Archive for May, 2010

FSA introduces temporary rule for recent PPI complainants

Friday, May 28th, 2010

The Financial Services Authority announces a temporary rule to give customers who recently made a complaint about their purchase of a Payment Protection Insurance policy more time in which to refer their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The temporary rule, which suspends the existing six month time limit for referring complaints to the Ombudsman, will come into effect from today and run for five months, until 27 October 2010.

The rule applies to recent PPI complainants who have already been sent a final response from a firm between the dates of 28 November 2009 and 28 April 2010 inclusive.

This action has been taken to ensure recent PPI complainants are not disadvantaged by running out of time to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman while the FSA works to resolve a long term solution to ensure customers are treated consistently and fairly when complaining about the sale of a PPI policy, or when buying a new one.

We want your feedback! All our previous and existing clients can leave a comment on here about the services from Genesis Accident Claims….

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Genesis Accident Claims have dedicated and experienced lawyers who specialise in dealing only with compensation claims for Personal Injury.  Our specialist lawyers act on behalf of clients who have developed any personal injuries suffered due to a accident which was not your fault.

At Genesis Accident Claims we aim to maximize the compensation you receive and ensure that you get 100%.

We would like feedback from clients on how we can improve our services….. So please leave a comment.

Many Thanks.

Freddy Campbell

Asbestos Claims – Did you know you can claim? Read on…..

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

> Asbestos Claims

Information about Asbestos Claims with GAC

Tradesmen who have been working for an Employer

(i.e. Plumbers, Joiners, Electricians…)

Genesis Accident Claims have dedicated and experienced lawyers who specialise in dealing only with compensation claims for asbestos related disease.  Our specialist lawyers act on behalf of clients who have developed asbestos related diseases due to asbestos exposure through their employment.

At Genesis Accident Claims we aim to maximize the compensation you receive and ensure that you get 100%.

Information about various asbestos related illnesses that GAC handle:

There are many similar types of asbestos related diseases and each condition can be different for people as it varies in severity. The conditions include Pleural Plaques, Pleural Thickening, Mesothelioma, Lung Cancer and Asbestosis.   Asbestosis is sometimes misinterpreted as a general term for any asbestos related disease or asbestos related illness.

At GAC it doesn’t matter which asbestos related condition has been diagnosed.  If it can be proven that it was caused by exposure to asbestos by a negligent party, then it may be possible to make a Personal Inury Claim for compensation and recover any losses incurred.

Making a Personal Injury Compensation Claim for an asbestos related illness

The procedure when making a claim for an asbestos related disease

GAC advise client that a Personal Injury compensation claim for an asbestos related disease must be started within three years from the date the client began suffering from the condition and/or was diagnosed. After this three year period it may become statute barred to purse it further and take legal proceedings.

In fatal cases the claim must start within three years of the date of death, or within three years from the date the deceased’s family became aware that the cause of the death was due to asbestos. This would be subject to a Coroner’s Inquest Report which would need to be provided.

GAC have expert lawyers who have extensive experience in dealing with these types of claims. Genesis Accident Claims are experts in all personal injury matters. We will be able to advise you instantly if you have a potential claim for compensation. Our specialist personal injury lawyers will be happy to talk you through the process of making a claim for asbestos related illness and also be happy to answer any questions or queries you may have. If you do have a valid personal injury compensation claim the lawyers will recover our legal fees from the person responsible for your industrial deafness, ensuring that the entire procedure is cost-free for you (No Win No Fee). Telephone us now on 0871 7 892 892 or complete one of our online accident or enquiry form.

(C) Published By

Freddy Campbell

New Claim – Industrial Deafness Claims

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

> Industrial Deafness Claims

What Genesis Accident Claims (GAC) defines as Industrial Deafness?

Information about Occupational Deafness

Occupational and Industrial Deafness or Noise Induced Hearing Loss is a deterioration of a person’s hearing over a long period of time as a result of their working environment.

Thousands of people in the UK have been affected by industrial deafness. Employees can be put at risk and danger in many different industries particularly shipbuilding, coal mining, metal manufacturing and engineering where noisy machinery is used on a regular basis. An employee may not have been provided with the necessary equipment or material to avoid deafness or hearing loss.

Many employees have come to Genesis Accident Claims (GAC) to purse a personal injury claim for Occupational and Industrial Deafness or Noise Induced Hearing Loss.

Who is responsible for your Occupational Deafness?

Employer to blame for Industrial Deafness

To help prevent more cases of Industrial Deafness, the Noise at Work Act 1989 was introduced into the UK. This Act includes rules relating to health and safety in the workplace which employers are required to adhere to. Those rules combined with improvement in technology have created quieter workplaces and incidences of industrial deafness are now much rarer.  Following the introduction of this Act, generally workplaces are now much safer.

If your hearing has deteriorated and you were once or are currently employed in a noisy environment, you may be entitled to make a personal injury compensation claim for Noise Induced Hearing Loss. Contact GAC on 0871 7 892 892 and speak to a dedicated Claims Advisor.   Claimants can claim within 3 years of being diagnosed or of having hearing difficulties. If you feel that your employers failed in their responsibilities, please contact us as soon as possible.

Making a Personal Injury Compensation Claim for Industrial Deafness

GAC Advice about Compensation Claims for Occupational Deafness

If you or someone you know has developed occupational deafness or any other industrial illness, telephone GAC now on 0871 7 892 892 and speak to an experienced Claims Advisor.

There are strict time limits in place to make any injury claim, including claims for occupational deafness. So act now and telephone us to get further information and assistance.

Genesis Accident Claims are experts in all personal injury matters. We will be able to advise you instantly if you have a possible claim for compensation. Our specialist personal injury lawyers will be happy to talk you through the process of making a claim for occupational deafness and also be happy to answer any questions or queries you may have. If you do have a valid personal injury compensation claim the lawyers will recover our legal fees from the person responsible for your industrial deafness, ensuring that the entire procedure is cost-free for you (No Win No Fee). Telephone us now on 0871 7 892 892 or complete one of our online accident enquiry forms.

(C) Published By

Freddy Campbell

PPI sale prohibition set for go-ahead

Friday, May 14th, 2010

The Competition Commission (CC) has provisionally decided that consumers will benefit from the introduction of a point-of-sale prohibition for all forms of payment protection insurance (PPI), with the exception of retail PPI.

The point-of-sale prohibition would stop the completion of sales of PPI during the sale of the associated credit product such as a personal loan. It was one of a package of measures the CC planned to introduce following its investigation into PPI, which concluded that businesses that offer PPI alongside credit face little or no competition when selling PPI to their credit customers.

The report and in particular the proposed point-of-sale prohibition were the subject of a legal challenge last year to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) by Barclays, supported by Lloyds Banking Group and Shop Direct Group Financial Services Ltd.

Whilst upholding the CC’s conclusions as to the competition problems in this market, the CAT ruled that it must in particular consider further the role and importance of a potential drawback to the prohibition, namely that it might inconvenience customers.

Since then, the CC has carried out a detailed analysis of the likely effects of such a prohibition including undertaking customer surveys, and an assessment of parties’ internal documents and of various experiments looking at the possible impact of splitting the sales processes of credit and PPI.

In its provisional decision published today, the CC has concluded that the benefits of a package of remedies including the prohibition, by introducing greater competition and choice and lower prices to the market, will outweigh the disadvantages, in particular the potential inconvenience to some customers.

The exception is retail PPI, where it is not clear to the CC, from the evidence presented so far and from a new survey of retail PPI customers, whether the advantages of introducing the prohibition alongside other measures would outweigh the disadvantages. It is inviting comments on whether alternative remedies would be more effective or would deliver equivalent benefits at less cost.

The CC has also assessed changes in PPI markets since it published its report in January 2009 and provisionally concluded that despite the effects of the economic climate and regulatory action, the underlying problems identified remain firmly in place.

Peter Davis, Inquiry Chairman and CC Deputy Chairman, said:

“Following the legal challenge at the CAT, we’ve done an enormous amount of additional work to examine in further detail whether the package of remedies we’re proposing including the point-of-sale prohibition will provide an effective and proportionate way of tackling the serious problems that still exist with PPI.

“We found that many customers would place very significant value on being given the time and space to choose the right PPI product-or indeed to decide that PPI is not right for them. We also found that a significant number of customers appreciate the convenience of buying PPI instantly at the point of sale of credit.

“Overall we concluded that PPI providers are overstating the loss of convenience that would result from the introduction of a prohibition on selling PPI during the credit sale.”

All customers of course will appreciate the lower prices for PPI and the greater choice we expect to result from more competitive PPI markets.

Obviously the financial services sector has experienced some significant changes since our initial report. We looked at the effect of the relevant aspects of those changes on the PPI market and came to the view that, whilst the financial crisis and recession have certainly had an effect on providers’ sales, they haven’t altered fundamental competition problems.

PPI customers currently have little choice and prices are high because competition is very limited. It is notable that even in the depths of the recession following the financial crisis we found that the economic profits of PPI distributors remained significant.

PPI covers repayments on credit products if the borrower is unable to make repayments due to accident, sickness, unemployment or (in many cases) death. PPI is sold to cover a variety of financial products, but over 90 per cent of PPI sold in the UK is either unsecured personal loan PPI, credit card PPI, mortgage PPI or secured loan PPI.

In its 2009 report, the CC stated that the vast majority of the UK’s more than 12 million PPI policies are sold at the same time as a consumer takes out a loan, credit card or other type of credit.

The CC found that many consumers are unaware that they can buy PPI from other providers, rarely shop around to compare prices and terms and conditions of PPI policies, and rarely switch PPI providers. The resulting ‘point-of-sale’ advantage makes it difficult for other PPI providers to reach credit providers’ customers and in the absence of such competitive pressure, consumers are charged high prices.

