We have today seen the publication of the Justice Select
Committee Report on the Small Claims Limit for Personal Injury Claims. The
report can be viewed here –
The plan is to increase the small claims limit for personal injury
claims to £2000 and for RTA related PI Claims to £5000. Parties who succeed in
the small claims court do not normally recover legal costs if they win. So in
effect there is no right to legal representation.
The Committee has expressed concerns which are shared by lawyers,
judges and most commentators outside of the government and the insurance
industry. They make the very important observation –
‘We conclude that
increasing the small claims limit for PI creates significant access to justice concerns.’
The effect of the increase will be to deny thousands of victims of accidents
the right to be legally represented. However this is explained away, it cannot
avoid the obvious conclusion that insurers will continue to have huge resources
to fight claims. Most victims will not.
The committee goes on to summarise its additional concerns including
these –
They are troubled by the absence of reliable data on the
level of insurance fraud,
They recommend a detailed analysis of the extent to which any
reductions in insurance premiums are likely to be attributed to the ‘reforms’
and that there be a report after 12 months,
They recommend an inflation only increase in the Small Claims
limit to £1500, noting that Employers liability and Public liability claims are
complex and note the contribution towards maintenance of safe places of work,
They advise against the £5000 limit in RTA cases,
They recommend that vulnerable road users be excluded from
any increase,
They remain to be convinced that the inequality of arms
issue will be addressed by the proposed on-line platforms,
They question the basis on which the MOJ has concluded that
the PI Legal Sector will replace any lost work with other work of equivalent
value.
This is very carefully considered report which, in many
ways, reflects the obvious. It remains to be seen what effect this will have.
Of course, the response from the ABI has been less than
enthusiastic –
James Dalton, in three very dismissive paragraphs simply repeats
the familiar rhetoric that this is all about lawyers ‘lining their pockets.’ He
makes the disgraceful comment that ‘honest motorists’ will continue to have to
pay higher premiums. In other words, any victim who pursues a claim for damages
is not an ‘honest motorist’, despite the committee’s finding that there is no reliable
data in relation to insurance fraud.
Experience shows that the MOJ will probably listen to its friends
in the ABI. But it is encouraging to hear that the voices of victims are
beginning to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment