header-logo header-logo

RTA portal extension delay

04 January 2013
Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Government postpones controversial plans to extend Road Traffic Accident portal scheme

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has postponed its controversial plans to extend the Road Traffic Accident portal scheme to personal injury claims worth up to £25,000, including employer and public liability claims.
Currently, the portal applies to RTA claims worth up to £10,000.

The extension had been due to take place in April. A new date is yet to be given by the MoJ, which said this week that “further details” would be announced soon.

NLJ columnist, Professor Dominic Regan said the delay was “no surprise at all” and showed “an outbreak of common sense in the MoJ”.

“The concept stinks and delay will not improve a hopeless idea. Sir Rupert Jackson thought it wrong to extend the portals so early — the RTA one was only created at the end of April 2010.”

An MoJ spokesperson said:‬ ‪“Earlier this year the government announced proposals to extend the road traffic accident scheme for personal injury claims to £25,000. ‪‬

“Following a legal challenge the Justice Secretary is now considering afresh the timing for implementation of the extended scheme.”‬

Several lawyers had cast doubt on the viability of the April deadline, as well as questioning how well such an extended scheme might work in practice.

Professor Paul Fenn, an adviser to the government on personal injury, said in a speech in December that the RTA Portal had been “successful in reducing costs and delay, but not by a lot; and to set against that, it seems to have resulted in lower damages for claimants.

“But it really needed a little more time to be conclusive about this, and for that reason I do think it may be too soon to extend its remit”.

Prof Fenn said there were risks regarding the incentive of defendants to admit liability, both in the existing scheme and in the proposals to extend it.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers was in the process of bringing a judicial review, on the basis of lack of consultation. It is now reconsidering its position.

Writing in NLJ in June, Prof Regan described the idea of an employer’s liability portal for April as “ludicrous”. He said a third of cases exited the portal, partly because this was cheaper for insurers where cases were worth less than £2,000, and partly because insurers did “not abide by the timetable applicable to portal work”. Employment cases tended to be more complex therefore there would be a high exit rate, he said.

 

Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll