Whiplash consultation

[irc]

Plenty anecdotal. I've had cold calls from claims companies about the injuries I suffered in the accident I haven't had. Numerous other people I know have had similar speculative calls as well. UK whiplash claim rates are the highest in the world. Are British necks weaker?

In the UK 78% of personal injury claims following road accidents are for whiplash, twice the average percentage of whiplash claims across Europe. It compares to 30% in France and Denmark, 31% in Spain, 35% in the Netherlands and 68% in Italy.

https://www.abi.org.uk/News/News-releas ... -In-Europe

Plenty anecdotes around about damage free less than walking speed car park nudges which result in whiplash claims.

Or this kind of thing.

http://www.hcsolicitors.co.uk/news/whip ... ud-bus-ted

[Psamathe]

...Given that being able to use the small claims court for up to £5000 will reduce the potential costs of losing, may actually encourage people to claim by giving them a low-cost way of fighting back against the insurer's delaying tactics.

My understanding is that small claims track does not award legal costs so I'd suspect it would make it less likely that an insurance company would go to the expense of defending in court as their legal costs would be high (having professionals prepare their defence, attend court, wait for court, etc.) and even if they won they'd not be awarded their costs. So might encourage them to err to cutting their losses and paying up.

But that is obviously conjecture.

Ian

[PH]

But it just means that a greater amount can be claimed via the (relatively simple and friendly) small claims process, rather than having to go to a larger court. The former requires no legal representative (and IME is helpful to those who have not the legal expertise) whilst the latter lines the pockets of law firms.

You may be very capable of going up against the professionals of an insurance company, but many of us are not. Even with the help of a solicitor, I found it hard and I could certainly have done without the stress at a time I was trying to deal with the problems caused by injury. The temptation to accept a low and inadequate settlement and the insurers delaying tactics to encourage this would have been too much. The whole point of justice is that both sides have access to the same support, this proposal takes it away from one.

Having used the small claims courts, I found them very helpful in assisting me through the process. I understand (and credit from my experience of them) that they look poorly on defendants who bring in big legal guns to what is intended to be run as a court accessible to all.
I take your point however, that some will be put off even trying because they expect the process to be more stressful than it is. I think that also applies though to the present situation, where the risks of losing (and having to pay the legal fees of both sides) already put people off. With legal firms (by reports on this forum) refusing to take on some of the smaller claims, this change gives a route that is not currently available for those claims to proceed.
Given that being able to use the small claims court for up to £5000 will reduce the potential costs of losing, may actually encourage people to claim by giving them a low-cost way of fighting back against the insurer's delaying tactics.

It's good to hear that the small claims court treat the individual well. I don't have much experience of it, I've initiated one claim which was enough to get a result.
But how many small personal injury cases go to court? I suspect it's only a few that can't come to an agreement between the parties. it isn't about whether the insurance company wheel out the big guns in court, it's about whether you can access expert help from the time of the incident right up to the settlement. There's no doubt the insurance companies will have the expertise, it is IMO unfair to deny it to the individual.

[AlaninWales]

It's good to hear that the small claims court treat the individual well. I don't have much experience of it, I've initiated one claim which was enough to get a result.
But how many small personal injury cases go to court? I suspect it's only a few that can't come to an agreement between the parties. it isn't about whether the insurance company wheel out the big guns in court, it's about whether you can access expert help from the time of the incident right up to the settlement. There's no doubt the insurance companies will have the expertise, it is IMO unfair to deny it to the individual.

Do you know which solicitors will assist a small PI claim? I was under the impression from threads on this forum (and cyclechat) that this was getting harder to obtain because firms (including CTC's own 'affiliate') are not interested in small PI claims.

[PH]

Do you know which solicitors will assist a small PI claim? I was under the impression from threads on this forum (and cyclechat) that this was getting harder to obtain because firms (including CTC's own 'affiliate') are not interested in small PI claims.

No, my only claim was always going to be under what's proposed as the new limit,£5,000. It was handled by S&G via the CTC.

[Cyclome]

Thanks to everyone for their useful contributions on the government proposals. But can anyone answer my original question:

What support will Cycling UK, or the law firms it recommends, give to members involved in small claims for compensation?

Or should I assume the answer is none?

[PH]

Thanks to everyone for their useful contributions on the government proposals. But can anyone answer my original question:

What support will Cycling UK, or the law firms it recommends, give to members involved in small claims for compensation?

Or should I assume the answer is none?

The forum maybe isn't the best place to ask that question.
Maybe this isn't the best time to ask either. There is still consultation, then the rules will need to be changed, then Cycling UK needs to consider what it can offer by way of help. I would be disappointed if there was no help, though what form it would take I have no idea. But for now I want them putting the effort into the consultation, making sure cyclist's needs are being considered.

[basingstoke123]

Maximum payout for soft tissue damage which heals in 6 months is £400. Someone who has soft tissue damage which heals within 6 months but prevents them from working for 6 weeks for example and loses £400 a week in wages will be 2,000 quid out of pocket under the new regulations.

These proposals deal only with compensation for the 'pain and suffering' of a 'soft tissue' injury. You will still be able to claim for any actual costs that arise (e.g. medial treatment), or loss of earning. See Para 36:

... they would still be able to claim compensation to cover any expenses incurred such as medical treatment or loss of earnings.

However, I did miss the single sentence that restricts this to just motor vehicle occupants.

I do not understand why the CUK believes this would " leave cyclists and pedestrians with legal bills if they need to make a claim that’s under £5,000.". It seems to me that these groups will be unaffected by the proposed changes.

The consultation itself is here (linked to from Cyclome's link) https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reforming-soft-tissue-injury-claims/consultation/

Part 1: Identifying the issues and defining road traffic accident-related soft tissue injuries

defines what the government sees to be the problem and proposes that the following definition

be used to identify the claims to be affected by changes to the level of compensation

‘RTA PAP 16(A) soft tissue injury claim’ means a claim brought by an occupant of a motor vehicle where the significant physical injury caused is a soft tissue injury and includes claims where there is a minor psychological injury secondary in significance to the physical injury’.

My bold highlighting. I do not believe that cyclists and pedestrians will be the "occupant of a motor vehicle". Why does CUK think so?

I missed this bit when I (sadly) read the consultation (it is quoted in Para 23). So, no, it should not affect pedestrians or cyclists. My concern is that it only sates in one place that these proposals apply just to motor vehicle occupants. It would take very little to 'accidentally' extended this to any third party. Or for an insurance company to try and fob off any claims from pedestrians or cyclists. Or a clever lawyer to find some wiggle room around this one sentence.

A much more robust definition is needed, so that there is no doubt over the intended scope. Good intentions are not enough. The wording needs to be explicit and beyond any doubt over its scope.

These proposals also lack a clear definition of 'soft tissue injury'. Obviously not fractures. But what about cuts and bruises? Perhaps there is a medical definition? If so, this is not alluded to. My understanding is that whiplash makes an ideal injury for fake claims, because there is little visible evidence. "My neck hurts" is difficult to prove - or disprove.

These proposals are being presented as if they are only concerned with whiplash, but have been extended in scope. And further, the government are sneaking in clauses that are nothing to do with personal injury. In this case, to try and deal with the problem with insurance claims: the at-fault driver (or rather, their insurance company) is responsible for paying costs, but the non-fault driver controls the costs and has little incentive to keep these costs down. Whether or not this is a good idea, sneaking it in under 'whiplash' is being deceptive.

I am in favour of dealing with people who make fraudulent claims, but these proposals seem to be too biased towards reducing insurance company costs at the expense of claimants.

What about dealing with the issue over the slowness of insurance companies in dealing with claims?

Too often, government legislation is more like swinging a mallet around their head, knocking out anyone standing too close, before lunching it across the room at the intended nail. Sometimes the mallet might even hit the nail! Sometimes, some of the collateral is intended - just that this would never get public support without that 'nasty nail' being the claimed target.

[pete75]

I am in favour of dealing with people who make fraudulent claims, but these proposals seem to be too biased towards reducing insurance company costs at the expense of claimants.

What about dealing with the issue over the slowness of insurance companies in dealing with claims?

This legislation has been bought and paid for by the insurance industry who have donated many millions to the Conservative party over the past few years.

Perhaps insurance companies slowness in dealing with claims could be improved by swopping claims department staff with premium collection staff. The latter seem to act with lightning speed.

