Who changed the concept of "accident compensation" in the UK? Not long after Legal Aid was dropped in favour of no win, no fee arrangements, we saw the introduction of claims handlers. The biggest in the beginning was Claims Direct. The concept was that a "claims handler" (salesman) would visit people who have had an accident under the guise of an "investigator" but what they were really there for was to sign the client up to a £1500 "after-the-event" (ATE) insurance policy.

ATE insurance means that if the case wins, the solicitor running the case tries to claim those costs back as necessary "legal costs" from the losing third party. But, cleverly, it was a "self-underwriting" policy -- this meant that if the case lost in court, the ATE insurance paid for itself and all the legal fees involved. Sound fishy? It kind of was. But it meant that anyone could have a go at claiming because it was free to try!

This is where the trouble really kicked off as "no win, no fee" was taken to mean "have-a-go!" by all the people watching the ads. That general concept has never really changed. The public perception of suing is therefore clouded as they believe that third parties have no rights and there are no repercussions for trying it on.

They are wrong, though, as a spate of court judgements in recent years has proven. These days many third parties end up winning money from the person suing them. Especially if that individual is proven to have lied during proceedings, faked an injury or got other people to lie for them.