Whiplash Reform: A Change for the Better?
The View of IscaBarum’s Claims Manager
In 2014/15, 75% of road traffic accident claims were whiplash claims, which is the most common injury following a crash. But reducing the amount of compensation a person can claim if they suffer from whiplash following a crash, the government hopes to make fraud a less attractive prospect.
The whiplash reforms are a measure to deter minor claims or exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims, which could save drivers up to £40 per year on their car insurance.
The changes to how whiplash pay outs are calculated are due to come into effect in 2018, and will introduce a fixed amount payable for injuries lasting less than 2 years, reducing the amount of compensation you will be entitled to should you suffer a whiplash injury through a road traffic accident.
The changes will also reduce the amount the insurer has to pay in costs for the claim by increasing the Small Claims Track Limit from £1000 to £5000 for road traffic accidents. That means all cases under £5000 will be considered small claims for road traffic accidents. More motorists in general may be expected to go through the small claims court rather than using a solicitor for car accident claims.
The changes also mean insurers will not be able to offer a settlement without an independent medical assessment of the claimant.
However, as Paul Mayer – IscaBarum’s Claims Manager points out – ‘The argument against theproposed reforms is essentially a cautionary one, ie: what is to stop litigants in person and Claims Management Companies who will fill the gap left by Solicitors flooding insurers with claims - all for the promise of saving £35-£40 on car insurance?
The concern behind this caution is that innocent victims will go without proper representation or, with it, receive less than they might otherwise be entitled to. The problem with this though is the notion of “entitlement”. In the UK, the perceived entitlement has become one of thousands of pounds and it is thisthat has attracted so much fraud and exaggeration and, with it, the need for reform. What then if the entitlement were changed; if instead of £2,000, the award was £450? Moreover, what if the claims process were simplified such that Claimants are able to represent themselves?
Both of these things are overdue. There is already very little by way of expertise in the representation Claimants receive and there is, quite simply, because it isn’t needed. The volume of these claims over the years mean that Insurers are more than experienced enough at assessing and valuing them. The Insurers are already bound more by the medical report than any legal argument or process. If they do then end up dealing with litigants in person, TCF requirements will surely follow and if the reforms do discourage the fraudulent – as is the aim – innocent victims will no longer find themselves tarnished by the fraudster’s brush. They’ll also save money on their motor insurance.’
For more information and advice, please contact us on 01392 363111
or email