The one stop source for breaking news, expert analysis, and podcasts on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares

Join ShareProphets at less than 2p per article

> All the big AIM fraud exposés

> 300 articles and podcasts a month

> Hot share tips

> Original investigations by our experienced team

> No ads, no click-bait, no auto-play videos

Find out more

Now RSA shouts about fraudulent industrial deafness claims – ref Quindell

By Tom Winnifrith | Monday 22 September 2014

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The Bulletin Board Morons do not seem to understand that if an Industrial Deafness case is lost Quindell (QPP) earns nothing it just incurs cost. So the mushrooming of bogus claims will not generate any cash for Quenron although it is happily accruing income on the basis that it takes on and wins 6,000 cases a month. Given that the number of claims settles has not risen above 20,000 across the while UK for many years, it is inevitable that at some stage it will have to write back all or nearly all of its accrued income from ID, prompting a profits warning. It will also mean that Quindell runs out of cash. The only question is when?

As such as a reminder of what is going on I bring you an article from The Times out today flagging up statements made by Insurance giant RSA. It reads:

Claims for industrial deafness have surged in the past five years amid fears that it has become a new hunting ground for claims management firms and personal injury lawyers.

Days after the Association of British Insurers warned that industrial deafness had become a new “cash cow” for the legal profession, leading insurers have published figures that deepen such concerns. RSA, operator of the More Than brand, said that it had received more than 800 new claims for industrial deafness every month last year, almost double the 450 a month coming in two years previously. The company, which believes that the system is being exploited, said that it rejected about 70% of all of the claims that came in. “Deafness is a major issue for the insurance industry,” a spokeswoman said. “It is certainly true that we have seen an increase in industrial deafness claims over recent years.

We agree with the ABI that this is an area that claims farmers and fraudsters are actively targeting and it requires reform. We are doing all we can to combat this fraud, but believe that the government should be doing more.”

Aviva said that its deafness claims had risen from 2,400 in 2009 to 11,467 last year. At Axa, more than half of the insurer’s claims on employers’ liability insurance last year related to industrial deafness and claims volumes for the condition were double that of the previous year. David Williams, managing director at Axa Insurance, said: “In the same way as whiplash-related injuries, the lack of a clear diagnostic framework has meant that deafness in the workplace can be used as the basis of exaggerated or fraudulent claims. “We very rarely receive claims directly from individuals — the overwhelming majority come from solicitors — and it appears that a high proportion are speculative; 75% of claims are not pursued once we have requested evidence of the injury or the claim is challenged.” 

Central to the problem, according to insurers, are the high fees on offer to lawyers. Only last week, the ABI said that the average legal fee for a claimant lawyer for settling an industrial deafness claim last year was £10,500, compared with only £500 for a low-level whiplash claim. It also compared with the average compensation paid out to a sufferer of industrial deafness of £3,100, the ABI claimed.

In response, lawyers say that cases can be complex and claimants have to be allowed access to a proper civil justice system. John Spencer, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: “Deafness is a serious problem with an impact on people’s social, family and working lives. Those who succeed in making a claim do so because negligence is proven. “The onset of deafness can happen years after exposure to the noise which caused the harm, so identifying the employer responsible is not always straightforward. For solicitors these cases can be difficult, particularly when the responsible employer persists in denying liability.”


Shares in Quenron are a sell with a target price of 1p.

Filed under:

Never miss a story.

This area of the site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.

More on QPP



  1. Dominic Cooper

    @kulbas. Are you K B who got banned? There is something ever so slightly unhinged about what you write.

    It may surprise you to know that people are interested in truth being revealed and liars being found out for a multitude of reasons. I, for one will be delighted when Quindenron finally get shuts down.

    But I do not hold a single penny in their worthless shares, nor any CFD / short position on them. Your insinuation is that anyone criticising His Holiness Lord Robert of Terry is doing so to profit from a co-ordinated shorting attack.

  2. There was a long piece on this in the Times – QPP was not mentioned….

  3. Andrew

    The Thunderer may be scared of Mr 2=2 can = 5’s lawyers so won’t mention Quenron by name. I am not scared.


  4. Perhaps Qunidell can take a leaf out of Tesco’s book and call in fresh auditors, lawyers and not to mention the FSA to get to the bottom of the over egged a/c’s.

  5. Dominic Cooper


    so – as if by magic – it wasn’t you then who immediately posted a copy of your note in the QPP LSE website in order to prove that Tom is doing this in order to further a co-ordinated short attack?

