RTA claims portal ‘progress’ – but 50 firms still without login details

Carcrash_0.jpg
Thursday 03 June 2010 by James Dean

Some 50 law firms were still awaiting delayed login details for the new road traffic accident (RTA) claims exchange as the Gazette went to press because of a ‘processing error’.

In addition, some firms were still unable to plug their case management systems into the RTA claims portal because of delayed user testing (see [2010] Gazette, 27 May, 3).

The portal was introduced on 30 April as part of Ministry of Justice reforms to speed the processing of hundreds of thousands of RTA claims between £1,000 and £10,000.

Figures from portal software developers CRIF showed that, between Monday and Friday last week, the number of claims notification forms sent to insurers by solicitors rose 40% from 2,100 to 2,942. The number of claims at the beginning of ‘stage 2’ of the process – where insurers have admitted liability and the quantum of damages is decided – rose from 377 to 1,027.

Motor Accident Solicitors Society chair John Spencer, who sits on the project steering group, said that a backlog of login requests more than 15 days old was cleared by Friday. Some 50 firms affected by the processing error are being contacted and their logins set up manually.

Spencer said of the portal: ‘It’s not working to an acceptable degree because one wants the portal to work absolutely, and that’s not happening on anyone’s analysis. But it’s important to note that progress has been made.’ He added that a number of MASS members have reported positive experiences accessing the portal via their web browsers.

Comments

RTA Portal - what is the point of it

Whilst the "reforms" in RTA claims may have been necessary, I still cannot understand why the Portal has to be used when, until the reforms, we were held as being proactive if everything was sent between Solicitors and Insurers via e mail, which the powers that be have deemed not to be secure now. I know for a fact that firms were sending medical reports via e mail, so if it was good enough and acceptable practice before April 2010 why not now? The Data Protection Act never raised it's ugly head until the reforms were proposed