Your examples – quoting social landlords, particularly councils, and insurance companies – lend weight to the general view that people are suing more than ever before. Their behaviour, you claim, is encouraged by the "no win, no fee" system.
But maybe it is not always because of spurious or fraudulent claims but often because of inefficiency and multiple failures by the social landlord.
I have worked in social housing for some 25 years in roles including asset management and maintenance/repairs. In my experience, even if a potential risk is pointed out to any landlord, it is not always logged, it often gets lost in the bureaucracy, or the information is not passed onto appropriate staff or sections.
Then, when there is an incident, if the victim regards the incident as an accident or his or her fault then no one will necessarily realise the risk still exists.
If, on the other hand, the resident seeks advice from Citizens Advice, the library, internet or solicitors, they may find that there is a possible case of negligence.
What should be explored more rigorously is why failed or weak cases involve the social landlord spending huge amounts.
You end the article by suggesting ways of reducing risk exposure for social landlords. None of this is new or rocket science.
Maybe if social landlords did practise accurate and 100% potential and actual risk capture, information sharing, regular inspections of their land and properties and swifter claim processing then "Sick as a budgie" would be stopped in its tracks. It is called "joined-up action".
Another thing: have you tried making a genuine insurance claim, even after paying a a lot of money on premiums? Was your experience of the insurance sector that they dealt with your claim efficiently, effectively and economically – or did you spend months and months on constant time-consuming letters and phone calls, probably to a call centre, before resolution?
I rest my case.
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
Richard A Paris, Housing Law Education, Staines
