You work for Attwoods??

I don't think that people should be left to their own devices, but also believe that people have access to the internet themselves and also to things like Yellow Pages, so that they can find these things out for themselves. No need for this sort of thing to be thrust in our faces. It's the advertising (including people coming up to you in the street and asking if you've had an accident in the last 3 years) that I object to, not the service itself. As a business model it's invasive and unpopular. I can't believe it generates enough "sales" to justify continuing with it, but clearly some people fall for it, and as it continues, it must.



I don't like them either, but given that motor insurance is compulsory, and suing someone for damages isn't, I can live with them. Which particular ambulances are motor insurance companies chasing?



Not seen many, but my problem isn't with a company advertising it's business or services, it's to companies taking advantage of vulnerable people (so maybe I would object to the clinics adverts). PIP are in the news and company X jumps on the compensation bandwagon.



No nothing wrong. The method of doing so is what is not right imho.



I don't see motor breakdown companies etc jumping on bandwagons to make a fast buck and no, nothing "swallowed". Just think the no-win, no-fee brigade are a bunch of carpet bagging chancers.

Incidentally, and this may have coloured my view, Mrs28 had a car accident many years ago which was not her fault. The other driver was taken to court and the case wasn't proceeded with as he surrendered his licence on advice from his GP, because he had a preexisting heart condition and apparently could not be expected to foresee, despite being on a cocktail of about 8 drugs, that he might black out at some point. The fact that he did so while at the wheel, driving at 40+ in a 30 was, apparently, irrelevant. The insurance she had came with legal expenses cover, so we looked at what could be done. Some time later a letter was received saying that the case for any form of compensation could not proceed based on the free cover, but if the Mrs could pay they would pursue it. The car was written off, she lost her no claims bonus and the insurance even had to pay up for the ambulance to take her to hospital, resulting in an even higher premium next time.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but either she had a case or she didn't? Why could they only proceed on the basis of a payment when cover was included in the insurance premium?

She's a lawyer and I guess from your posts that you are too. I object to some of these chancers tarring the legal profession with the "greedy" brush.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Anyone who wants to minimise or dismiss the potential health risks and problems of a ruptured implant should have a look at this surgeon's site, {WARNING- SOME GRAPHIC IMAGES} and then try to minimise it. Just going back a couple of pages it might be opportune to remind people of the link that you provided (and to warn that they are a bit graphic if you are at all sensitive or at work) which shows just how nasty things can get if the silicone does leak out, both to where it leaks and around the implant itself, the body is an amazing thing to identify foreign elements and try to isolate them but removing the scar tissue will be damaging to the patient and you can't really describe it as just popping open the old wound and slipping out the implant - the one in the photo wasn't "slipped out" by any means I'd imagine.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Anyone who wants to minimise or dismiss the potential health risks and problems of a ruptured implant should have a look at this surgeon's site, {WARNING- SOME GRAPHIC IMAGES} and then try to minimise it. Just going back a couple of pages it might be opportune to remind people of the link that you provided (and to warn that they are a bit graphic if you are at all sensitive or at work) which shows just how nasty things can get if the silicone does leak out, both to where it leaks and around the implant itself, the body is an amazing thing to identify foreign elements and try to isolate them but removing the scar tissue will be damaging to the patient and you can't really describe it as just popping open the old wound and slipping out the implant - the one in the photo wasn't "slipped out" by any means I'd imagine.

The squirming and side-stepping of the CEO of The Harley Medical Group was to behold on TV last night but he was adamant that they would not even be paying for scans for all of their breast implant clients (at his quoted price of £400 each) and wished to speak to the NHS about how they could co-operate in sorting out the situation that they found themselves in.

They should run and re-run that clip every time anyone suggests that the NHS could be better handled by private companies, I bet Cameron is kicking himself for years over this.

No!


I fundamentally disagree. Access to justice should be the same for everbody. Most people are scared of going to see a lawyer, and most people don't know their rights. That remains the case, and it is only since the Law Society allowed solicitors to advertise that awareness has increased. Even so, a very large number of innocent victims of accidents, negligent medical procedures etc do not claim, and logically much of that number must be because they do not know their rights, or are incorrectly afraid of the cost.

Why, alone amongst people, should lawyers not be allowed to advertise on normal channels like websites, Facebook etc.? This I really don't get.


I couldn't agree more. Solicitors, though are absolutely banned from any cold calling, moreover are banned from accepting referrals from firms that generate the business by cold-calling. It's no idel threat either as if caught they could be struck off and lose their livelihood. The SRA would take a highly dim view.


Well, just for one example, Admiral last year made about 5% of total company profits by selling cases of policyholders who'd had accidents. It has been a mammoth industry, and only now that they've been rumbled are insurers suddenly sanctimoniously saying that yes, that is a bit rich, and they are going to stop doing it.


