PI Brief Update

Transport Select Committee: Why It's Our Duty to Fight - Philip Waters, Camps Solicitors

19/07/13. The latest Transport Select Committee hearing into whiplash has yet again allowed the ABI and insurance companies to issue figures to media and government on how much whiplash claims allegedly add onto motor insurance policies every year. However these figures are nine years old and completely out of date. The reality is that, according to official government's own figures, the number of whiplash claims has fallen to a five year low, with 60,000 fewer claims last year. I am amazed that the legal industry has failed to properly question these numbers or challenge the ABI on whether there would be any savings should the law change.

Camps Solicitors has submitted written evidence to the enquiry on the real issues that would face victims were compensation claims subject to an increased limit of £5,000. As an industry, we must not allow powerful insurers to hijack the news agenda and bandy about figures for which there seems little substantiation. There are legitimate accidents every day and many of those who seek compensation are innocent victims of circumstance, left traumatised and injured. These are the people I see every day through my work for whom the legal profession has a duty to speak up. At a time when legal aid reforms have been condemned across the industry, our role in providing support to those who would otherwise not be able to access it has never been more important.

Of course we cannot have this debate without acknowledging the need to address the perception of a rapidly growing claims culture in the UK. Lawyers, insurers and those in the claims management industry need to act with professionalism and responsibility at all times to ensure the highest standards across the board. Indeed, since April the law has changed, and rightly there has been a clampdown on claims management companies and referral fees with the LASPO Act.

I am equally concerned, however, that the government appears to accept the insurance industry's suggestion that, in any situation, an individual enjoys better protection if his or her access to legal representation is removed. This is unbelievable, and akin to asking someone to sell their house on the basis of the buyer's valuation, without taking any independent advice. If these changes came to pass, someone with a valid claim for £4,950 following a non-fault accident, would have to pull together all of the necessary evidence, medical records and legal papers, and then represent themselves in the small claims court as a Litigant in Person (LIP). We will be creating a judicial system riddled with 'David V Goliath' battles as single person attempts to fight a team of professional lawyers acting on behalf of an insurance company. This is of course notwithstanding the added burden and costs to the tax payer at a time of budget cuts across the court system.

Our estimation is that with a lower claims limit set at £5,000, over 85% of current legitimate claims will be unfairly excluded. This means a considerable number of accident victims will be forced to represent themselves as an LIP,resulting in bottlenecks throughout the court system as inexperienced members of the public are forced to take on an insurer's legal team. In addition, the Law Society has disclosed to the Transport Select Committee that from a first insurance company compensation offer to a legally represented compensation offer, the difference is on average +274% in favour of the innocent victim. This should clearly demonstrate how the insurance industry is campaigning for change to save its own back pocket.

Therefore I urge the government to see if there are smarter ways of measuring whiplash claims limits before just introducing one cut-off point for all; a cut-off point that would see genuine claimants miss out on much needed funds to get them back on their feet. A far better solution would be for any claims limit to be index linked, tracking RPI.

A recent report by AXA recommends that whiplash victims should undergo MRI scans and x-rays to determine if they have a genuine case of whiplash. However Dr Andre Brittain-Dissont's evidence to the Transport Select Committee asserted that MRI scans and x-rays would only show fractured bones and would not show stretched or torn muscles, a key indicator of whiplash. Again the government needs to listen to medical professionals and not the insurance industry before it imposes laws that will be damaging to many innocent road traffic accident victims.

We propose that all accident claimants undergo an independent medical assessment from a thirrd party with no interest in the case. This would quite rightly outlaw the current insurance industry practice of making pre-medical offers. . If the insurance industry is so concerned with stomping out fraudulent claims, why make these offers in the first place? And, if we were to resort to an insistence on MRI scans and x-rays, would this not have enormous cost and resource implications? Would insurers pay for these costly checks? If so – surely this would have a knock-on effect when it comes to premiums? Or will the tax-payer once again foot the bill if tests are done via an already over-stretched NHS? Perhaps there is an ulterior motive here; to make the process so potentially costly that it deters the average person from making a claim, once again eroding access to justice for many genuine claimants

This is about securing personal justice. Whiplash and other motor accident injuries can be debilitating and victims deserve to be treated and restored to where they were before the accident. We need to pull together as an industry in order to make this happen.

Philip Waters
Camps Solicitors

Image ©iStockphoto.com/angelhell