header-logo header-logo

22 April 2010
Issue: 7414 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New RTA rules under attack

PI experts express concern over the “portal of doom”

Personal injury lawyers have slated new rules on road traffic accident claims (RTAs) as “nonsense” and unlikely to bring costs down.

Under the Ministry of Justice’s new RTA Claims Process, lawyers and insurers will exchange information through an electronic portal, designed to allow practitioners  to share information quickly and securely (at www.rtapiclaimsprocess.org.uk).

Insurers will have 15 days in which to accept or deny liability (instead of the current time limit of 60–90 days). It is anticipated, by the Department of Justice, that the improved flow of information between both parties on liability and quantum will simplify the processes involved, reduce costs and lead to swifter settlement.

The process, which is divided into three stages, comes into effect at the end of the April. It applies to claims worth £1,000–£10,000, which account for about 500,000 cases each year.

A 100% success fee is applicable if the claim goes to trial. Damages and fixed costs must be paid within 10 days of any settlement.

Chairing NLJ’s personal injury newscast last week, Professor Dominic Regan of London’s City University, expressed scepticism that costs would reduce.

“If you look at a settlement of £2,000 the costs will actually be the same as now. It will cost the insurer more if the settlement is below £2,000!”

Andrew Twambley, senior partner, Amelans, also taking part in the newscast described the 80 pages of rules as “tinkering” and expressed doubt about the ability/desire of insurers to act in the spirit of the new procedures.

“They wouldn’t say it on the record but I’m sure there are very few insurers out there that want to get involved in this, and I am sure they will do all they can to extricate themselves from it.

“If you read the number of procedures set out in the rules, it becomes evident that there are so many places that insurers bound to fail to comply,” he said.
“I anticipate that 90% of the RTAs that are going to be taken on are never going to get to stage three.”

Twambley added: “The most ridiculous thing about this new system is going to be the ‘portal of doom’. Is this portal going to stand up at the end of the first day? No, it is going to collapse.”

Regan added: “It is ludicrous that a ‘simplified’ process has generated 80 pages of rules, practice directions and forms.”

In his final report, Lord Justice Jackson urged implementation of the new claims process but recommended that it be monitored to ensure any cost savings were not negated by satellite litigation or avoidance behaviour.
 

Issue: 7414 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll