PI Brief Update

FREE BOOK CHAPTER: Future Developments in RTA Claims, Reducing Fraud and Costs - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom

10/11/14. Here is another free chapter from the new book 'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie,  A clear but comprehensive guide to road traffic accident personal injury claims. Covers issues in relation to RTA claims dealing with such issues as the portal, fixed costs, liability, indemnity, vicarious liability, causation, litigation tactics, investigating quantum, vehicle related damages and head of special damages, commonly found in RTA cases and in particular focuses on the day-to-day issues in practice, one encounters with such cases.

'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post-Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie ISBN: 978-0-9575530-7-1 Published: February 2015 Price: £49.99 Click here to order now

CHAPTER TEN - FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN RTA CLAIMS, REDUCING FRAUD AND COSTS

The landscape for RTA PI claims has changed dramatically since 2010. We have been through the portal changes, fixed costs changes but the MOJ is not prepared to leave matters there. The industry has become fixated on ‘reducing fraud’ in whiplash claim and some insurance organisations are convinced that Britons have the weakest necks in Europe.

This Chapter therefore seeks to examine the recent and upcoming changes in whiplash related claims, that makes further attempts to reduce fraud and cut costs in relation to whiplash claims.

Fundamental Dishonesty

The government working paper on the bill which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330722/fact-sheet-unjustified-personal-injury-claims.pdf sets out:-

1. This clause reflects the Government’s concern at the increase in the number of fraudulent and grossly exaggerated personal injury claims and the effect that this has on motor insurance premiums and the resources of local and public authorities and employers. The Government wishes to take action to deter dishonest behaviour and give a greater incentive to defendants and their insurers to investigate and challenge dubious claims for compensation.

2. This will supplement the work being undertaken by the insurance industry to tackle fraud, through initiatives such as the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (a specialist police unit dedicated to tackling insurance fraud) and the Insurance Fraud Bureau (created in 2006 specifically to tackle organised cross- industry motor insurance scams). Precise levels of fraud are unknown. The Association of British Insurers have recently published figures (not verified by Government) showing that 59,900 dishonest motor insurance claims were uncovered in 2013, an increase of 34% on 2012, with a value of £811 million (up 32% on 2012). These dishonest claims represent around 8% of all motor claims registered with the Compensation Recovery Unit in 2013.

3. There were around 775,000 motor personal injury claims registered to the DWP Compensation Recovery Unit in 2013/14, compared to around 520,000 claims in 2006/07, representing an increase of around 50% in claims. This increase has coincided with a 23% decrease in the number of road traffic accidents reported to the police - between 2006 and 2012 they decreased from 190,000 to 145,000, although trends in unreported accidents are unknown. Public liability claims such as for “trips and slips” have risen from around 95,000 in 2010/11 to around 104,000 in 2013/14 and employers’ liability claims have risen from around 81,000 to around 105,000 over the same period.

What is the current position?

The current law, confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2012 case of Summers v Fairclough Homes, gives the court the power to strike out the entirety of the claim where the claimant grossly exaggerates the extent of his or her injury, including any award for a genuine injury. Following this decision, a similar position would now apply in cases where the claimant is injured, typically as a car driver, and does not exaggerate his own claim but colludes with fraudulent “phantom passengers” who dishonestly claim they were in the vehicle and also injured.

However, the Supreme Court indicated that the power to strike out should only be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. In the Summers case the claimant was genuinely injured but fabricated the extent of his injury and claimed around £840k damages. The court held that damages of around £88k were appropriate for the genuine element of the claim. The Supreme Court held that the facts were not sufficiently exceptional to warrant strike out.

What are the proposed changes?

6. This clause provides that in any personal injury claim where the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages, but is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim taken as a whole, it must dismiss the claim entirely unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice as a result.

7. This provision applies in both “primary” claims (for example where the claimant grossly exaggerates his or her own claim) and “related” claims (for example where the claimant colludes in a fraudulent claim brought by another person in connection with the same incident or series of incidents in connection with which the primary claim is made).

8. The clause also contains supplementary provisions:

• to require the court to record in the order dismissing the claim the amount of damages that it would otherwise have awarded. This will assist if the order is appealed; in relation to working out what the claimant should pay the defendant in costs; and in the event of any subsequent proceedings being brought against the claimant for contempt of court or a criminal prosecution regarding the same behaviour;

• to provide that where an order for dismissal is made, the court may only require the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs to the extent that they exceed the amount of damages recorded in the order. This is to ensure that the sanctions against the claimant are proportionate, and to prevent the defendant – who has in fact been negligent notwithstanding the claimant’s behaviour – from receiving a disproportionate windfall as a result of the case being dismissed;

• to provide for the order for dismissal to be taken into account in relation to the disposal of any proceedings relating to the same dishonest conduct against the claimant for contempt of court or criminal prosecution. This will enable the court to ensure that any punishment imposed in those proceedings is proportionate”

Thus the main aim of the legislation is to prevent dishonesty altogether in relation to personal injury claims. Under the former system, a Claimant who exaggerated a claim, would still recover the genuine parts of his claim, but would be penalised in costs. If a case is found to be fundamentally dishonest, it will mean that the Claimant’s whole case will be dismissed and the Claimant will be ordered to pay all the Defendant’s costs of the litigation. The legislation is yet to be enacted and at the time of writing, but the bill, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2015, in its final reading sets out:-

49

10 Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty

(1) This section applies where, in proceedings on a claim for damages in respect of personal injury (“the primary claim”)—

(a) the court finds that the claimant is entitled to damages in respect of the claim, but

(b) on an application by the defendant for the dismissal of the claim under this section, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the primary claim or a related claim.

(2) The court must dismiss the primary claim, unless it is satisfied that the

claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) includes the dismissal of any element of the primary claim in respect of which the claimant has not been dishonest.

(4) The court’s order dismissing the claim must record the amount of damages that the court would have awarded to the claimant in respect of the primary

claim but for the dismissal of the claim.

(5) A costs order made by a court which dismisses a claim under this section may require the claimant to pay costs incurred by the defendant only to the extent that they exceed the amount of the damages recorded in accordance with subsection (4).

(6) If a claim is dismissed under this section, subsection (7) applies to—

(a) any subsequent criminal proceedings against the claimant in respect of the fundamental dishonesty mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and

(b) any subsequent proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant in respect of that dishonesty.

(7) If the court in those proceedings finds the claimant guilty of an offence or of contempt of court, it must have regard to the dismissal of the primary claim under this section when sentencing the claimant or otherwise disposing of the proceedings.

(8) In this section—

• “claim” includes a counter-claim and, accordingly, “claimant” includes a counter-claimant and “defendant” includes a defendant to a counter- claim;

• “personal injury” includes any disease and any other impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition;

• Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Page 49

• “related claim” means a claim for damages in respect of personal injury which is made— (a) in connection with the same incident or series of incidents in

• connection with which the primary claim is made, and (b) 5 by a person other than the person who made the primary claim.

(9) This section does not apply to proceedings started by the issue of a claim form before the day on which this section comes into force.

Once the legislation is enacted, it will therefore be extremely important for practitioners to:-

1. Check and re-check CNF forms before they are issued to ensure they are accurate and reflect the claimant’s instructions.

2. Check and re-check the medical report with the Claimant, before it is disclosed to ensure that it is factually correct accordingly to the Claimant’s instructions.

3. Ensure the pleadings, witness statement, Reply to Defence and any Part 18 responses, are 100% correct and reflect the Claimant’s evidence/ instructions.

4. If the Claimant’s first language is not English, ensure that all documents with statements of truth, including the CNF and the medical report are translated into the Claimant’s own language and the documents are taken in the Claimant’s own language.

5. Pay particular attention to the schedule of loss to ensure it is 100% accurate, not over stated and is reflective of the claimants instructions.

Defendants and insurers, will now it may be argued seek to use Clause 49, when it comes into effect to dismiss genuine claims, where minor parts of the claims over been over stated, sometimes by mistake either by the Claimant or Solicitor. A common example may be physiotherapy, pleaded with a statement of truth, claimed where the claimant has recovered, and the treatment was not undertaken. This is may be argued will be fundamentally dishonest. A further example may be a Claimant who says in a statement “I recovered in accordance with the prognosis in then medical report”, yet says in the witness box, he recovered much earlier, again this is an over statement of his injury and arguably dishonest. Checks will also need to me made with credit hire and / storage claims to check the agreements are 100% correct by sending them to the claimant to check before they are disclosed. Again, it may be argued that a claimant who signs a schedule of loss to say he hired for 55 days, when the hire agreement says 50 days, could be fundamentally dishonest, if the Court were to find the schedule was exaggerated.

The answer will be to check, check, and re-check with the Claimant any document with a statement of truth and all special damages documents before they are filed/ served to make sure it is 100% correct. Claimants may no longer be given the benefit of the doubt in the witness box for such mistakes.

Time needs to be taken particularly with Claimants whose first language is not English, and warnings given at the outset of all cases as to the consequences of Clause 49. The most common problem area at Trial is medical reports and Claimants who do not read them before they are served i.e previous accident/ injuries, attendance at GP/Hospital, time off work, injuries sustained etc. It is now more important than ever, that with Clause 49, these are checked in detail with the Claimant before the report is disclosed and if it is wrong, the report be amended, subject to the medical expert confirming the amendment. A failure to do so, may be fatal.

Fundamental dishonesty, is arguable a key tool for insurers in fighting fraud in whiplash claims, but Claimant Lawyers must make sure it is not abused by the use of the Act to dismiss claims for minor inconsistencies. It remains to be seen how the Act will interpreted by the Courts.

Inducements in Personal Injury Cases

Referral Fees in personal injury claims have already been banned, but this of course does not stop personal injury firms offering cash incentives, or free IPADS to potential claimants. The Government has final now introduced legislation to stop this. The Consultation paper set out:-

“BANNING INDUCEMENTS TO ISSUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

Introduction and current position

9. In addition to the provisions addressing fundamentally dishonest claims, the Government is also concerned is concerned that some law firms are helping to encourage exaggerated or fraudulent personal injury claims to be made by offering inducements to potential claimants. There is evidence that a number of lawyers offer money or gifts to those who issue a personal injury claim regardless of the strength of the claim.

10. For example –

“If you bring a successful claim to X Solicitors you will be eligible for a free ipad”

“On acceptance of your case we will pay you an upfront ‘welcome’ payment. This payment is on top of your eventual compensation payment”

10. This can encourage weak claims to be made which can in turn waste time and money. The Government is concerned about the impact such claims could have on motor insurance premiums.

12.The Government therefore believes that solicitors and other legal services

providers should be banned from offering such inducements; Claims Management Companies are already subject to a similar ban.

What are the proposed changes?

13. Provisions in part 3 of this Bill will therefore prohibit legal services providers from offering benefits to potential clients as an incentive to make a personal injury claim. The clauses will:

• define what is considered to be an inducement; and

• require regulators to monitor and enforce the ban as breaches of the ban will not be considered as a criminal offence.

The Proposed Legislation in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2015, at final reading stage sets out:-

Rules against inducements to make personal injury claims

(1) A regulated person is in breach of this section if—

(a) the regulated person offers another person a benefit,

(b) the offer of the benefit is an inducement to make a claim in civil

proceedings for—

(i) damages for personal injury or death, or

(ii) damages arising out of circumstances involving personal injury

or death, and

(c) the benefit is not related to the provision of legal services in connection

with the claim.

(2) An offer of a benefit by a regulated person to another person is an inducement

to make a claim if the offer of the benefit—

(a) is intended to encourage the person to make a claim or to seek advice

from a regulated person with a view to making a claim, or

(b) is likely to have the effect of encouraging the person to do so.

(3) A benefit offered by a regulated person may be an inducement to make a claim

regardless of—

(a) when or by what means the offer is made,

(b) whether the receipt of the benefit pursuant to the offer is subject to

conditions,

(c) when the benefit may be received pursuant to the offer, or

(d) whether the benefit may be received by the person to whom the offer is

30made or by a third party.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision as to the

circumstances in which a benefit offered by a regulated person is related to the

provision of legal services in connection with a claim, including provision

about benefits relating to—

(a) fees to be charged in respect of the legal services,

(b) expenses which are or would be necessarily incurred in connection

with the claim, or

(c) insurance to cover legal costs and expenses in connection with the

claim.

51 Effect of rules against inducements

(1) The relevant regulator must ensure that it has appropriate arrangements for

monitoring and enforcing the restriction imposed on regulated persons by

section 50.

(2) A regulator may make rules for the purposes of subsection (1).

It may be argued that the ban on inducements will be a welcome addition to the Governments’ reforms, and maybe one of the methods that arguably works to reduce fraud in whiplash cases. The firms that offer such inducements are arguably attracting clients not wholly by quality of service, and the ban may work to restore an element of credibility to the Claimant Solicitor industry from a consumer perspective.

