header-logo header-logo

Fees to be cut for RTA cases

21 November 2012
Issue: 7539 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

PI lawyers “appalled” by Ministry of Justice RTA portal proposals

Lawyers’ fees for road traffic accident cases are to plummet from £1,200 to £500 for claims worth up to £10,000, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said.

The change is due to be introduced to RTA portal claims in April. RTA cases worth up to £25,000 will have a maximum fee of £800.

Fees for employers’ liability and public liability cases—due to be handled through the electronic portal from April onwards—will be capped at £900 for claims worth up to £10,000, and £1,600 for claims worth up to £25,000.

Justice minister Helen Grant says: “We are making changes so claims are handled quickly and efficiently and accident victims with genuine cases can be compensated as soon as possible.

“These changes, along with our wider reforms, will bring more balance to the system, make lawyers’ costs proportionate and in turn create an environment where insurers can pass on savings to their customers through lower premiums.”

She asked for responses to be made by 4 January 2013.

However, Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), says: “We’re appalled by these proposals, which are wholly damaging to the interests of injured people.

“A fee of £1,600 for an employers’ liability case valued up to £25,000 is not at all reflective of the work involved and serves to cut independent legal advice from the system. Alternatively, injured people will have to pay for legal advice out of the compensation that they need.

“Consultation on how the new employers’ liability and public liability systems will operate is still underway and cases have not been openly costed, so how these fees could have been fairly calculated is a mystery.”

APIL has instructed Kingsley Napley solicitors and issued a letter before action to the MoJ with a view to launching a judicial review over the extension of the RTA claims process. The MoJ has until the end of this week (23 November) to respond.

APIL chief executive Deborah Evans said: “We are extremely concerned that the mechanisms which will make the portal extensions work efficiently cannot be put in place in time.”

Issue: 7539 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll