Must I claim for injury via the Army Compensation Scheme?

#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.

Thanks
 
#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 www.pro-coverclaims.com

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.
 
#13
DoubleDown said:
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 www.pro-coverclaims.com

I will continue to update on progress.
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.
 
#15
rodondodominguez said:
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.
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.
 
#16
Thats crap. No insurance provider? No certificate of insurance? I think you need to speak to your MT bloke quick fast.

MOD vehicles are not exempt from normal insurance requirements. Give me an example? Green fleet are exempt tax discs but have to have the military equivalent of an MOT certificate and thats about it.

So if what your suggesting is true (and it is not), if I were to go insane and crash my wolf landrover into a poor civvie in his Citroen C5 and I would have to produce my work ticket with the insurance details.
Its a legal requirement to provide these details at the scene of an accident.

All (and I do mean all) military and civillian vehicles must have a certificate of motor insurance.
 
#17
rodondodominguez said:
Thats crap. No insurance provider? No certificate of insurance? I think you need to speak to your MT bloke quick fast.

MOD vehicles are not exempt from normal insurance requirements. Give me an example? Green fleet are exempt tax discs but have to have the military equivalent of an MOT certificate and thats about it.

So if what your suggesting is true (and it is not), if I were to go insane and crash my wolf landrover into a poor civvie in his Citroen C5 and I would have to produce my work ticket with the insurance details.
Its a legal requirement to provide these details at the scene of an accident.

All (and I do mean all) military and civillian vehicles must have a certificate of motor insurance.
Actually it's correct. If you go to this address:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CC4F4816-D663-42AA-959F-3022003A5D7B/0/leaf_47.pdf

you'll get a bit more detail. Of particular note is Annex C, Appendix 2, Page 1, Para 2 where it states that 'the Ministry of Defence self-insures its core activites'.
 
#18
I would like to draw your attention to exactly the same publication that you have so cleverly quoted and note that the title of the reference material is as follows: LEAFLET 47 ANNEX C APPENDIX 2
HEALTH AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF MOD EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR OPEN DAYS, DISPLAYS AND OTHER FUNCTIONS
Please read that again.........Yes thats right, we are discussing insurance policies for vehicles and you decide to quote regs for running BBQ's with cadets. Your clearly not at the pointy end are you but infact seem hell bent on trying to prove im talking shite! Alterior motive perhaps? If you can prove me wrong (and you wont because I am 100% correct) I will eat my boots.
Next!
 
#19
duffdike said:
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.

Hmm think you need to change your avatar to "Cock and Dangerous"
 
#20
and too put another bee in the administrations bonnet, lets discuss the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) shall we!

Anybody actually beleive its a good thing designed to help the boys? or have they spotted that its a system thrust into peoples faces to stop people taking claims to court and getting the compensation a soldier injured on or off duty deserves.

AFCS compensates the injury only eg: If you lose a leg in Afghanistan then the AFCS will pay you as an example (Dont quote me) £10000.

You have just bought your missing leg. You have not been compensated for the onward difficulty and hardship that you will endure for the rest of your life and you have just saved the MOD thousands and thousands of pounds by not taking it to court.

A solicitor will fight to get you compensation for the injury, the mental effects that the loss of the leg has and will have and will also get you compensation for the things that you will no longer be able to do in the future because of your disability.

Any comments?
 

Latest Threads