Cycle Accident Helpline | 0800 756 9708

Mother vows never to dye her hair again

The Daily Mail has recently reported on a case where Lyn Gregory had an allergic reaction to Schwarzkopf Live Colour.

She advised that, even though she did a skin test and showed no sign of reaction, she suffered an allergic reaction so severe that her GP had to prescribe steroids, and it took eight weeks for her skin to heal.

Lyn, 56, from Poole, claims that she suffered the reaction despite having completed a skin test 48 hours earlier, and having used the product before.

Ms Gregory was prescribed steroids by her GP for the blistering skin reaction that she suffered, and cut her hair to stop it brushing her neck and irritating the blistered skin.

She was forced to take time off from her job as a housing officer for the local authority as the reaction worsened.

In addition to the steroid Lyn was prescribed antibiotics and a cream.

Ms Gregory said ‘I only left the house to go to the doctors or the supermarket. Everyone would stare at me like I was a freak’.

‘It made me feel awful in myself as well. Everyone was very worried about me’.

At the time the story went to print Nicky Hastings, a representative from Schwarzkopf , said ‘We are sorry to hear about Mrs Gregory’s reaction and hope that she has now fully recovered.

We were advise of Ms Gregory’s reaction by her solicitor. As such we are not able to comment in such circumstances’.

At Injuria we have many clients who have suffered in incidents similar to Ms Gregory. Reactions to hair dye, hair treatments, beauty products and beauty treatments are not as unusual as you might think, and can result in severe symptoms, as suffered by Ms Gregory in the report in the Daily Mail.

If you have suffered a similar reaction, or would like advice regarding any treatment that has gone wrong, please do not hesitate to contact our expert team for advice.

How to win friends and influence access to justice

On the eve of the Judicial Review into the reduction of fixed fees payable to Claimant Lawyers representing injured motorists -  it is perhaps timely to read that Peter Wood, and his fellow investors in E-sure, stand to share a fortune of as much as £500 million when E-Sure is listed on the stock market.

Firstly – don’t get me wrong – I think that Peter Wood is an exceptional entrepreneur, who has helped transform the general insurance business.

My difficulty here is squaring the circle that is – if the insurance lobby are right – and all motor insurers are now something akin to charities – working for no reward – at the mercy of Claimants, Claims Management Companies and Claimant  Solicitors – how is it that E-Sure, in the depth of a recession, report a 110% increase in pre tax profits, to £115.5 million last year. Or, for that matter, how Direct Line, a company founded by Peter Wood, increased the operating profit of its Motor Insurance division to £261.8 m.

If the general insurance business is so poor – the victim of a ‘compensation culture’ - then why is there an appetite in the City for a flotation that is expected to value E-Sure at between £600 million and £1 billion?

Perhaps another question for the eve of the Judicial Review would be – how is it that the Insurance Lobby have been so successful in getting their message across to Government. Why is it that the government has refused Freedom of Information requests into what was discussed, promised and agreed at the Downing Street Summit between government and the insurers?

Perhaps you really do get what you pay for…………..

Sounds like his mind is made up before the process even began? Why would that be?

Perhaps it comes back to the success of the insurance lobby. If you want your voice heard, and your interests represented at the highest level, how would you go about that?

Perhaps you would try and buy some influence. When Chris Grayling was Shadow Home Secretary, Peter Wood, founder of E-Sure, founder of Direct Line (you remember him) paid £71000.00 to run Grayling’s office.

According to an investigation by the Guardian, financial firms with insurance interests have given the Tories £5.4m in the last decade, £4.9 m since Cameron became leader.

Calm down dear – it’s only access to justice.

And why does this matter? The reduction in fixed fees, which represents a 60% cut in legal fees payable by the negligent party,  is just part of a raft of measures being driven through by this government that will drastically reduce access to justice for the innocent injured party. The government is proceeding with these reforms directly against the advice of their own experts. There is a driving force here that is creating a perfect storm for the injured victims, and how they will access justice in the future. 

The problem with Access to Justice is once its gone, its gone.

Gavin Hannah

Last month it was widely reported that a mother had won a 14 year battle to win compensation for her brain damaged son from the Hospital where he was born.

The case involved the Royal Bournemouth Hospital, and Clare Scott’s fight on behalf of her son Charlie.

This tragic case highlights an often unreported problem within the insurance industry.

 

In recent years the NHS, Government and Insurance lobby, often with the full support of the press, have painted all Claimant Personal Injury Lawyers as the villain of the piece – fat cat lawyers, pursuing frivolous claims at the expense of the NHS / Local Authority / Insurance Companies / Joe Public (delete as appropriate).

Unfortunately, for Claimant lawyers, the counter argument is not as sensational, and does not suit sound bite culture quite so well. Consequently they struggle to get their message across.

However this case, whilst exceptional, highlights one of the real problems that Claimant lawyers face, and one of the major contributors to the high legal costs that Defendants complain of.

It took 12 years for the Defendant to admit liability. 12 years. One can only imagine what legal costs would be run up by both Claimant and Defendant in such a period of time.

Whilst we read reports of fraudulent and frivolous claims, we see little of spurious and frivolous defences -  defences run by the self same parties who then complain of the legal costs that they have to bear.

The success of the insurance lobby, and the governments wish to reduce the amounts paid in compensation by the NHS and local councils, has resulted in a rash of legislation, much of which is to be implemented in April of this year.

This legislation will undoubtedly restrict access to justice for the innocent victims. The legislation is being rushed through, some being implemented directly against the advice of the experts whom the government have appointed to review it.

The problem of course is that with access to justice - once its gone, its gone.

You have to be a robust and well funded Claimant solicitor to run case such as the one reported – to fight for 12 years to get to the point where liability is admitted – to risk running a case for that length of time and receive nothing.

The proposed sweeping changes, reduction in costs, the inability of solicitors to insure the majority of their cases – will mean that in the near future there will not be the number of Claimant solicitors that there are today – and that those left will be more risk averse through commercial necessity.

Insurers will often tell you that they can deal with the Claimant direct – that Claimant solicitors are an unnecessary, and costly, addition to the process.

Where would that have left Clare Scott, her son Charlie – and the many thousands like them, whose claims are originally denied, only to be admitted years later, or at the door of the Court, once extensive legal costs have been built up on each side.

Gavin Hannah