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

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll