John Hyde byline

John Hyde

There are many valid reasons to oppose the personal injury reforms, but it’s time to address one.

Of course, the chances of insurers reducing premiums are remote (the chances of anyone in government bothering to check are non-existent).

The likelihood is the number of claims will go up. Claims management companies will be all over accident victims, and solicitors won’t be on the door to stop them coming in.

My theory is we’ll see more annoying adverts, hear of more consumers being ripped off, and reap little reward in our pockets (unless we happen to own shares in insurance companies).

But opponents of the reforms seem to have failed to grasp exactly what the government thinks these reforms are about.

The argument goes that claimants will be left to fight their case against insurers who have deep pockets and an army of lawyers. They will be under-compensated without anyone in their corner.

But here’s the point: there will be no fight. There will be no dispute over levels of compensation. Insurers won’t be screwing over claimants because they will barely be in contact with them.

If these reforms go through, the game changes completely.

Accident victims will be automatically guided to a website with a set list of questions asking for details about points of injuries and how long the symptoms have been present. The compensation figure is automatically generated by algorithm, not negotiation. Indeed, there is no back-and-forth over damages levels. Tariffs will set the levels, with MedCo doctors certifying the injuries, and everyone involved will have to abide by them.

Rail commuters will be well acquainted with delay repay systems, where disgruntled passengers simply upload their ticket, specify their journey and delay, and wait for the computer’s decision to come (with money automatically paid into a bank account).

Any claims coming under the umbrella of the revised small claims limits will be roughly the same.

There are legitimate concerns about who creates the system (insurers, most likely) and who sets the tariff levels (civil servants probably, not judges). I certainly don’t see this system being user-friendly by April, as the Ministry of Justice seems to believe.

It will also be interesting to see the public reaction when their ‘three grand for whiplash’ assumption turns into a few hundred pounds.

But the idea that claimants will be flummoxed by legal systems ignores that legal systems are effectively being made redundant.

The claimant is no more than a data inputter, their case another in a factory line of automated responses and pre-set handouts.