NASAG

Archive for the ‘Press Releases’ Category

NASAG were recently asked to complete a DWP Consultation on Accessing Compensation

This is our reply:

The Northeast Asbestos Support and Awareness Group provide help and advice to the victims, and their families, of asbestos related diseases throughout the North East of England. We welcome this consultation. The establishment of an ELIB will ensure that those suffering the painful and often debilitating effects of asbestos related diseases are given justice.

Question 1.
Is this the correct data to be recorded or is there something else needed to properly identify policies?

Yes this is the correct data but we would ask that the Companies House registration number also be added, as well as the Firm Reference Number (FRN).

Question 2.
Is there a better unique employer identifier than the employer’s reference number provided by HMRC to facilitate tracing of EL insurance policies?

No, but see our response to question 1.

Question 3.
Which historic records would it be feasible and proportionate for the insurance industry to include in any electronic database?

We believe all historic records should be included in any database to safeguard against any loss or destruction of these records.

Question 4.
How should an electronic database be funded?

The insurers should fund the database.

Question 5.
Who should be represented on the board and what structure should such a board take?

Victim’s organisations should be represented on the board along with the insurance industry, with an independent Chair.

Question 6.
Should the coverage of an ELIB be limited to where there is a legal requirement to insure, as is the case with MIB, or should the ELIB provide universal coverage?

The ELIB should provide universal coverage, and should include pre 1972 claims. All workers should be protected through insurance.

Question 7.
How should an ELIB be funded?

ELIB should be funded by the insurance industry.

Question 8.
What would be the impact on insurers and employers of establishing an ELIB?

There would be a saving on the cost incurred on tracing.

Question 9.
Should the level of general damages be based on amounts being awarded in the courts or on some different basis?

It should be based on the amounts being awarded by the courts.

Question 10.
Should the level of compensation be decided based on an individual’s needs or on a fixed Tariff?

See response to question 9.

Question 11.
Should Special Damages be incorporated within a fixed Tariff or should they be dealt with on an individual basis?

See response to question 9.

Question 12.
Should an ELIB cover all claims, long-tail disease or just those with mesothelioma?

It should cover all claims.

Question 13.
How could we ensure an ELIB paid out in all appropriate claims and not those that would otherwise not have been paid?

By using court based procedures.

Question 14.
What level of evidence is needed to settle claims if contemporary records have been destroyed?

See response to question 14, all evidence will be tested in accordance with court procedures.

Question 15.
How should an ELIB start to meet claims to ensure fairness to claimants and funding at the start of any scheme?

Claims should be dealt with in accordance with civil law. Sufficient funding should be available to meet successful claims.

Question 16.
Should an EIIB meet claims to dependants after the person has died if a claim has not previously been compromised?

Yes.

Question 17.
Should there be limitations on the time a person can take to bring a claim to the ELIB: if so, when should that start?

Yes, there limitations would be tested by the Limitations Act 1980.

Question 18.
Would the introduction of an ELIB have an impact on employer ELCI compliance?

It would have a positive impact.

Question 19.
What more can be done to ensure that employers which are legally obliged to obtain ELCI do so?

Bring back the requirement to display their EL policy.

Some Asbestos Victims will Lose Compensation to Fund it.

The new and welcomed scheme to pay a lump to all mesothelioma sufferers, irrespective of occupational exposure, came into effect on 1 October 2008.

However we are shocked to discover that some asbestosis and mesothelioma sufferers will lose compensation in order to fund the scheme.

Asbestosis victims who cannot trace all the employers who exposed them to asbestos are only paid a proportion of damages in law. Consequently the courts did not allow them to lose out the whole of their government lump sum payment. From 1 October this will change and the government will recover the full lump sum from partial damages in law.

Turner & Newall victims who only receive a small percentage of their compensation from T&N Funds were allowed to keep government lump sum payments. From 1 October, this will change and the government will recover the full lump sum.

This is not an unintended consequence of the new Act. It is deliberate policy and we are calling on the government to amend the legislation so that asbestos victims do not end up funding the new scheme. Some could lose a third of their compensation.

Bob Stephenson, NASAG said this was never made clear when the new scheme was announced. A scheme we welcomed and praised the government for. We want the government to immediately take steps to stop funding the new scheme by reducing further the small amounts of compensation received by some asbestos victims.