Small-claims limit could rise above £5,000, Grayling admits

"Grayling (pictured) told parliament on Tuesday that raising the small-claims limit to £5,000 would mean accident victims continue to have access to justice."

"I am keen for people to have access to a proper legal process, but the benefit of the small-claims court is, in part, arbitration. The plans make the process simpler and cleaner for people who have been through a difficult time."

"These changes, along with our wider reforms, are intended to bring more balance to the system, make lawyers' costs proportionate and in turn create an environment where insurers can pass on savings to their customers through lower premiums."

He has absolutely no idea what he is doing.

He has absolutely no idea that he is being taken for the ride of his life, by the insurance industry, at the country's expense.

I have just finished typing a response to a thread on the APIL forum, about Sabre Insurance being referred to the FSA for writing direct to legally represented claimants. Some of those claimants are our clients. When I wrote to them objecting in the strongest terms, they sent me an information leaflet saying they "were not corresponding with your clients" and that they will not stop doing so.

This is the "simpler and cleaner" process he wants?

‘Following recent legal challenges the justice secretary is examining all options.’

Spite politics?! Very grown up. Most people grow out of such behaviour after primary school.

Utterly pathetic.

Against the advice of even Jackson and everyone else bar the insurers then? Arrogance personified!!

The comments made by the so called Justice secretary amaze me.

One of the few things that raising the small claims limit to £15000 for injury claims will do is ensure that insurers will be able to confuse, undermine and undersettle innocent injured parties claims when they are at their most vulnerable.

There is no logic to their arguement. If you were to follow through with their thinking then every case, civil or criminal should be a small claim. Easier for everyone to understand,.

So the law is just there for those that can afford it, insurers or rich tories whose family own their own insurance company.

There is only one thing that they are trying to do with this proposed increase and thats put all persoanl injury practises out of work. They won't say it as whilst kicking lawyers is one of thier favourate past-times, heads lines of tens of thousands out of work because of tory policies does not read so well.

Then again the press are just ignoring this massive cull of the legal rights of the individual.

Shame on the tories and all those compliant with this travesty

Does he know what "consultation" means ? He's surely not supposed to say "we're consulting but we're simultaneously plotting to do worse things regardless of the outcome of the pointless consultation". He could at least have the decency to pretend that he's listening to those who are consulted !

I'm sure Richard III is turning in his grave........he had a much better concept of access to justice than Grayling seems to.

Neil Kinnock once said "dont get mad-get even"

The response of the profession should be nuanced, but effective, as part of a general campaign to highlight the multiple attacks on the public's right of access to justice.

All politicians possess an "achilles heel", which is adverse publicity.

The need to campaign is now even more acute, in the light of the Government's actions today in overturning the House of Lords amendments to the Justice & Security Bill, which is trying to create "secret courts".

So are we inevitably heading for a cash starved legal system, where some unrepresented litigants/accused can be imprisoned in secret courts?

Who amongst the legal profession will have the courage to get involved?

If your tie is the right one or your appendage fits the right orifice, one can go far in politics. Of course, it helps if you are stupid too. The UK is under siege by toffs. I say we de-toff the UK, by WHATEVER means required.

Are you really happy to sit idly by and watch access to justice crumble and your profession be cast aside because of these clowns?

This is victimisation. War even. There will be casualties before someone with common sense takes over. Mark my words.

.
As above, what the heck has arbitration got to do with the small clams court? What I suspect he really meant to say was mediation - why not all sit around a table and mediate a settlement!

There is a hidden agenda to reduce access to justice for all. We should all mediate. Those who deserve damages get much less than they would get in a proper settlement. Those who do not deserve anything also get something. Everyone is a winner - right boss. Well no, not really everyone actually loses.

Welcome to the reality of the small claims court when half the time the judges are clueless. Better of mediating!

Grayling you are an idiot. So are your chums. Do your worst cos I don't care anymore. The tax take will go down but you fools will carry on claiming for your moats and duck houses regardless . You give a toss about no one but yourselves and guess what - I am now going to be like you. No more tax to pay, yipee

The point made by Judge Dread cannot be under estimated.

The recent dispatches tv program produced evidence that insurance premiums had an additional cost of over £200 per policy due to unscrupulous commercial arrangements with their own suppliers which is currently being looked at by the OFT.

