Must I claim for injury via the Army Compensation Scheme?

Discussion in 'Finance, Property, Law' started by DoubleDown, Aug 19, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Now nearing 22 years service, I have for the first time found the necessity to claim for an injury I received as a passenger in a Military Vehicle car accident (with a civi vehicle). I have been advised to seek guidance from the Army Compensation Scheme.

    With the recent news that the ACS are attempting to recover compensation from injured soldiers who have already received compensation, I feel reluctant to lodge my claim thru military channels.

    Would it be considered dis-loyal if I lodged my claim with a civilian company? I have done some research and there is a company set up by ex-military personnel who, whilst they don't deal exclusively with Military claims, they do have a good reputation for results where Mil personnel have signed up with them.

    I would be grateful for any guidance.
  2. You need legal advice. But I think you may find you don't have a choice. The compensation scheme deprives you of your other legal rights. But you need to lawyer up before signing anything.
  3. But surely this goes against my right to use whoever I want to represent my case?

    Besides, I think it was the civi who was at fault for the accident as he hit our vehicle in the rear.

    I will speak to the company in question and see what they say.

  4. Duffdike, Thats total aarse! Any one that is serving or has served and has had an accident inside a certain time frame (3 years I think) is entitled to make a claim for personal injury through any organisation they like. I used a company called Pro-cover claims consultants to claim compensation for whip lash after a prang in a land rover. I was the passenger! I got £1200 within 7 months.
    I was initially told I had no right to claim and that seemed to be the party line but this company are ex military and know the score.
  5. Yes, Pro-cover Claims Consultants were the company recommended to me (I didn't think we were allowed to put company names on here) Anyhow, I have since spoken to them and whilst they did not put me under any pressure, they did explain that they are well equipped for handling claims for personal injury from soldiers. Their solicitors are Military Specialists and they have helped many soldiers.

    Has anybody else used them at all?

    Has anyone had a bad experience with this company?

    For anyone interested, their website address is

    I will continue to update on progress.
  6. I tried one of the accident management firm that advertise on telly (The one with the bloke from the Krays film?) but they were flapping over the fact that my accident was on a military training area and never got back to me (Quantity not quality?).
    The firm run by squads were always letting me know how my case was going.
    About time we had good advice. Shame its only the ex-services that seem to care.
  7. There is some confusion in the OPs question between who can represent him (any one he likes) and who the claim is being made against. It sounds like another parties insurers.
  8. According to the company, it doesn't make a difference who is at fault as long as it isn't me. They have handled claims for soldiers who were injured as a passenger in a Military vehicle that skidded off the road and hit a tree.

    Another concern for me is, does the paying of compensation for injuries sustained in an accident (not as a result of enemy action) mean there is less money for equipment out in Afghan?

    Or does the compensation paid for an RTA injury come from the insurer?
  9. Now that is what all the crusty, moustache twiddlers say! The defence budget is nothing to do with compensation claims.
    Compensation for those injured in Afghanistan (For example) comes from ACS and that as far as I am aware is paid for by the good old tax payer, so quite why the MOD keep trying to scrounge money back from those that have been injured is beyond me.
    The money for those claiming for injury in an RTA (Army Land rover VS Civvie Boy racer for example) will get the money from the "at fault" drivers insurance provider. If its the Landrover drivers fault but his passenger/s are injured then they will claim from the MOD insurance provider. It is a vehicle after all and does require a normal insurance policy and therefore its there to cover injury to others. If a civvie had a shunt they wouldnt hesitate to claim for injury. Its just us squaddies that suffer in silence and then wonder why we cant claim when we leave.
  10. Don't worry about the moral issue. Claim whatever you are entitled to from whoever is liable.
  11. Almost True. Its totally moral. You should claim what you are entitled to.
  12. I must confess that when I first read the thread, I somehow got the the impression that you and rodondodominguez were actually from Pro-Cover
    and were working the old 'promote the firm under the guise of a phoney question' routine.

    Then I saw that the two directors of Pro-Cover were ex-SIB and so of course they wouldn't sink to such subterfuge.
  13. Not me chief! My barb test was just enough to scrape into the infantry. Not that you see much evidence of brain power in the monkeys eh?
  14. My bold. The MoD doesn't have an insurance provider for its vehicles: it covers the liability itself from the defence budget. MoD vehicles are exempt from normal insurance requirements. That's why you never see a certificate of motor insurance in a works ticket.