Concerns over new claims process for Road Traffic Accidents
Maria Penny (Solicitor)
Following on from my previous comment, found here, I am concerned about access to justice as some firms may decide not to deal with straightforward claims with a value of less than £10,000 where liability is admitted.
In the alternative claims may be dealt with by more junior members of staff who may undervalue claims meaning more supervision would be required, the cost of which would not be recoverable.
This could ultimately lead to more instances of third party capture, which may lead to claimants receiving less favourable compensation awards without any option of redress against the insurer.
It takes time to build a case and obtain the relevant evidence and the costs proposed are woefully low and in reality are clearly of benefit to the insurance industry only not the claimant. Claimant solicitors cannot provide a quality service for the sums proposed as the same do not allow for detailed investigations to be carried out and may encourage a slap-dash claims farm culture to develop.
It is also disappointing to note that unlike the current predictive costs scheme, hire and repairs are not to be included for the purposes of valuing the claim but can still be claimed by those acting for the innocent party. This will undoubtedly mean that those firms dealing with hire and repair claims are likely to suffer financially as such claims are often disputed and contested and many hours can be spent dealing with the same, time which under the new procedure will not be recoverable. This could mean that in straightforward cases solicitors may not deal with claims for hire and repairs and leave the same to the claimant’s insurers, a move which will simply increase the workload of the insurance industry.
I also note claims involving employers’ liability and public liability are not covered within the scheme which I would assume will mean claims for those injured on public transport where the driver of the vehicle is at fault. The new scheme does not cover the entire spectrum of RTA cases and I would therefore have to question the need for the review and indeed the new scheme as a result.
A protocol already exists for personal injury claims and the previous predictive costs scheme was introduced to ensure claims were dealt with swiftly. In reality the predictive costs scheme means many firms are already operating at a loss as the scheme from experience does not encourage early settlement on the part of the third party insurer and relies solely on the value of the claim for the purposes of costs calculation.
Under the proposed scheme the matter will leave the scheme if causation is disputed however the suggested wording for an admission as set out in paragraph 3.1.9 suggests that an admission raising causation is acceptable, either liability is admitted or it is not.
I still remain sceptical as to whether the scheme will work and I also note the lack of sanctions if third party insurers fail to adhere to the same. Currently the matter would simply revert to the predictive costs scheme which, as stated above, does not encourage early settlement.
Tags: accident claims, maria penny, personal injury, personal injury solicitor, road traffic accidents, solicitor manchester
Personal Injury | Ralli | 
November 12, 2009 5:07 pm
Subscribe