The hard and soft market has plagued the insurance industry for decades. This is a direct quote by Andrew Torrance CEO of Allianz in 2004 from Insurance times:

"I believe a pretty consistent view is emerging that it is bad news if the market starts to talk itself down," says Mr Torrance. "What is in everyone's interest is to have a more stable level of rates over time rather than to get into this ridiculous cyclical behaviour that unfortunately the UK insurance market has managed to exhibit over the last 20-25 years."

The simple fact is insurance companies rate their premiums to either bolster reserves, "Hard Market" or, to gain market share, "Soft Market. It is no surprise that since the economic difficulties since 2007 the insurers continue to prop up their reserves through higher pricing.

However, that is only necessary due to prmeium's being far too low previously. Also, the premium actually paid for car insurance has not actually increased for the vast majority of consumers. Renewal quotes are higher than the previous years but, when you change your insurance provider you will get a comparable quote provided that your personal circumstances have not changed.

The entire debate about costs is a piece of propaganda by the insurance market that politicians have followed hook, line and sinker.

The issue of costs has been largely resolved by the introduction of predictive costs in 2003, which have not been increased with inflation for 10 years and, further improved by the implementation of the portal in April 2010.

Why is it that Admiral, who include secondary income streams in their loss ratios show performance at somewhere near 75% -85% but their competitors who do not show loss ratios around the 100% mark i.e. loss making.

Why do insurers continue to operate in the car insurance market if, as we are lead to believe, they have failed to make any profit for 20 years on that line of business?

It is all a nonsense and the regrettable part of it all is that the consumers will not know what is being taken away until such time as they need to call upon the services of their legal advisors.

The Government are either incompetent in accepting the arguments put forward by the insurance industry or, complicit in allowing the insurers to get away with the propagation of misinformation.

All governemnt reports refer to a perception of a compensation culture and conclude that there is not actually a compensation culture and yet the politicians continually refer to the existence of a compensation culture.

It is about time that they held the insurers to task in the way in which they treat thrid party victims as opposed to making it easier for them to erode the legal rights that citizens have gained through centruries of progressive development.

John, now re-edited to remove the abusive language (not mine...I was merely quoting)..

A little background on the lovely Mr Grayling before he was promoted from employment minister:-

