Report comment

All of us lawyers that have worked for years to obtain for our client's reasonable compensation for those injured as a result of another's negligence, who have fought for justice for those whose claims have been refused unreasonably by insurers and/or offered a fraction of what they are entitled to (which they would never have got without legal advice)should presumably according to Liz Truss be hanging our heads in shame?

It seems that "whiplash" claims and soft tissue injuries are now the pretty much the same thing (let's just all call them all soft tissue from now on, same difference right) and a number of these are minor, exaggerated or fraudulent. What number? I'm assuming it must be a lot, certainly that is the impression that is being spun.

Our government are doing this to protect honest motorists and save them £40 a year (we all know that all savings so far have not been passed onto the consumer yet it's assumed that this will happen - I mean why delve deeper than that) which is why "action has to be taken"(This is the same government which has increased Insurance Premium Tax from 6% to 10%, thus adding 4% to every motorists premium). Did not seem to care then but heyho, this is different!

Even though the entire focus of the consultation relates to whiplash (sorry soft tissue!) injuries and effect on motorists premiums the governments preference is that the SCL should rise to £5000 for all PI claims. Why? Even though there is an option "a" and option "b" regarding the limit to apply to all PI claims or just RTA the preferred option is to all. In fact an option to apply it to RTA only is not even in the list of options. Of course not. Why does Joe Blogs who suffered an injury at work not get a right to paid legal representation because there are allegedly too many bogus whiplash claims being made? How does any of this make any sense?

The description of how a CFA works is also simply wrong:
"These are the funding agreements that are commonly used in personal injury claims where the clamant only pays for the solicitor’s work if they win the case. Under the current system if a clamant has a CFA, if they win the case they can recover the legal fees from the defendant, and if they lose they do not have to pay legal fees as part of the agreement.
No they can not recover the fees if they win! They will only recover a proportion of the fees and for Portal RTA that is £500. The Claimant has to make up the rest from their damages (up to 25%). This gives a totally wrong and unfair impression of how this funding method currently works. This has been in place since 2013 but seems to have passed Liz Truss completely by, which might be why no one at the MOJ appears to have noticed that these saving were not passed on to the consumer.

I could go on.... This is a disgrace and the whole document built on spin and misinformation.