Recent reports conducted by The Association of British Insurers (ABI) have revealed that the UK is classed as the "whiplash capital of Europe" with an average of 4 out of 5 of all personal injury claims being for people who are attempting to claim whiplash injuries following a road traffic accident. Presently, it has been estimated that the total expense of whiplash claims amount to £2 billion each year.

Despite constant reassurances that Insurers want to reduce whiplash claims, provide fast care and compensation and tackle fraudulent claims; there is an ever increasing concern that insurers are in fact under compensating victims who have suffered a genuine personal injury, but are not legally represented.

It has become common place for insurers to contact individuals who have been injured directly, in an attempt to get them to settle any potential personal injury claims for a lump sum payment, without the need for any representation from a solicitor, or without a report produced by a medical expert to confirm the extent of any injuries. This process is referred to as third-party capture.

This practice is very appealing to a lot of people, as it appears to be a fast and efficient way of ensuring that they receive some form of compensation without having to go through the process of instructing a firm of solicitors and going through the usual claims process which can often last a period of 6 months or sometimes even longer.

Solicitors are arguing that it is unethical for third-party captures to continue, as there appears to be a fundamental conflict of interest, as insurers are not acting in the best interests of the injured party, because the main aim of any settlement is to ensure that the lowest amount of compensation is paid out, in an attempt to ensure that their company costs are kept down.

In one instance where an insurance company attempted to resolve a claim without the injured party having representation, the claimant was offered a settlement of £5,000, however once she sought legal advice, it was discovered that her injuries were far more serious than previously believed and eventually her claim settled for the sum £150,000. Therefore there is a clear discrepancy between the actual value of a claim and the amounts being offered to unrepresented individuals by insurers.

Insurers have attempted to defend the use of third-party capture, by arguing that they are necessary in an attempt to halt spiralling costs and reduce the costs involved in litigation and ultimately safeguard their customer's premiums.

A major concern of the use of the third-party capture process is that individuals are left to assess the merit of any settlement offered themselves and in the majority of cases, they are not aware whether they are being offered a sufficient amount for the injuries that they have sustained.

Insurers have again attempted to defend themselves against such allegations by stating that they provide parties with enough information to make an informed decision at an early stage and advise individuals of their right to instruct representation. Some insurers offer individuals the option of referring the matter to a firm of &a-personal-injury.html" target="_new" whiplash claim solicitors . However, this process of instruction can again cause conflicts of interest, as it is unlikely that the solicitors firm instructed will act in the best interests of the client when it is in fact the insurance company that are providing them with their work.