There appears to be little agreement amongst psychiatrists as to whether compulsive or pathological lying is a genuine personality disorder, whether it is a symptom of another condition, or whether in fact, some people are just lying sausages.
One thing seems clear which is if it is left untreated it can develop into a delusional state in which the individual barely knows whether they are telling the truth themselves. For some people lying becomes the default position, and this is compounded by the need to keep lying to maintain past deceptions.
This of course can be devastating for both the individual and the people around them. Compulsive liars may often be little more than harmless eccentrics or pub bores, but many of them manage to lie themselves into positions of responsibility. This is the case with Employment Minister Chris Grayling who has resorted to ever more outrageous falsehoods, even risking his career recently by lying to the Parliamentary Committee on Work and Pensions.
Grayling’s deceptions began way back in 2007, when he was Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary. His first big whopper was his claim that “billions of pounds are being lost to fraud” in the benefits system. This was based on figures which showed that £2.5 billion was lost due to fraud and error in the system. It turned out that the amount lost to fraud alone was less than a billion. Grayling has never apologised for this distortion of the truth and has remained relentless in his attempts to portray benefit claimants as criminals. A press release issued by the DWP just last year led to lurid and fictional headlines claiming that 75% of people on sickness benefits were ‘skiving’. Disability hate crime soared as a result.
Grayling’s decline seemed to accelerate in 2009. Back then Grayling was Shadow Home Secretary, and tipped to be a big wheel in government should the Conservatives return to power. After a single visit to the Moss Side area of Manchester, Grayling claimed the area was in a state of urban war, comparing it to the fictional depiction of Baltimore in television’s The Wire. Manchester has a population almost five times that of Baltimore, yet Baltimore has a murder rate around seven times higher than the Northern city.
Shortly after this the expenses row blew up and Grayling did not fare at all well. At one point Grayling claimed for two mortgages, one on his large family home in Surrey, just a short commuter trip from London, and another on his posh flat in Pimlico. Grayling also owns two buy to let properties within the M25. In 2005 he carried out extensive renovations on his Pimlico flat and to pay for them claimed almost close to the maximum annual allowance for MPs. This wasn’t quite enough however and a year later he was back claiming thousands more for work done the previous year. Had he not spread the cost over two years he would have been unable to claim the full amount. He explained away this discrepancy by pleading that his “decorator has been very ill and didn’t invoice me until now.”
Only a year later Grayling was at it again. This time he claimed that violent crime had soared under the Labour Government. Grayling had deliberately chosen to ignore the change in the way crime had been recorded which led to a furious rebuke from the UK National Statistics Authority. The chairman of the authority, Sir Michael Scholar, was forced to write to Grayling accusing him of misleading the public and risking damage to public trust in official statistics.
His most famous gaffe came a month later. Grayling was recorded saying he supported the right of B&B owners to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. This drew condemnation from across the political spectrum with calls for his resignation. Cameron was incensed that the true face of Tory bigotry had been revealed to the public and Grayling all but disappeared from public life until after the current Government weren’t elected in 2010.
As ever Grayling attempted to squirm his way out of the scandal claiming: “I am sorry if what I said gave the wrong impression, I certainly didn’t intend to offend anyone… I voted for gay rights”
No-one accused him of giving the wrong impression, we all know what the Tories are really like. Theyworkforyou.com reveals that in truth Grayling has voted moderately against gay rights, voting against the initial legislation to establish civil partnerships, against fertility treatment for gay couples and was absent from the vote on repealing the notorious Section 28.
It was upon his appointment to Employment Minister however that Grayling’s pathological deceptions really began to take hold. An early scandal emerged over the private companies given lucrative contracts to carry out the flagship ‘Work Programme’. Deloitte Ingeous were listed as preferred bidders by Grayling and went on to win a contract worth almost a billion pounds. Grayling had previously received a donation worth £27,978 from Deloitte. Grayling for once remained tight lipped on the affair which Labour Minister John Robertson claimed could be a breach of the ministerial code.
When the workfare row broke out two months ago Grayling found himself repeatedly forced into the public eye and he began to fib and bluster like never before. It is now impossible to know whether people are mandated to workfare for private companies on the Work Programme as Grayling says one thing yet his department claims quite another. DWP officials have been reduced to rewriting documents and ‘disappearing’ freedom of information requests to cover up for Grayling’s dishonesty. Grayling claimed that under the last Government people who undertook work experience lost their benefits when in fact (to their shame) it was Labour who introduced workfare. Spurious claims about 20,000 young people finding work due to the Tory’s Work Experience scheme were never backed up. He was humiliated on Channel 4 news when he pleaded to his interviewer to look into his eyes and see that he wasn’t lying. This was in response to his claim that the Government’s Work Experience was completely voluntary despite Channel 4 news presenting a letter from the DWP which confirmed that this was far from the case.
As the row deepened Grayling’s fibs became ever more bizarre. Whilst David Cameron boasted of all the new companies who were joining the Work Experience scheme, the DWP, under Grayling, began to refuse FOI requests asking exactly who these companies were. Blaming the resistance to workfare on an SWP plot he revealed himself to be increasingly paranoid, at one point even accusing the SWP of hacking his email account.
Last month he deliberately ignored the number of people who successfully appealed decisions which had declared them fit for work and stripped them of vital benefits. The DWP published a press release which dishonestly claimed over a third of those assessed were Fit For Work, a number which omitted the growing number of appeals.
When Paul Farmer, the Chief Executive of mental health charity Mind quit an advisory panel on the Government’s Work Capability Assessment recently, Grayling’s pathetic response was to pretend he was going to sack him anyway. Farmer had said the assessment was unfit for purpose, whilst Grayling alleged his position was untenable because Mind were suing the DWP. According to Mind no such court case was on the cards.
And it was late last month that Grayling lied to a Parliamentary Committee when he declared there is no evidence of anyone on the Work Programme being sent on a mandatory work placement at a private company. This was perhaps Grayling’s most bare-faced lie yet, as despite the DWP’s attempt at a cover up, evidence of this practice can be found in seconds.
None of the other members of the committee have yet commented on Graying’s lies, although they have been informed.
It is clear that Grayling is out of control. The DWP is fast becoming a laughing stock whilst insiders say the system is in meltdown behind the scenes. With a Minister in charge who seems to be making things up as he goes along, it is little wonder that the no-one in the department seems to know, or even care, what’s going on anymore.
When people lie compulsively a day of reckoning is never far away. Deceptions can only be maintained for so long until eventually the whole charade comes crashing down around them. Grayling has been very quiet the last couple of weeks. His initial swagger is all but non-existent these days. Some have claimed his career is hanging by a thread.
The rows over Atos and the WCA, along with workfare, are still generating headlines. Universal Credit is a train crash waiting to happen. It will no doubt be entertaining to watch Grayling attempting to wriggle and squirm his way out of trouble yet again. You can hardly blame him. He’s just doing what’s always come naturally, and he’s been well rewarded by Cameron in the past.
It is a weak leader who allows such a dishonest and malevolent influence in their ranks. Grayling has been a continual embarrassment to the Tory Party and Cameron has still cheered him from the sidelines. The Prime Minister looks unable even to control his own ministers. If Grayling is the best the Tories can come up with to ram raid through welfare reform then it reveals a party desperately lacking in talent. Still, with Grayling on board, at least you can’t accuse them of a lack of imagination.

