Report comment

As a continued user of the online portal for disease cases I must say that I thoroughly disagree with Ms Rothwell's assertion that "it is now becoming almost impossible to get beyond the claimant firms’ automated systems and speak to a real person to discuss the claim." If anything I must state that it is incredibly difficult to get hold of anything but an answer machine when attempting to talk to a Defendant.

But I digress; the biggest issue I have found with the Portal has been the Defendant attitude towards it. They either ignore the claim until it 'times out' or insist that there is insufficient information as an HMRC has not been provided (despite no reference in the Protocol to the same being necessary). I think we can all agree that the CNF does not provide the scope to be detailed in any aspect but believe me even when you do try and provide details you will still be met with the same tired old arguments.

The issue here is the Protocol allowing Defendant's to remove a claim if "they believe that there is insufficient information." The Protocol or the Courts will have to narrow this issue as even with a full employment history, a correctly completed CNF and authorities for documents etc, some Defendants still try and claim insufficiency in order to try and restrict Claimants to fixed costs while they still get their Protocol designed 3 months of investigations.

Quite frankly the system is flawed and until the Courts or the Law Society provide clarification as to what is reasonable conduct the Disease Portal will continue to frustrate and delay claims.