During the investigation, the CC liaised closely with the industry regulator, the FSA, which takes the lead on regulating sales practices and tackling mis-selling, as well as the Financial Ombudsman Service, which deals with consumer disputes.

The CC’s focus has been on examining whether there is effective competition in the market as a whole.

The CC will now invite comments on its provisional decision before publishing its final verdict in July. If it upholds its provisional decision, it will move to introduce the full package of measures as swiftly as possible.

Scottish man launches two separate accident claims

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

Scottish man launches two separate accident claims

A Scottish man in his late 50s has launched two separate accident claims, both for factory work accidents in which he suffered personal injury.

A no win no fee solicitor firm has agreed to represent the man in both claims and has lodged all the relevant paperwork, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

It is understood that the first of the claims relates to an incident that occurred in a packing factory near Turiff. It is alleged that the claimant suffered a head injury after banging his head against machinery while transporting eggs across the factory floor.

The second claim refers to an incident which happened at a large-scale bakery, when the claimant suffered an eye injury as a result of it becoming contaminated with a work-related substance.

The defendants have not commented on the cases, other than to say that it is in the hands of their liability insurers.

The claimant is hoping to secure around £50,000 in injury damages for each incident.

Dates have been set for both hearings in January and February 2011.

School Accidents

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

Making Schools Safe For Teachers

School is supposed to be a completely safe environment, protecting the nation’s children against harm. But what about the safety of those who work in schools, and just how safe are our educational establishments?

Even in the relatively safe environment of the classroom, there are hazards. Over the last three years, school staff in one area of the UK – Sunderland and County Durham – have won almost £300,000 in injuries compensation claims. If you then consider that this is just one small area of the country, you can estimate just how many accidents that result in compensation payouts occur across the UK every year.

Of that small sample area, the largest payout was for one of the more modern working illnesses – stress. Other claims were for injuries sustained from lifting heavy furniture, trips, slips and falls, injuries caused by falling objects and even a back injury caused by overstretching to secure a roller shutter.

The National Union of Teachers, quick to dismiss recent press reports of seemingly trivial incidences, has stressed that its members and the union itself only pursue claims where it is clear that an employer has been negligent. And this in itself is probably the most important consideration. Whilst many councils (and privately owned schools) meet strict health and safety guidelines concerning the safety of the children, teachers’ employers must also realise that this duty of care also extends to the adults who work within the education system. A less than stringent approach to maintaining a safe working environment for teachers and staff should be treated in the same way as within any other working environment – swiftly and with the full force of the law.

Teaching is more than just a job; it’s a vocation. Those who go into teaching don’t do it for the money, but that does not give those who run the schools the right to assume that conditions should be any less safe as a result. Teachers and school staff have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. This means that those who run the schools – the local council, education authority and, in some cases, commercial enterprises – have a duty of care to all members of staff to protect them from unnecessary and preventable accidents.

Something as simple as a wet floor can cause a serious injury. If that wet floor does not have a warning sign in place, the school could be held responsible for any injury as a result, including injuries to teachers or staff. Making staff aware of their responsibilities to avoid creating potentially dangerous situations is a matter of training and instruction, but it is also a matter of instructing those who run our schools to treat them in the same way that any other employer treats their working environment.

Mention ‘accidents at work’ to most people and the last environment most would even contemplate as being hazardous would be a school. But in the same way that factories and workshops have the potential to house dangerous situations, so do schools. And those who work in schools and colleges have exactly the same rights as every other worker in the UK. The money spent on compensating injured teachers could be put to far better use improving the overall educational standards of the UK’s schools. Perhaps it is about time that accidents in supposedly ’safe’ environments were taken a little more seriously, and that health and safety legislation designed to protect workers in other occupations was given the same gravitas in schools.

Husband wins £260,000 for surgeon’s medical negligence

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

The husband of a woman who died after gross medical negligence at a private clinic, has received £260,000 in damages.

The 50 year old man sued the plastic surgeon following the loss of his wife of 15 years, after a “tummy tuck” cosmetic operation.

He said as a result of the death he gave up his £39,000-a-year job as a self-employed builder to care for the couple’s daughter.

His 36 year old wife died in 1999 after undergoing an abdominoplasty at the Highgate Hospital, London.

The High Court, sitting in Bristol, heard that complications developed and she slipped into a coma.

Two days after the £5,500 operation she had to be moved to the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, where she died a day later.

Awarding the compensation claim damages, Judge Paul Darlow said: “There were devastating post-operative complications as a result of which her life was taken away at the age of 36.”

After the hearing her husband stated: “This is the end of a terrible episode for my family.”

His injury lawyers added: “This operation should not have gone ahead at all. But because the medics failed to note the important warning signs, they proceeded and she died.”