A Brush With the Compo Culture

This story dates back to September last year. I’ve not written about it because it has been ongoing. Indeed, it may still be, but sufficient time has elapsed to suppose that it has probably come to an end.

Anyway…

Last September, I had two students on a CBT (compulsory basic training) course. One of these was to prove troublesome. Indeed, it became fairly obvious within minutes of meeting him. We shall call him Student A so as to protect the guilty. Student A was asked the usual questions:

“Have you ever ridden before?”

“No.”

“Okay, driven a car?”

“No.”

“Fine, ridden a bicycle?”

“No.”

It is at this point that my heart sinks as I know full well that this is going to be hard work –  exacerbated by the fact that Student B did have some experience, so was at a significantly higher level. Trying to split my time between the two proved difficult, but not impossible. However, Student A not only lacked any relevant helpful experience, he lacked any form of mechanical aptitude –  to the point where he really should not be allowed to operate any form of mechanical object for fear that he would break it, also he had no sense of balance. One of my colleagues refers to such people as GNIs (God Never Intendeds). At one point, he was holding the bike upright by leaning it against me while I held my hand in front of his to help control his biting point. Oh, it was awful. But that is what I am paid for, so I did my best. Unfortunately, the inevitable happened and Student A and the bike parted company. It happened at low speed –  little more than walking pace. He suffered a bruised leg and dented pride but was otherwise okay to carry on.

I checked the bike over and there was some superficial damage, but I had decided that the best option was to put him on an automatic. Yes, I realised that he wanted to take the course on a geared bike as that is what he had at home. However, he just couldn’t control both the clutch and keep the thing upright. The best option, therefore, was to split the two skills and let him master one before moving onto the other.

When it came to the road ride element, Student A had to finish the course early. No way was I taking him on the road. Student B, however, had completed all of the mandated exercises and was ready. My advice to Student A was that he come back for further training and get his CBT on an automatic, get some experience and then think about a geared machine –  yes, I know he had a geared bike at home, but he couldn’t operated the clutch and it was going to take some work before he did master it, if ever he did and I had my doubts as he had proved unable to manage any of the mandated CBT exercises and could just about navigate the pad on an automatic machine without falling off.

The last I saw of him, he was walking away briskly with his backpack on, with nary a hint of discomfort from his leg injury. That, then, was that. I heard no more. Until the middle of November when the school received a demand for damages from a bunch of ambulance chasers legal injury solicitor. No win, no fee, of course.

The claim centered around all sorts of injuries –  damage to his leg (yup, he bruised it) concussion because –  wait for it – he wasn’t wearing a helmet along with other minor bumps and bruises. Apparently we were not only negligent in not providing him with a helmet, but in breach of our statutory duty. It was at this point I burst out laughing and the proprietress paused in reading out this guff. To be fair, she wasn’t laughing, she was horrified at the letter.

No motorcycle instructor is going to allow a student to ride without a helmet. It ain’t gonna happen –  not if the instructor wants to keep his ticket. Besides, not only would I testify to the contrary under oath, another instructor was briefly present and witnessed the student riding(ish) with his helmet on and securely fastened, but the other student witnessed the whole thing, so we had three witnesses one of whom was independent.

Of course, the injuries for which he was apparently treated at the local A&E do indeed fit with falling off a bike without the appropriate clothing. It’s just that it wasn’t our bike. Not that we can prove what we think he did, it just fits and it is just that; speculation.

They also threw in some nonsense about statutory duties, but I have enough H&S background and knowledge to recognise utter bullshit when I smell it and advised the school accordingly. I am also well versed in writing incident reports from my railway experience so provided a detailed blow-by-blow account for the insurers.

It’s worth pointing out at this juncture just how these sharks operate. They get their clients to take out insurance against losing. Providing the case doesn’t go to court, this is about £800 and the solicitor fronts it up, expecting to extract it off the other party’s insurer later. If it looks like going the whole way, then this rises to around £2,500. Their insurers have to be more than 50% certain of a win to take the risk as the court costs will be in the region of £40k. What happens next is a game of brinkmanship. The party who blinks at that £40k first, loses. Usually, it is the defendant’s insurer –  about 80% of the time apparently.

Our insurers sent an assessor out to see us. Partly to look at the bike as Student A was claiming that this was why he fell off –  he couldn’t find neutral and it wasn’t properly maintained (even if true, neither was remotely responsible for his inability to stay upright and operate the clutch). As the assessor noted, apart from minor cosmetic damage, it was fine. The only problem with finding neutral lay with the student, not the bike, as I demonstrated when I rode it for the assessor’s benefit. He also interviewed me and was happy with my statement, which they were going to present as my testimony to go before the court if necessary. His recommendation was that the insurer fight it. Most cases fail because the defendant doesn’t have the evidence available, such as documents, the machine, witnesses and, in this case, an understanding of and compliance with the H&S legislation that applies. The solicitors had just spray painted their letter with regulations that they thought would fit and scare the defendant into writing a cheque.

That was two months ago. We have heard nothing. The assessor suggested that if they drop it, that is the likely outcome –  we can hardly expect a grovelling apology for trying to defraud our insurance company, let alone an offer of compensation for our time and trouble involved in defending this nonsense. Given the robust defence, we can only assume that the insurer underwriting the claim isn’t more than 50% confident of a win in court and given that they will have to stump up around £40k if they lose, they are unlikely to be willing to go that far. So, a refusal –  and a robust one at this stage has to be met with either backing off or issuing proceedings. It is looking increasingly unlikely that the latter is going to happen. All that said, they do claim that these cases can drag on for eighteen months. However, they have to overcome the obstacle of the obvious and easily refuted lie regarding the non helmet wearing.