Access to Previous Accident Databases

Claimant Lawyers have long argued for access to the insurers database for previous accidents

CUE (Claims Underwriting Exchange) but this has been resisted by the insurance industry for many years. However, after a long period of protracted negotiations, the parties has finally worked out a way to give Claimant Lawyers access.

According to APIL’s report Whiplash reform programme: consultation on independence in medical reporting and expert accreditation, the system will work as follows:-

“As part of the industry's moves to tackle fraud, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) along with the Motors Accident Solicitors Society (MASS) and the Law Society has been in discussions for some time with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) about sharing claims data. Insurers have historically been very resistant to the idea of sharing data with the claimant community. Following pressure from the Transport Select Committee and Ministry of Justice (MOJ) the ABI has now proposed that claimant firms will be able to ask the Claims Underwriting Exchange Personal Injury (CUEPI) database a validation question. By inputting a client’s name, address, date of birth and National Insurance number the database will confirm how many claims they have made in the last five years.

There is a suggestion that each search request generates a unique reference number that is then inserted into a mandatory field in the claims notification form (CNF) used within the Claims Portal. This will provide confirmation that the claimant lawyer has completed a search of the database. This could also then be a mandatory step within the protocol. An insurer could reject the form as incomplete if that unique reference number was absent. In addition, the data 'captured' by the database could then be interrogated by the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) in order to help to detect organised fraud rings.

In terms of the cost of the data sharing proposal, it is suggested that the costs are shared with claimant law firms potentially paying an annual license fee (similar to 'askMID') of about £180. For smaller or niche firms, with a lower volume of cases, it may be more sensible to pay on a case-by-case basis ('pay per click') with the suggested fee being approximately £2 per check”

The Government’s Consultation paper on the issue further sets out:-

“The Government is pleased to support an agreement on the sharing of claims data reached between defendant and claimant representatives in April 2014. Following detailed discussions on how to implement this agreement, representatives from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Association of British Insurers, the Motor Accident Solicitors Society and the Law Society have recently written to the Government to request an amendment to the CPR requiring claimant representatives to undertake a ‘previous claims’ check on potential clients before accepting the claim.

The solution:

The solution proposed by the industry would make it mandatory for claimant representatives to check the claims history of potential clients before sending the Claim Notification Form to the defendant’s insurer in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol. The proposal also recommends that the system collects management information related to the searches undertaken. This will help to prevent fraudulent and unnecessary whiplash claims at source. The model would work along the following lines to prevent fraud both by individual claimants and on a larger scale:

• An IT interface will enable claimant representatives to obtain data on the number of previous personal injury claims made by potential clients within the previous five years, putting them in a better position to make a judgement as to whether they wish to accept the potential client’s instructions.

• Additionally, the system will record the searches undertaken, including data on (multiple) searches undertaken by different legal representatives on individual potential claimants. Data on patterns of behaviour may be of use to the Insurance Fraud Bureau in detecting wider scale fraud.

A mandatory system will prevent a whiplash claim from being started under the Pre-Action Protocol unless a search has been carried out. For those claimants who choose to settle their claim for compensation directly with an insurer, the mandatory search will be carried out by the insurer as is currently the case”.

The proposed amendment to the CPR will be as follows:-

6.3A

Before the CNF is sent to the defendant’s insurer, the claimant’s legal representative must undertake a search of askCUEPI (website at: www. askCUEPI.org) and must enter in the relevant mandatory box in the CNF the unique reference number generated by that search.

The system is not yet up and running but the indications are it will be ready in 2015, and will become mandatory as part of the CNF submission process. A key to the system for the insurers is that they will be able to obtain details of the searches undertaken.

Again, it can be argued that from both an insurance and Claimant perspective, this will likely lead to a reduction in fraudulent claims. Many firms will not take on Claimant’s case who has lied about his accident history at the outset. However, the flaw in the system is always going to be a Claimant who can walk down the road, and submit his claim to a Claimant firm, that is prepared to take on such a claim. This the system may assist to eradicate fraudulent claims from certain law firms, but arguably it will not stop them going into the system.

Pre Medical Offers

There has been some debate, amongst the insurance industry and Claimant industry over the banning of pre medical offers. There was much discussion about this in the Cost of Motor Insurance Whiplash report April 2013, which can be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/writev/whiplash/m34.htm”-

(b) Premedical offers: Once a claim has been made insurance companies will often make a relatively low offer to settle a claim before they have seen any medical evidence that the whiplash claim is genuine. This practice encourages abuse of the system and must stop if we are to reduce the incidence of fraud. A MASS survey of 2520 accident victims suggests that that 33.4% were made an offer by the other driver’s insurance company before they had a medical examination.