Emotive and unnecessary. Why is a woman with PIP implants necessarily "vulnerable"? How is helping her, if she has a valid claim, to make it at no cost or risk to her, "taking advantage"? If she has her own lawyer, she'll likely go there. If she hasn't, what is wrong with advertising "We specialise i this stuff, we can sort it for you"?


Who are you talking about? Only lawyers (at least just now) can do "no win no fee", but i have a feeling you're not talking about them?

"No win no fee" solicitors are entirely the creation of the government, who abolished legal aid for personal injury claims, and brought in this no win no fee system, to preserve access to justice for people who could no longer get legal aid, and couldn't afford lawyers.


I obviously can't comment on your wife's case but in general the situation is something like this:
1. many "legal expenses" policies are in fact nothing of the sort. You expect if you have a claim, they'll deal with it, but in fact in many cases, it's a mere claim capture device, you give them the case, they sell it to a panel lawyer for a £600 or so referral fee.
2. Other legal expenses policies consist of referral to a company which is not a solicitors practice, but a claims handling company. they try to negotiate it to a successful conclusion. In theory, if they can't, you should be covered for it to be passed on to a solicitor to go via court. In practice, as that would mean the risk of the insurer actually having to pay something out if you lost, if they don't think the prospects are that clever, they will simply say sorry, you don't have sufficiently high prospects of success to continue cover under the policy. So bye. (But you can always pay for a lawyer yourself if you want to take the risk).
3. There are lots of lawyers. Many would take such a case, not only at the outset, but at the stage you describe, on a no win no fee basis. She didn't have to accept what these people told her. Did she shop around?


Amen to that.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: French medical device regulatory authority Afssaps, which suggests a failure rate of about 5% in France, says: Sorry to disappoint and I realise that genuine real-life opinion may not help your argument but, as previously stated, if it were me or my missus, I would be worried. That isn't what you previously stated at all, what you previously stated was this: Ferocious Aardvark wrote: So the issue which concerns me is not one of extrapolation "reasonably accurate figures" but of how worried you should be if you have some of those things inside you. I'd bet even you would be. You wanted to know how worried I would be, not how worried you or your missus would be. And as I stated I ain't worried because the person that I live with, who actually has implants, isn't worried Ferocious Aardvark wrote:But please don't let that divert you from your dismissive claptrap, as I'm sure you know better than the French government, or the doctors. From THIS But how many implants have actually ruptured? There are various figures depending on which organisation or country is reporting them. The French authorities say the rupture rate is 5%. The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has a figure of 1% and said that after speaking to other countries, there was "no evidence of any disproportionate rupture rates other than in France". A major UK private clinic, Transform, was reported as saying it had a rupture rate of 7%. It says this was based on a sample of 108 patients. The organisation which represents private breast implant clinics, The Independent Healthcare Advisory Services, says that after looking at data from thousands of patients the rupture rate was within the industry standard of 1-2%. It's bleeding obvious that "Tim Goodacre, president of the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS)", after all he can see the opportunity for double bubble for all his mates

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: French medical device regulatory authority Afssaps, which suggests a failure rate of about 5% in France, says: Sorry to disappoint and I realise that genuine real-life opinion may not help your argument but, as previously stated, if it were me or my missus, I would be worried. That isn't what you previously stated at all, what you previously stated was this: Ferocious Aardvark wrote: So the issue which concerns me is not one of extrapolation "reasonably accurate figures" but of how worried you should be if you have some of those things inside you. I'd bet even you would be. You wanted to know how worried I would be, not how worried you or your missus would be. And as I stated I ain't worried because the person that I live with, who actually has implants, isn't worried Ferocious Aardvark wrote:But please don't let that divert you from your dismissive claptrap, as I'm sure you know better than the French government, or the doctors. From THIS But how many implants have actually ruptured? There are various figures depending on which organisation or country is reporting them. The French authorities say the rupture rate is 5%. The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has a figure of 1% and said that after speaking to other countries, there was "no evidence of any disproportionate rupture rates other than in France". A major UK private clinic, Transform, was reported as saying it had a rupture rate of 7%. It says this was based on a sample of 108 patients. The organisation which represents private breast implant clinics, The Independent Healthcare Advisory Services, says that after looking at data from thousands of patients the rupture rate was within the industry standard of 1-2%. It's bleeding obvious that "Tim Goodacre, president of the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS)", after all he can see the opportunity for double bubble for all his mates

Don't these private butchers have insurance to cover this sort of thing.

You know, that question has crossed my mind too.

I just wonder now if those NHS surgeons and theatre assistants who regularly moonlight for private hospitals are properly covered by their own indemnity or do they just assume that their private employers are covered on their behalf, and what is the reality ?

surely the manufacturer is at fault?

They've shut up shop mate and the owner has managed to transfer all his personal assets to his wife and other family members

When you buy something that is faulty, where do you take it back to ?