Claimants will miss out through CFA reforms, research suggests
Campaign groups have pleaded with the government to climb down over ‘no fee, no fee’ changes after publishing new research.
A survey of recent claimants using the conditional fee arrangement (CFA) found that more half of respondents had an income below the national average of £25,000.
Nearly half of the cases involving CFAs had a compensation value below £5,000, with almost three-quarters winning a payout of up to £10,000.
The Access to Justice Group (AJAG) and Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), who jointly commissioned the research, say ‘huge numbers’ of the three million claimants in the last five years would have lost their right to compensation under government proposals.
The Ministry of Justice wants an overhaul of the civil justice system amidst fears of what it describes as a ‘compensation culture and an unwieldy justice system’.
AJAG co-ordinator Andrew Dismore said: ‘The government must think again and not give in to the special pleading of the fat cat multinational insurance companies, who are the sole beneficiaries of their plans.
‘They will save millions of pounds at the expense of ordinary people who have been hurt on the roads or at work. The government’s plans are Draconian and will end access to justice for the less well off.
‘The system we have now works well and has huge satisfaction rates from those who use it.’
Both groups say they will ‘redouble efforts’ to fight proposals before they are formally debated in Parliament this summer.
The Ministry of Justice wants to raise the small claims limit and abolish the recoverability of success fees and associated costs in ‘no win no fee’ claims.
Claimants will have to pay their lawyer’s success fee, rather than the additional cost being charged to defendants, a move which opponents claim will restrict some people’s access to justice if they have been injured.


Comments
How much....
How much do you thing you would get if you tried to take on the lawyers at an insurance company? They's run rings round you and you'd end up with far less. And you'd have to do it all youself, if you did't give up before they paid you what they should.
Use a professional with the ability to get what you're due AND you don't have to pay for it.
Correct! Insurance companies
Correct! Insurance companies have, for far too long, tried to cheat claimants by making very low initial offers prior to the involvement of solicitors. And they then have the audacity to claim that it is the Claimant solicitors who are at fault for the costs of the process! If insurance companies were so seek to reduce the costs of the process, they should deal with direct Claimants much more reasonably. Very much a case of having cake and eating it from the ABI!
Sigh...more words proving what ?
If you want to look at the facts (awkward things aren`t they, facts...they involve sort of let`s see.... thinking for yourself a bit in processing and interpreting available information) there is no "claims culture". Objectively. As borne out by the figures. But I know its easier to read and regurgitate a billionaire newspaper owners puppet`s editorial on the subject .....
Pointless "research"
It’s the staggering lack of any logical connection between the research undertaken and the "conclusion" reached that really takes the biscuit.
The research shows that a lot of people have brought personal injury claims using ‘no win, no fee’ agreements. The research shows that many of them are on relatively low incomes. The “won’t be able to fund their claims any other way” means that they could not pay their solicitors’ ordinary fees in the event a claim was lost.
‘No win, no fee’ agreements are not about to be banned. In future, a successful claimant will pay any success fee out of their damages rather than the unsuccessful defendant. There was no research into what this would mean, if anything, for the number of claims brought. I just hope APIL members present their clients’ personal injury claims somewhat more convincingly then they are presenting the anti-Jackson case.
The Rule Of Law.
What is a compensation culture. Is it the expectation that when one suffers financial loss and/or injury, thru the unlawful action of another, the one who caused the loss and/or injury makes it good.
That's not culture, that's "The Rule Of Law".