Kerry Underwood


with 11 comments



 A claims handler contacted a Solicitor’s client direct after receipt of the Claim Notification Form showing details of the client’s Solicitor.

The claims handler tells the client not to contact their own Solicitors “as this may reduce our chances of successfully investigating this matter.”

It also tells the client, its opponent, that “we may take immediate steps to protect the personal data we hold about you and investigate the matter on your behalf.”

Here is the text of the letter from Markerstudy Group and here is the link to the letter.


Markerstudy Group

Markerstudy Claims Department

PO Box 726


S40 9LG

Tel: 0844 973 8184

Fax: 0844 824 1666




6 July 2015


Claim Number: TT15530085

Our Insured:

Date of Incident: 30 June 2015



On 2nd July 2015 we received a formal notification that you intend to claim against our policyholder for bodily injury sustained in a road traffic accident on the above date. This notification was received from the following solicitors, who claim to have received instructions from you.

[ Name redacted by me]


What you need to do now

Your next course of action depends on whether or not you have instructed the solicitors named above.

  1. a) If you have instructed the company:

if the company referred to above is known to you and you have provided them with formal instructions to pursue a claim on your behalf, we simply ask that you contact us with confirmation. You can do this by one of the following methods:

1) Call us on 01245 254091

2) E-mail us at

3) Write to us at PO Box 726, Chesterfield, S40 9LG

Please quote our reference number when contacting us

Following confirmation from you, all further communication regarding your claim will be directed to the solicitors and you will receive no further contact from us directly.


  1. b) If you have NOT instructed the company:

if you have no knowledge of the company referred to above and/or you have not issued them with any formal instructions to pursue a claim on your behalf please contact us immediately by calling 01245 254091 or by e-mailing us at so that we can take immediate steps to protect the personal data we hold about you and investigate the matter on your behalf.

To assist with investigations please include a telephone number, to enable us to contact you to obtain any further information required.

Please rest assured any communication with you will be treated in the strictest confidence. Please do not contact the company referred to above as this may reduce our chances of successfully investigating this matter.

General Information

As part of the claims process we will register your personal details with the Department of Works Pensions (DWP) Compensation Recovery Unit; this being a statutory requirement. The DWP works with Insurers to recover benefits arising out of insurance claims.

Markerstudy passes claim information to the Claims and Underwriting Exchange register (administered by IDC Ltd), MIAFTR (administered by the ABI) and other databases in order to assist with the prevention and detection of fraud. We will also search these and other databases, as well as share claims data with other insurers and organisations for the same purposes.


Yours sincerely


Claims Department.


Written by kerryunderwood

January 15, 2016 at 9:24 am

Posted in Uncategorized

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. There are no words. Oh wait, yes there are. Morally reprehensible, underhanded, deceitful, scandalous, devious, amoral…

    A. Cynic

    January 15, 2016 at 11:47 am

  2. NFU Mutual have done something like this recently to one of my clients after we sent them a Letter Before Action on a non-PI claim. My client was unsophisticated and didn’t appreciate his actions by settling directly with them. Very naughty behaviour by insurers.

    Please keep up your good work by calling these insurers out, Kerry.


    January 16, 2016 at 12:36 pm

  3. Thank you. If you could send me details of that case that would be helpful. I will not publish anything without your prior permission and will anonymise the client’s details.



    January 19, 2016 at 9:16 am

  4. Hi Kerry

    Insurers and issues I have with them.

    I am in dispute with Allianz having requested the £30 per set of medical records in addition to my fixed portal costs as I understood CPR 45.19 t0 allowed solicitors to claim the £30 per set of records(ie:£30 plus the cost from the provider of the records not exceeding £80 in total).

    I set out relevant section of rules below.The insurers argue this is for medical agencies and is a disbursement. If they are right them medical agencies who obtain the medical records(and no doubt never consider them)are entitled to at least £30 per set and we as solicitors who obtain them and consider them are entitled to nothing.

    Is there any authority for the proposition that these additional sums of £30 per set are payable to the solicitor if the solicitor has obtained them direct. Am I totally wrong and the insurers right? Their argument rests upon the fact that this additional fee is referred to within the disbursements section of Rule 45.It seems wholly wrong that we go to the time and expense of getting and considering records but cannot be paid for it whilst agencies do.

    relevant section of cpr 45.19
    (1) Subject to paragraphs (2A) to (2E), the court –
    (a) may allow a claim for a disbursement of a type mentioned in paragraphs (2) or (3); but
    (b) will not allow a claim for any other type of disbursement.
    (2) In a claim to which either the RTA Protocol or EL/PL Protocol applies, the disbursements referred to in paragraph (1) are –
    (a) the cost of obtaining –
    (i) medical records;
    (c) obtaining medical records: no more than £30 plus the direct cost from the holder of the records, and limited to £80 in total for each set of records required. Where relevant records are required from more than one holder of records, the fixed fee applies to each set of records required;
    (d) addendum report on medical records (except by Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon): £50; and

    Any help you can offer would be appreciated.


    Phil Watters

    Phil Watters

    January 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    • Phil

      I am sure that you are right and they are wrong and have never had, nor heard of, this point being raised, and for the reasons that you set out it must be nonsense.

      Also reference is to “the holder of the records” which clearly the medical agency is not, so if anything it should be the other way round.




      January 21, 2016 at 8:00 pm

      • Thanks as always Kerry.Does your firm routinely recover the £30 fee when obtaining medical records?


        January 21, 2016 at 8:23 pm

  5. Phil

    I may have misunderstood you. You cannot charge extra profit costs – disbursements are disbursements and fixed costs are fixed costs and this was a deliberate concession to Medical Agencies. I had assumed that you operated through your own Medical Agency and so effectively paid yourself, in which case you can charge the full MRO fee and the £30, although you must declare it to the client.

    Hope that is clear! 🙂



    January 22, 2016 at 10:07 am

  6. Hi Kerry,

    Before I begin, I work for one of the main insurers and thought I give you an insight on why these letters are being sent out, I appreciate that your clients receiving letters like the above are infuriating but there are a small minority of solicitors that have a tendency of sending CNFs without instruction.

    I think we know who one of the solicitors are that I am referring to as they have been mentioned in “Insurers at it again” previously and another which will remain nameless, this causes insurers a problem, they have a responsibility to protect their client and the company, I admit some insurers get that the wrong way round.

    Now what should happen, is that insurers contact the third party to confirm and only confirm that they indeed instructed the solicitors, we also have to do this when solicitors representing a mutual client contact us as per DPA.

    Having reviewed the letter, I fail to see an issue with it, they are not offering to deal with the case, they are chasing confirmation that a CNF they have received is legit which is the first part and confirm once this has been received they will direct their correspondence to the solicitors. However, if the handler from the insurer contacted your client, got confirmation that solicitors were instructed but then continued in trying to settle direct with your client ignoring that solicitors were instructed then that is a different kettle of fish.

    The second part which have you quoted relates to when the person on the CNF which the insurer has contacted confirms that they did not instruct the firm, they have advised the person not to contact the firm as potentially a fraudulent instruction has been received,

    The letter does not state to the client not to contact their firm of solicitors but rather not to contact a firm if they did not give them instruction or have any knowledge of their involvement.

    Phantom2448 (@Phantom2448)

    February 26, 2016 at 11:48 pm

    • Lay clients are often very frightened and intimidated by such behaviour by insurers.


      February 29, 2016 at 10:30 am

  7. Phantom what no reply to Kerry’s point how rude

    John fairhurst

    April 19, 2016 at 11:25 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: