The Motor Insurers' Bureau has published its latest quarterly report on the Official Injury Claim (OIC) service, covering October to December 2024. The data reveals that 64,936 claims were submitted during this period, with 88.4% of claimants professionally represented. The service, which has been operational since the implementation of the Whiplash Reform Programme on 31 May 2021, saw 38,314 liability decisions and 33,660 closed settlements in Q4. The report indicates a potential flattening of claim volumes in Q2 and Q3 2024, while noting that external factors continue to influence accident rates. Law firms and Alternative Business Structures remain the primary handlers of represented claims, accounting for 78.2% and 21.5% respectively. The OIC service continues to process road traffic accident-related personal injury claims valued under £5,000, in line with the increased small claims track limit and the fixed tariff system introduced by the Civil Liability Act 2018.

This Practice Note aims to provide an overview of the key features of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA protocol) together with practical guidance on using the claims portal. The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents NOTE: The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA Small Claims Protocol) applies to accidents which occur on or after 31 May 2021 and where the amount claimed for the injuries is not more than £5,000 and the overall claim is not more than £10,000. The small claims track limit for personal injury claims arising from a road traffic accident is £5,000 in respect of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) (subject to certain exceptions). For further details of the RTA Small Claims Protocol including the circumstances where it does not apply, see Practice Note: The road traffic accident small claims protocol and The RTA small claims protocol—key

This Practice Note aims to provide a practical overview of the key features of Stage 2 and 3 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents together with a review of the most significant case law and their practical implications for those using the online portal. The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents NOTE: The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA Small Claims Protocol) applies to accidents which occur on or after 31 May 2021 and where the amount claimed for the injuries is not more than £5,000 and the overall claim is not more than £10,000. The small claims track limit for personal injury claims arising from a road traffic accident is £5,000 in respect of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) (subject to certain exceptions). For further details of the RTA Small Claims Protocol including the circumstances where it does not apply, see Practice

The use of still cameras with motor drive units which take a rapid sequence of photographs from which one or more will be selected for final use. Each photograph is automatically separated from its predecessor by a small time gap, which may range from a fraction of a second to a few seconds.

The House of Lords (HoL) Financial Services Regulation (FSR) Committee has published correspondence between its Chairman Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and Nikhil Rathi, CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), regarding the implications of the decision to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in three motor finance cases - Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd, Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd, and Wrench v Firstrand Bank Ltd.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a letter from its chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, to Lord Forsyth of Drumlean of the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation (FSR) Committee, addressing the regulatory framework for motor finance commission, with a focus on commission disclosure rules for credit brokers. The letter responds to questions from Lord Forsyth regarding the relevant FCA rules and Principles concerning both discretionary and fixed commissions, both prior to, and following relevant amendments in 2021, and whether the FCA took legal advice both in connection with its decision to ban discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) (which it did in 2021) and in connection with the FCA’s relevant regulatory rules and Principles.

Law360: A landmark UK court ruling on motor finance could have wider implications for the insurance sector, an investment bank warned.

Law360: The recent decision by the UK Supreme Court to limit the payouts available to many motor finance customers over hidden fees could switch legal attention to other sectors that routinely add brokers' commissions to bills, lawyers say.

Law360, London: Motor finance firms urged the UK Supreme Court on 1 April 2025 to overturn findings that car dealers owed a legal duty to act in the interests of their customers, as a landmark hearing that could determine the size of compensation bills begins.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has welcomed the High Court’s decision in Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2024] EWHC 3237 (Admin). The Court found in favour of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in a judicial review of its decision to uphold a complaint relating to a discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) in a motor finance agreement brought by the lender Barclays Partner Finance (Barclays PF). The Court concluded that the FOS was entitled to find that the dealer and the lender did not adequately disclose their commission arrangements to the borrower and that the relationship between the lender and the borrower was unfair in those circumstances. The FCA welcomes the additional clarity the judgment brings to consumer complaints involving DCAs.

In this Practice Note, the Road Traffic Act 1988 is referred to as RTA 1988. Types of insurer and MIB liability In the majority of claims a motor insurer will provide a full indemnity to their insured under a valid policy of insurance. This means that the insurer will accept a contractual liability to pay all damages that fall on the defendant driver. However, if there is a breach of the policy (either before or after the event) by the insured, the insurer is contractually able to avoid liability to their insured. In that instance the claim is likely to be dealt with by: • the Road Traffic Act insurer: a motor insurer has certain obligations to satisfy judgments obtained by an innocent third party even if there have been breaches of the insurance policy by the insured, failing which • the Article 75 insurer: by an agreement between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) and insurance companies, motor insurers will accept liability in certain cases where they would not be liable as a Road Traffic Act insurer—in

Law360: Comprehensive insurance premiums for UK drivers have surged 58% to a record high in 2023, with costs rising to £995 on average from £629 in 2022, according to an online comparison platform.