[Cyclome]

Perhaps the minister will need to declare a personal interest when he receives a claim for knocking a cyclist off his bike. In his defence, maybe cycle lanes were to blame? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/chris-grayling-sent-cyclist-flying-with-his-car-door-video-shows

[iainmackay]

Whilst it is clear that the Government has not entirely given up on the idea of extending the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000, the current text of Cycling UK's campaigning emails is, in my view, misleading, at least in its tone. To read the most recent messages to members, one would think that the Government was charging full ahead with implementation of this proposal, and this is evidently not the case. Reading the Government's response document at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reducing-number-cost-whiplash/results/whiplash-response.pdf published as long ago as October, it becomes clear (paras 41 and 45) that they have, at least for the time being, backed away from implementing that option.

Am I alone in preferring that my cycling organisation treat me as an intelligent adult rather than expecting me to fall in line and adopt its less nuanced approach to analysing the situation? I am much more likely to participate in a campaign if I think I am being given the full story and not just a "spun" summary of the position.

Incidentally, I only arrived at this level of knowledge about the campaign because I felt the email sent out over Paul Tuohy's signature left so much unexplained about why a change in the Small Claims limit would result in increased costs for claimants, that I needed to do more reading in order to understand the point. Again, I prefer evidenced analysis rather than blunt assertion, especially when I am being asked to put my name to a petition. A bit more detail about why the proposed change would result in this unwanted outcome, and also a clear statement that the Government has not altogether dismissed this as an option, would have saved me some work and put me in a better frame of mind to support the requested action.

[landsurfer]

Goodness me.... your not suggesting that the management team at CTC Ltd. are misleading the membership ... again......

""Who will rid me of this troublesome board of trustees / management team? "



Apologies to Henry II ...... misunderstood chap i'm sure .....

[PH]

Reading the Government's response document at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reducing-number-cost-whiplash/results/whiplash-response.pdf published as long ago as October, it becomes clear (paras 41 and 45) that they have, at least for the time being, backed away from implementing that option.

Now I'm seriously confused
The consultation runs till January 2017 and you link to a response from October 2013

[rmurphy195]

Whilst it is clear that the Government has not entirely given up on the idea of extending the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000, the current text of Cycling UK's campaigning emails is, in my view, misleading, at least in its tone. To read the most recent messages to members, one would think that the Government was charging full ahead with implementation of this proposal, and this is evidently not the case. Reading the Government's response document at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reducing-number-cost-whiplash/results/whiplash-response.pdf published as long ago as October, it becomes clear (paras 41 and 45) that they have, at least for the time being, backed away from implementing that option.

Am I alone in preferring that my cycling organisation treat me as an intelligent adult rather than expecting me to fall in line and adopt its less nuanced approach to analysing the situation? I am much more likely to participate in a campaign if I think I am being given the full story and not just a "spun" summary of the position.

Incidentally, I only arrived at this level of knowledge about the campaign because I felt the email sent out over Paul Tuohy's signature left so much unexplained about why a change in the Small Claims limit would result in increased costs for claimants, that I needed to do more reading in order to understand the point. Again, I prefer evidenced analysis rather than blunt assertion, especially when I am being asked to put my name to a petition. A bit more detail about why the proposed change would result in this unwanted outcome, and also a clear statement that the Government has not altogether dismissed this as an option, would have saved me some work and put me in a better frame of mind to support the requested action.

And I'm feeling a little embarrased about his one - I rarely forward things on to friends and ask them to consider giving thier support, but I did with this one. Later at leisure I looked more closely at the paperwork and thought - oh dear, this really has the feel of something that is being over-sold or over-hyped

[PH]

From the consultation
66. The third measure in the reform programme, and the second of the two announced by
the then Chancellor in his 2015 Autumn Statement, is to raise the small claims track
limit for personal injury (PI) claims to at least £5,000, by reference to the value of the
PSLA element of the claim. The aim of this measure is to reduce the costs of litigation
in relation to low value personal injury claims

From the Cycling UK email
Our biggest concern is the proposed increase in the small claims limit, from £1000 to £5000. That means that cyclists claiming compensation for a broken collarbone, wrist or ankle, won’t be able to recover their legal and other costs, even if they’re blameless and win their case. Their costs will be deducted from anything they recover, so 70% of injured cyclists will be short changed.

Where is it people think they're being misled? The raising of the small claims limit will mean anyone expecting injury compensation to be less than £5,000 will need to pursue it without legal assistance or pay that themselves. That's me against the expertise of the insurance company, no thanks.
Or have I got it wrong?