Last week, the Department of Health and Social Care announced it will go ahead with a ‘streamlined’ FRC process for low-value claims to help reduce the annual NHS spend on legal costs. This follows a consultation held last year.
Claims will be excluded from the FRC scheme where: the claim arises from a still birth or neonatal death; limitation is raised as an issue; there are two or more defendants and the allegations against each are materially different; or the claimant would be required to cite evidence as to breach of duty of care and causation from more than three medical experts.
A bolt-on extra amount of £1,800 will be available for claims on behalf of protected parties or children.
Jonathan Scarsbrook, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), said: ‘The government intends to rush through these plans with little more than six months’ notice, without properly heeding the many warnings from patient representatives that the proposals will impede access to justice for many injured patients.’
Scarsbrook said the government’s decision not to exclude all fatal cases was ‘disappointing’, since such cases needed more time and sensitivity than the scheme could provide.
‘To try to strike a compromise with a bolt-on of costs is not good enough. Protected parties are excluded from other low value schemes for good reason.’
The consultation response notes some respondents argued lower damages claims are no less complex than higher damages claims, and that claimant solicitors may find it unprofitable to work on lower value claims. It states, however, that ‘no data was presented for these assertions, so they are difficult to verify objectively’.
Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers, said: ‘While the government says there is no evidence to support the concerns we share that many smaller, specialist firms will exit the market as a result of these reforms, its decision to increase the costs they will receive is a tacit acknowledgement that this is a real risk.
‘Claimant lawyers are not opposed to change; they simply want to be paid fairly and to see vulnerable clients get the justice and compensation they deserve.’
