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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
back-to-top-scroll