing association and council tenants to pay lower rents. There are opportunities to force efficiency savings in those organisations. Most branches of government—local authorities, the police, every Department—have made savings over the past four or five years, quite rightly, and it is fair to ask other organisations to make savings and pass those on to their tenants.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman should have read his brief a little more carefully. In places such as Camden, it will often not be possible to find the land on which to build to replace those houses that are sold. If it can be found, under his Government’s rules, it is likely that the newly built homes will also have to be sold. The fact is that councils in London have tried hard to have house building programmes. The effect of the rent cut may be good in itself, but unless Government money is supplied to compensate for it, there will be no council housing building programme for London. He needs to address those points if we are to take him seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

No. I am simply saying that where there are very high-value council properties, it makes sense to sell them and free up money to build more properties. Ideally, those would be in the same borough, but if there is a lack of land—I am not sure that Hackney has a particular lack of land; that is more a problem for the inner London boroughs, such as Camden, Westminster and RBKC—and it is impossible to find new land in the borough, we should look a little more widely. That seems to be common sense. If we can sell one unit and build three, that seems to be a trade-off well worth—

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make a little progress. I have been unusually generous.

The Mayor of London has made progress during the seven years of his mayoralty. He has brought forward 94,000 affordable houses since 2008, which—to respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham—is extremely welcome. The 20 housing zones established jointly between the Government and the Mayor of London, with £400 million of investment, are also extremely welcome. In those zones the local authority, the Mayor and the Department for Communities and Local Government get together to put in place the planning, infrastructure and support required to deliver large-scale housing. Those zones will help, and the £200 million London housing bank will help as well.

There are also specific projects that I am sure we are all keen to encourage. For example, the Mayoral Development Corporation is bringing forward 24,000 units on derelict industrial land at Old Oak Common in Ealing. We need to see far more schemes—

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Philp]

Is it partly in Hammersmith? [Interruption.] The fact that it goes over three London boroughs shows that we need MDCs to step in and make things happen when large numbers of public bodies are involved. In my own borough, the Croydon growth zone is important; it will, I hope, bring forward 4,000 houses. The Brent Cross regeneration project is another important scheme. Those specific projects, in which the Government, the Mayor of London and the boroughs focus together on bringing forward large numbers of houses in a particular area, are very effective. I strongly encourage the Mayor and the Minister to do even more in that way.

I also commend the Greater London Authority for its programme of disposing of its public land for housing. Over the last couple of years, the GLA has disposed of 98% of the land that it owns—that excludes Transport for London, by the way—for public housing. That includes the site of the old Cane Hill hospital in my constituency—which is directly overlooked by my house—where Barratt Homes is currently building 650 houses. That is an example that other public bodies should follow.

In that vein, I welcome the London Land Commission, which met for the first time on 15 July. Its duty is to catalogue surplus public sector land that can be brought forward for housing. TfL has 6,000 acres that could be used across 600 sites; the NHS has 1,000 acres, 15% of which is potentially surplus to requirements. There is a huge amount that can be done by bringing forward public sector land for house building.

I also strongly support the idea of using local development orders to effectively grant outline planning consent on suitable brownfield land, even if the landowner has not applied for consent. The target is to get LDOs for 90% of brownfield sites by 2020. That is a really important initiative. One housing association estimates that there are 8,000 acres of developable brownfield land in our city. It is a matter of absolute urgency that we develop that land as quickly as possible, partly to create new housing and partly to take pressure off the green belt, which it is essential to protect.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. In closing, I will briefly put eight specific proposals to the Minister. The first is to consider extending the office-to-residential conversion scheme that has been in operation for the last two or three years, in areas where there is no pressure on office supply. Certainly some clarification is needed about the definition of change of use. At the moment, the change of use has to have occurred by May 2016, but there is a little ambiguity about what the change of use actually is, so some clarification would help developers and investors.

Secondly—this is more a matter for the Treasury than DCLG—the regime for buy-to-let mortgages is currently a bit softer than the mortgage regime for owner-occupiers. For example, most owner-occupier mortgages are repayment, whereas most buy-to-let landlords get interest-only mortgages. In my view, that means that buy-to-let landlords are unfairly advantaged relative to potential owner-occupiers. The Bank of England and the Treasury should look at that, to create a level playing field so that owner-occupiers can purchase on an equal footing to buy-to-let landlords. That would encourage home ownership.

Thirdly, local authority planning departments are often a serious bottleneck, leading to the missing of statutory deadlines for granting planning consent. I suggest that we should consider allowing higher planning fees to be charged in exchange for a guaranteed service level. Planning fees are quite low, and I am sure that many developers—particularly larger ones with big schemes—would happily pay a great deal more money to get a quick, clear decision. That would bring planning consents forward more quickly and get us building.