    I’d give you about a 4 out of ten. Good effort, but must try harder. Next time you’re in Hampshire, there’s a firm that may need the services of a guy like you.

    It’s a scaffolding company called QPP / sorry a mobile phone reseller / sorry a golf club / sorry a sector-leading provider of software related insurance outsourcing services / sorry the world’s largest law firm / sorry bestpriced hot deals on garden equipment.

  6. Hi Tom

    Kulbas’s first post above is being quoted on LSE share chat, to the detriment of you and ShareProphets. Kulbas is very likely kb who you recently banned. If he continues to spout this rubbish, please ban him again!


    Why don’t you move to LSE share chat (Quindell page). This has numerous resident idiots, so I am sure you will feel more at home!

  7. It may be informative if I give an example of how Quindell’s industrial deafness claims work, in practice.

    I have a relative, aged 70, who was cold-called concerning industrial deafness. An appointment was made at a local hotel. Firstly, there was the hearing test (surprise, surprise my relative was suffering from industrial deafness) then he was immediately signed up by Silverbeck Rymer (Quindell’s solicitor arm). My relative was impressed by the efficiency of the process – he likened it to an industrial production line.

    My relative did work in a textile factory for 7 years from 1965. He was a junior manger and, although that involved visits to the factory floor, he was by no means there all the time. My relative has never worked in a noisy environment since. He has slight hearing loss – probably greater than age related, but certainly not excessive. His family has a history of slight hearing loss. My relative happily states he spent lots of time in noisy night clubs in the relevant period and played loud music in his bedroom. He takes the view that if someone is willing to get him a few thousand pounds for hearing loss, on a no win, no fee basis, then why not? Given the history of whiplash claims in this country, I expect lots of other people contacted by Quindell will take a similar view.

    My relative next received a letter plus supporting documentation from Quindell. In that letter Quindell said it had to obtain employment history confirmation from the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) and this process was taking a long time (not good for the cashflow!).

    If Quindell are going to process 6000 cases a month, then I presume that involves 6000 requests a month to the DWP for employment history. This is going to be time consuming and labour intensive for the DWP, since many of the relevant records precede computerisation. Does anybody know who is paying for these requests? Are Quindell being charged say £250 per request, or is the UK tax payer meeting the bill?

    Many of Quindell’s claims involve UK industries long since defunct – for example, the textiles industry. The company my relative worked for went into administration in 1975. My relative raised, in his initial meeting with Silverbeck Rymer, how it could make a claim, when his previous employer was long since defunct. Silverback Rymer confirmed it could still make a claim. My relative is not absolutely sure, but he believed he was advised the claim would go to the DWP. Does anybody know if this is correct? If so, the UK tax payer is going to fund a significant proportion of these claims, many of which may well be fraudulent, and all of which will have excessive legal fees attaching.

  8. Thought everyone realised long ago that “kulbas” is KB in disguise? His subtext-laden posts started exactly the same time KB was banned for his repetitive gibberish.

  9. David Talbot,

    I do not believe the DWP will be picking up any of the costs. Employers Liability insurance claims are made on a claims occurring basis therefore the insurer who provided insurance to the long since defunct company will have to pay the claim should it prove successful. It is also my understanding that the DWP has back loaded all employee records.

    So the only losers should be Quindell if they fail to make the required number of successful ID claims.

    It should also be noted that insurance companies have been quite successful in not paying asbestosis claims for decades and if ID start to become expensive I would expect them to act in a similar way and that can not be good news for Quindell.

  10. Hoggness

    Many thanks for the clarification re Employers Liability Insurance – I had assumed claims would be time limited.

    I do wonder, however, if the DWP has all past employment records to hand, why it is apparently taking it many months to reply to Quindell’s requests for employment records. Also, I should still like Quindell charged a realistic fee for each request.

  11. Good to see the share price beginning to fall now .

    Morons , get out now while you still can . Rob Terry has conned you . You have been had and its time for you to get angry and sell his monster creation. 75% of all hearing loss claims are being rejected by insurers . The business model is doomed . The predicted income is not real.

    Fleece a moron a day , it helps you work rest and play .

    Theres only one thing thicker than a QPP moron ……….. thats two QPP morons acting in concert.

Enter your comment below. Fields marked * are required. You must preview your comment first before finally posting.

Site by Everywhen