Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The UK has been dubbed as ‘the whiplash capital of the world’, but Amanda Stevens, group head of legal practice at Hudgell Solicitors, points out that she is not alone in having little confidence in the new measures contained in the Prisons and Courts Bill aimed at tackling fraud.
The Prisons and Courts Bill, LNB News 23/02/2017 74 seeks to replace the current assessment of damages for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity award for road traffic accident (RTA) related whiplash and accompanying minor psychological disorder with
a tariff based award where symptoms last no more than two years.
Judicial discretion can override the tariff in exceptional circumstances but not by more than plus or minus 20% of the tariff sum. Furthermore, the Bill aims to ban pre-medical report settlements of compensation.
The government has claimed the UK is the ‘whiplash capital of the world’. It has a long-held view that there is a ‘compensation culture’ leading to excessive and unnecessary, as well as sometimes fraudulent, claims and compensation
payments for soft tissue injuries to the neck contributing to higher motor insurance premiums.
The government also believes the cost of dealing with such claims is out of all proportion to any genuine injury suffered.
The Bill also seeks to address the practice whereby it is claimed anecdotally that up to 10% (in excess of £50,000) RTA claims per annum are settled without medical evidence because insurers say it is not commercially viable to contest them due
to increased legal costs that would become payable. Government sees this process as encouraging minor or fraudulent claims.
I am not alone in having little confidence in the new measures tackling fraud. The number of such claims has not been proven. Indeed, the Transport Select Committee published extensive findings in 2013 concluding:
There is no authoritative data publicly available about the prevalence of fraudulent or exaggerated claims for whiplash injuries and no consensus about what constitutes fraud. Estimates of the percentage of claims which were fraudulent ranged from
0.1% to over 60%."
As H. James Harrington said:
If you can’t measure something you can’t understand it. If you can’t understand it, you can’t control it. If you can’t control it, you can’t improve it."
Similarly, I have little personal confidence that the promised reduction of £40 on annual car insurance premiums will materialise. The Institute & Faculty of Actuaries has previously concluded that measures to reduce whiplash claims ‘while
material and favourable, may not necessarily lead to any material reduction in premiums’. Since the reforms were announced, the Lord Chancellor has also announced cuts to the discount rate which are going to leave insurers reaching to adjust
their books yet again.
I feel more optimistic about the prospects of success of the ban on pre-medical offers, although the draft Bill is at pains to point out that breaches will have to be monitored and enforced by regulators but breaches will not make a person guilty of an
offence, do not give rise to a right of action for breach of statutory duty, nor do they make an agreement to settle the whiplash claim in question void or unenforceable.
The answer to this question depends on whether one accepts the government propositions around fraud, unmeritorious claims and the compensation system accounting for unacceptable levels of insurance premium.
Personally I would not advocate widening the ambit of claim types affected until the impact of these reforms has been seen in practice.
The government consultation also included questions designed to facilitate further reforms in the areas of credit hire, rehabilitation and recoverability of disbursements, eg cost of medical reports as well as reducing the limitation period and amendment
to qualified one way costs shifting so the court’s permission would be required to discontinue less than 28 days pre-trial.
The industry stakeholders have a long history of providing their own solutions—sometimes brokered through mediation—to reach workable solutions in many areas of injury claims, and I personally would not be seeking further legislative reform
in the areas identified at this time.
The Bill still awaits a date for a second reading in the House of Commons, so a long parliamentary journey lies ahead.
The Ministry of Justice has, however, announced that the reforms will not be implemented before 1 October 2018 due to other overlapping areas of reform currently under debate, such as the raising of the small claims limit which has to be approved by the
Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
A number of claimant practitioners have been advocating PR to attract more new claims now which could be processed under the current rules where there is a more generous allowance for pain and suffering, rather than leaving claimants to begin actions
closer to the limitation period.
Some law firms are announcing investment in new IT platforms to process claims more speedily, as current operating margins will be put under extreme pressure in the new model if Rules are passed in addition to the Bill resulting in transfer of most of
these claims to the small claims court. Others are predicting redundancies, while some predict a rise in the number of people offering to act as McKenzie friends.
One thing is certain—current pricing models and processes will need to be examined and adjusted carefully if reliable legal assistance is to continue to be available to the public for these types of injury claim.
Amanda Stevens is experienced in handling cases for clients pursuing small, moderate and large injury claims. In recent years she has specialised in claims involving more complex injury and clinical negligence cases where injuries have been severe or long lasting. Amanda has a long track record in leading on campaigns for law reform and regularly speaks to press, politicians and the judiciary on topics on the law reform agenda. In 2016 she was appointed as a Deputy Master in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. She is past president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234