cost of car insurance for me in 2012 decreased 33% on previous year
cost of house imsurance cecreased 20% in 2012
office insurance no hike but managed to secure 100% uplift in cover
cost of pii insurance for my firm went down 35% (A rated insurer)

The cost of insurance goes up and down as MPB says depending upon what an insurers is trying to acheive. The effect of pi claims will have virtually no impact and doubtless far less than uninsured drivers (but it costs money to deal with this problem)

Wake up Grayling - yuo are a sucker (am I allowed to say that!)

It's not seen by the government as a means of arbitration. Grayling simply does not know what arbitration means. Years ago, small claims went to "small claims arbitration" (see section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984), but the CPR got rid of that confusing terminology and the Arbitration Act 1996 does not apply to small claims in the county court (see section 92 of the 1996 Act). In any event, Grayling won't be aware of any of this, so it cannot be the reason for his misuse of the word "arbitration".

Its hard to respond to this nonsense and ruination of peoples careers from both a claimant and defendant perpective without being wholly unprofessional and in a sense acting like grayling.

I have to say its time, lawyers started realising that some sort of direct action needs to take place here because those so called representative bodies we have are of no influence whatsoever on the government.

There is a whole agenda driven bandwagon going on here which has nothing to do with anything other than repaying donations and favours to the Conservative Party who i used to support.

They will never get my vote again in any way shape or form from someone who has voted for them all his life.

What an absolute disgrace this man is and those who preceded him, i do not know how he can spout this drivel with a straight face.

I had a call the other day from a litigant in person who told me that he had two months to serve amended particulars of claim and a medical report. His claim was worth about £4000 and he hadn't got a clue what to do. Not his fault; he wasn't trained to issue proceedings but this kind of LIP is going to be swamping the Court system for years until eventually it is just not worth the effort and no-one brings a claim and the insurers declare victory.

Pity the land that hath no lawyers. Unhappy is the land that is need of lawyers.

I sent him a copy of APIL's Response witht he following email on 11th January and guess what........no reply at all.....

Hi Richard

Further to yours of 1st December of which I thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you can understand in some way that the changes that are proposed to take effect in an industry which I have worked for over 10 years and taken the time to study part-time for 4 of those years in order to better myself somewhat irks and frustrates when the proposed changes have not included the stakeholders involved and even worse, behind closed doors meetings with the insurance industry have taken place at No. 10.

I have attached a response to those changes drafted by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, of which I am a member, in the hope that this will help to enlighten you as to the effects these changes are having on the industry and the likely fall out in relation to the same. It may also be worth noting that last year we paid approximately £2.5 million in tax as a fairly small firm.

I was surprised to see you comment on the salaries of lawyers having risen hugely in the last 10 years as I for one must have missed the boat as far as that is concerned however, I have noticed certainly in the last 10 years that the salaries of chief executives in many industries, including the insurance industry which tends to make an enormous profit each year, have risen exponentially.

You may have misunderstood my previous email when I was talking about the costs involved in personal injury claims as I did not say we ‘are prevented from charging enough for personal injury claims’ – all we want is to be paid a reasonable fee for reasonable work undertaken – something which the judiciary have the final say on (a Costs Judge) where a bill is disputed – no doubt the finest check and balance on anything that is disputed. In addition, you should note that costs have been fixed in Road Traffic Accident Claims since 2003 in any event. Only the poor conduct of insurers has led to cases falling out of this process and further costs being incurred as a Claimant is required to prove their case. I am hopeful that the attached document will help to inform you of the content of the real debate here and I would be grateful for your reply and I would be interested to hear your opinion.

The date for implementation of the extension of the portal has been delayed indefinitely by Chris Grayling following APIL’s application for judicial Review on the issue (given consultation only took place with the insurance industry) but this issue of fixed costs. I trust you will be familiar with Professor Fenn’s report which the government appear to have ignored in its entirety.

I wonder how the insurance industry would feel if they were instantly told the premiums they charge had to be reduced by an equivalent amount as to their marketing budget as we all know that anyone that drives a car is required to have insurance by law so it would hardly have a devastating effect on the industry if this were to happen but at the same time would reduce premiums for car drivers immediately by between 24% and 51% (the amount it costs to get a client).

I trust we can have meaningful discussion on this issue and I appreciate that as an MP, with so many things going on, that you are unlikely to be wholly familiar with how our industry works and the impact of these likely proposed changes. To that end, I also attach the following links which gives some further debate on the issue and I hope proves to be a bit of an eye opener.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/fees-and-costs/pi-sector-predicts-jobs-haemorrhage

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blogs/come-let-s-fix-car-insurance-racket

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/high-street-pi-giant-announces-redundancies

I look forward to hearing from you in due course and once again thank you for taking the time to revisit this issue.

Kind Regards

haha I think Richard Graham has completely whalloped Peter T there.

Great time to close down hundreds of legal practices.......

http://news.sky.com/story/1048399/ifs-warns-osborne-will-have-to-borrow-more

Menell

Your point is so well articulated I feel compelled to tell you so. it is people like you (and indeed the post by Peter T) who scare the hell out of the government because the point made just cannot be countered.

I do not really understand pi work because I do not do it (well i did as a NQ back in 97) but find the suggestion that fees should be capped at £500 so outrageous that I have to get involved in this debate. Lawyers are not overpaid by any stretch of the imagination - why not talk about insolvency practioners who charge (on the high street) £300-£400 a hour and get away with it - infact their charges are endorsed by goverment. The effect of this is that all creditors (which includes HMRC) end up getting nothing whist the IP pockets everything that he collects.

How on earth can a laweyer see a client, do the work, get a settlement and close the file for £500? If I was injured I would want a pi expert to do the work for me - not some unqualified paralegal. As the courts say £212 is a reasonable hourly rate for a experienced "high street" lawyers doing litigation , am I to presume that the lawyer could wrap my pi claim in under 2 hours? if he could I would be very, very worried.

This is nothing to do with fat cat lawyers. The government (if not the daily mail) knows the pi lawyer is not overpaid. This is nothing less than an attack on the pi industry and an attempt to
kill access to justice without any real thought of the consequences. I do not know much about the JR but it has to succeed surely?

There is case law that says a ATE legal expense insurer who tries to put unreasonable rates on a law firm is acting unlawfully as it fetters freedom of choice of legal adviser. How therefore can what the government be doing be reasonable?

when are we going to hear the Law Society speak out on behalf of their members who do personal injury?.........................tumbleweed

Just one addition to dm's comment that Chris Grayling is out of control - the word "seriously"

"Grayling will be relieved to be out of the DWP, where he was little more than a whipping boy for Iain Duncan Smith’s ludicrous and unworkable benefit bashing schemes. But the promotion of a compulsive liar like Grayling to head the Justice Department is a risky strategy for a Government that’s as out of ideas as they are out of touch.

Grayling is unlikely to fair well when his lies are scrutinised by judges and barristers rather than benefit claimants. Whilst his appointment represents a dark day for human rights, he is likely to prove the perfect example of what can happen when a fool is promoted above their level of competence."