11. Insurers say they make pre-medical offers because the medico-legal report process is flawed and always results in a report stating that the claimant is suffering from whiplash injury. The reality is that they do the maths and have concluded that it is cheaper to pay out £1000 to 10 claimants, two or so of whom might not ultimately have made a claim, than pay-out £4000 including costs to three or four claimants. The maths has obviously work ed , but a perhaps unintended consequence has been t he knock-on effect with other individuals prone to fraudulent behaviour observe how relatively easy it is to get money for little risk. This trend has undoubtedly played a major role in driving the mindset that every accident results in a whiplash claim. This is of course not the only factor and we discuss these throughout this submission.

The Government has chosen not to legislate on this issue. The Claimant community will say that is because the Government has only responded to the lobbying of the insurance industry. The insurance industry say that it is because they must be able to continue to deal with whiplash claims in a commercial way to drive down premiums for motorists and pre medical offers are one of the tools for doing so.

It does seem likely that pre–medical offers arguably do encourage fraud, by quick settlements without a medical report. The Claimant having to do very little to obtain his damages. It does seem difficult to contemplate how banning inducements is a sensible option to reduce fraud, yet banning pre medical offers is not.

MedCo

There are now a further set of reforms in motion, to set up a new way of Claimant Lawyers instructing medical experts. The proposed reforms are set in the MOJ’s 2014 paper on the second phase of whiplash reforms, which can be located at:- http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/civil-justice-reforms/whiplash-phase-2-consultation-paper.pdf

These are broadly set out as follows:-

7. The second tranche of whiplash reforms will introduce a new accreditation scheme for experts the scheme will not be limited to doctors; experts from other disciplines who meet the required criteria will also be able to gain accreditation. The accreditation (and re-accreditation) requirements will include a peer review and accredited experts who do not continue to meet appropriate standards will face sanctions such as the removal of, or restrictions applied to, their accreditation.

8. These schemes must be owned and established by those operating in the personal injury sector. The Association of British Insurers has been approached by the Government - and has agreed - to meet the required start-up costs. Once it is established, we expect the new system to become self funding through receipt of accreditation/re-accreditation fees from experts.

Introducing accreditation

The Government is also firmly committed to ensuring that all medical reports commissioned under the new process meet minimum quality standards. For that reason, the new system will introduce an accreditation requirement for all experts wishing to continue to produce medical reports for low value soft tissue injuries arising from road traffic accidents. This decision follows strong support from a wide range of stakeholders to the ‘Reducing the number and costs of whiplash claims’ consultation for a system of accreditation to be introduced in this area.

Accreditation criteria:

The Government is working closely with stakeholders to develop appropriate accreditation criteria and processes, including the level of fee for accreditation and the timescale for the scheme to be rolled out. We propose that the scheme will be operated by MedCo in addition to its function of overseeing the commissioning of reports. The level of accreditation/re-accreditation fees will be set to ensure that the scheme is self funding and a system of audit/peer review will be integrated into the process.

Registering with MedCo:

It is expected that the new commissioning system for medical reports will go live prior to the majority of experts being able to achieve accreditation. To mitigate any potential adverse impacts on the availability of experts to produce medical reports, we plan to allow all current experts to register with MedCo initially. They will then be given a period of time (yet to be determined) in which to gain their accreditation. Any experts who are unable or unwilling to attain accreditation by the deadline will have their details removed from the MedCo system. They will only be able to re-register once accreditation is attained. The proposed amendments to the pre-action protocol have been drafted to take account of this – see paragraph 1.1(A1).

Audit/Peer Review process:

In order to ensure that objective standards are maintained, many stakeholders suggested building an element of ‘peer review’ or ‘audit’ into the accreditation system. The IT system currently being developed will be able to generate management information that can be used to focus the initial use of peer review. This will be supplemented by a random selection of report reviews and feedback from users of the system. Sanctions for a failure to meet the required standards may include restrictions or conditions applied to an individual’s registration or removal from the list of accredited experts.

Thus, there are likely to be there distinctive parts to the system:

1. Accreditation of experts. Some Claimant Lawyers have argued that this is unnecessary since all experts already have duties under Part 35 of the CPR. Many experts are already accredited through various schemes run by medico legal agencies such as Premex. It is not clear how this scheme will further reduce fraud. It is arguable there are some experts whose reports are of poor quality but these are few and far between. The majority of medico legal experts take their duties under Part 35 seriously and produce good quality, independent reports. Perhaps the real focus, should have been removing the very poor whiplash experts, who are shown in Court not to have met the standards expected under CPR 35, as opposed to an expensive accreditation scheme.

2. The other major issue Claimant Lawyers is the following passage which sets out:-

“The Government has decided to introduce a new system of allocating medical experts to claims which breaks any direct links between those commissioning medical reports and the medical experts themselves, removing potential conflicts of interest from the system. This will be delivered via a new independent IT hub, the working title for which is ‘MedCo’. Anyone commissioning a medical report will go to MedCo and will receive a list of appropriate experts and/or medical reporting organisations (‘MROs’) from which they may obtain the required medical report. This system will apply to the allocation of an accredited expert to produce the initial medical report used in a claim”

The main concern of Claimant Solicitors to this system is that:

1. they will no longer be able to instruct the expert of choice, in terms of the quality of the report;

2. they will no longer be able to do business with a medical agency they trust and have good working terms with, rather they will be forced to instruct a third party they do not know;

3. thus, the quality of reports obtained are no longer guaranteed and the Claimant lawyer is forced to work with a third party agency who may not be upto scratch.

There are many details still to iron out with the system due to be implemented in 2015, but it is very difficult to see how it will reduce fraud. The idea that a law firm cannot own a medical agency is to be welcomed but it seems MedCo, is arguably one step too far.

Conclusions.

It may be argued that the Governments agenda for whiplash reforms may be at an end for now. However, it does seem likely at some stage the following reforms will likely come back onto the agenda in Whiplash claims, if the Government does not see insurance premiums driven further by the current set of reforms:-

1. Increasing the small claims track limit. Although this was dismissed in 2013 by the MOJ, arguably it is still not put to bed completely. Aviva in July 2014, proposed again this be set at £5,000. A link to the report is here: http://www.aviva.com/media/news/item/uk-tackle-uks-compensation-culture-to-cut-50-off-motor-premiums-says-aviva-17331/

2. In July 2014, Aviva have also proposed ending monetary compensation in minor claims and Compensating minor, short-term personal injuries in road accidents with rehabilitation only. Insurers would arrange and pay for the customer’s rehabilitation, regardless of whether the customer is at fault or not. http://www.aviva.com/media/news/item/uk-tackle-uks-compensation-culture-to-cut-50-off-motor-premiums-says-aviva-17331/. It is yet to be seen whether the ABI or the other insurers will continue to push for this.

3. It seems likely that the MOJ will consider fixed cost in multi track RTA claims in the near future.

Whatever happens, Claimant Lawyers must continue to fight for a system that allows injured people access to justice, at a reasonable cost. Arguably increasing further the SCT limit or abolishing compensation in low value claims is not the answer. One does hope that the latest set of reforms, together with the 2013 fixed costs reforms will not allow a stable system that Claimant Lawyers can adapt their business models to. The last few years have seen the Claimant RTA industry turned on its head.

It may well be that between 2015-2018, we see more consolidation in the industry, smaller firms closing as the old CFA cases run out and we have Coventry v Lawrence on the horizon as to recoverability ATE premiums and success fees, due to he heard in February 2015. It appears the turmoil may not be over yet.

Andrew Mckie
Clerksroom

Image ©iStockphoto.com/PeskyMonkey

Book and Video Masterclass

Click on the link below to order the full book, and note that all chapters will also be available online free to PIBULJ subscribers.

There is also a video masterclass based on the material in this book.  This is also currently free to PIBULJ subscribers, or can be purchased.  Click the link below for further information.

 

PIBULJ.TV - masterclasses from the experts

Episode 5: 'RTA Personal Injury: a 2015 Update - What Is Happening to PI in 2015?' by Andrew Mckie Andrew Mckie from Clerksroom presents a 35 minute guide to the latest developments in RTA personal injury claims. Covers fundamental dishonesty, inducements in PI cases, CUE for claimants, pre-medical offers, MedCo, and further problems. Watch a sample for free now!

 

'RTA Personal Injury Claims Post-Jackson: A Practical Guide' by Andrew Mckie ISBN: 978-0-9575530-7-1 Publication due: February 2015 Price: £49.99 Click here to order now