header-logo header-logo

New RTA rules under attack

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

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll