Report comment

I would like to think that everybody agrees that innocent victims that have suffered injury as the result of the negligent actions of others are deserving of compensation. That premise holds good regardless of whether that injury was sustained in a motor vehicle, in a factory or elsewhere.
There is no logical sense in a proposal to ban an entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering if it was suffered as a result of a road traffic accident, but not if was sustained whilst walking down the street and tripping in a pot hole.
However, if the Government's proposals were accepted, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle would be entitled to claim compensation for soft tissue injuries, however a driver of a vehicle struck from behind by somebody recklessly exceeding the speed limit would not. Outside but hit by the car, you can claim, sitting inside and hit by another car you could not.
It makes no sense.
But then it was never going to make sense because this has nothing to do with soft tissue injuries, it has nothing to do with road traffic accidents and it has nothing to do with personal injury - it is entirely political. A political party funder has cried out for help and the Government has tried to answer that cry. Unfortunately, in this instance the Government's political response would lead to injustice and an entirely illogical and fundamentally flawed compensation system.
These proposals are quite simply wrong. They should and must be opposed.
Furthermore, in relation to the 'Small' Claims limit, if the Government had its way, the description of 'Small' Claim would no longer be appropriate. For the vast majority of our population, a sum of money of up to £5,000 could in no way be described as 'Small'. Indeed for many, such an amount would be considerable.
Many of those people would be vulnerable and would struggle to understand the Civil Procedure Rules and Court process, let alone hold equal bargaining power with experienced insurance company claims handlers. Raising the 'Small' Claims limit would deprive thousands of vulnerable people from pursuing what would be to them exceptionally valuable claims.
Once again, this is quite simply wrong, it also unfair.
There really is nothing good about the proposed reforms and the promise of lower insurance premiums would not be fulfilled.