They might have another go with a round of letters, but court? Unlikely. Possible, but doubtful as they would have to ask their client to perjure himself and no solicitor is going to do that any more than a motorcycle instructor is going to expect his students to ride sans helmet. And as long as the insurance company holds its nerve and there is no reason, given the substantial evidence that refutes the claim, why they shouldn’t, then it shouldn’t go to court and the solicitors will have to accept they ain’t getting any dosh this time. But, then, they should be more careful when interviewing their prospective clients and establish that there is a case to start with –  i.e. that the claimant isn’t actually, you know, lying. It is only a pity that there won’t be any criminal proceedings for fraud, because that is what this was; attempted insurance fraud. This time, though, it’s looking like they didn’t get away with it.

18 Comments

  1. Good luck with that one. A friend was involved in a minor accident about a year ago – he was pulling out of a T-junction when he saw someone coming in from the right, too fast. He stopped, but the other driver took off his front bumper.

    The chav “victim” who caused the accident put a claim in for whiplash (no surprise), and even though the “victims” own doctor reported that it was a false claim (my friend has seen the report), the insurance company paid out.

    It looks as though even a blatantly false claim of “personal injury” prompts insurance companies to simply pony up. Let’s face it; the rate that premiums are rising, they don’t seem to have to worry about their bottom line. I hope your school has enough clout with the insurers to prevent payout in this case.

  2. As the intended victim of a fraudulent claim that could have hurt your business, could you not sue the fraudster for slander? ie telling lies about your business that could have had a negative impact.
    Until fraudulent claims have a real downside to them, it wont stop.

    • I expect they could, however, such is their nature, that they will be happy for it to be rejected so that they can just get on with running the business.

      The best way to stop this is to put a barrier in the way of the no-win-no-fee arrangement. Genuine claims need to be met, however, the insurance system at the moment favours the frivolous, fraudulent and vexatious claimants. If they had to front up the insurance premium themselves, it would concentrate their minds somewhat.

      • Nah. Insurance companies should be free to take on any risk they choose.

        What we need is for more than 20% of defending insurers to actually defend, and/or a court system that gives all these bullshit claims the contempt that they deserve by chucking them out and awarding costs accordingly.

        The former, alas, seems unlikely.. as the whole thing is a zero-sum game for the insurance industry.. except that they take a margin on the top of everything so ever spiralling claims is always a net win. so we look to the latter, perhaps assisted by legislation, to say that ‘accidents happen, and unless one party materially erred in causing it, nobody should be unjustly enriched as a result’.

        So in your case, we would say that nobody who falls off a bike he is learning to ride get’s to sue anyone for an injury suffered. Even if the judge accepted that no helmet was worn, the most he should do is fine you for breaching rules.. and tell the student that he was old enough to know that getting on a bike without a helmet is really stupid and, thus, doesn’t desrve to get paid for having done so.

        • It’s not the insurance companies that are the problem, it is the easy access to law for the frivolous claimant. I have no problem with the idea of insuring against losing, I just believe that the claimant should find the premium up front. It would concentrate their minds somewhat regarding the efficacy of their case.

          • Isn’t that what the lawyer does?

            That the bastards think it might be worthwhile taking the risk is the problem. As much as I hate these things, nor am I comfortable with the idea that any free person should be prevented from striking a deal with another free person to take a risk on their behalf… and the cost of these policies looks like it would be too high for many people with genuine claims. It’s not a gamble I would have been able to take for most of my life.

          • The answer is for the lawyer to lend the premium if it’s an issue. No problem with that. What should happen now is that they issue Student A with an invoice for the premium they paid on his behalf to pursue a fraudulent claim – after all, he lied to them. If he had known up front that losing would mean an £800 bill, it would have made him think twice. A genuine claimant however, would know full well that they had a case worth pursuing and would accept that risk.

            That said, yes, I do go along with your option B as well.

  3. Story as described, I would not bloody DREAM of suing the instructor/School.

    Am I getting soft in my old age, or is my cynisism wearing off? 😯

    O.K. Instructor tells you to turn right, and you end up goiung down the wrong side of an Autobahn, fair enough. But “falling off” is PART of motorbike learning (Not “Training” you will note(!))

    • Falling off is a foreseeable risk. Consequently, we equipped him with helmet, gloves and jacket. Yet the solicitor is claiming that we should have carried out a risk assessment. Er, we did. That’s why we kitted him out with helmet, gloves and jacket…

    • We do. However, it doesn’t stop the fraudulent claim, nor is it going to stop the genuine one. All in all, insurers like them, but they aren’t very effective.

  4. Going for a CBT having never tried riding, driving or even pedaling a pushbike? I know we’ve all got to start somewhere, but good gravy. Then tries to sue the driving school because he’s got all the coordination of roadkill? Entitlement writ large.

    A career in politics beckons….

  5. When I read that the guy had never even ridden a pushbike, I was surprised that you didn’t insist that he went away and learned to ride one before even attempting to get onto any kind of motorcycle. Surely he was guaranteed to fall off the second that he moved away if he had no experience of riding a two wheeler at all.

    Talking of clutch control, my first proper motorcycle was a 1970’s Yamaha RD125 twin. It had a viciously grabby clutch combined with a relatively narrow powerband. Until I got used to it, setting off was such an ordeal that I developed quite impressive skills of anticipation and reading ahead just so that I could avoid stopping.

    • XX my first proper motorcycle was a 1970?s Yamaha RD125 XX

      “Proper”????

      It’s a MOPED!

      🙂 🙂

  6. Hey, don’t mock, I was an impoverished teenaged apprentice. It was a proper bike in that it had a manual clutch and five gears, it was also a step up from a Honda C50. It was a great little bike for me at the time and I loved it, I can even remember the registration plate number after all these years.

Comments are closed.