Report comment

"‘One whiplash claim is paid out every 60 seconds and it is unacceptable that responsible motorists have to pick up the tab."

Is it not the exact point of motor insurance has it and everyone pays for those who actually need to use it, on the basis that at any time any one of us may need to use it?!

I've been ever the optimist, but this must count of one of the biggest stitch ups in recent history. What has the SCL got to do with tackling fraudulent claims? How will removing the right to compensation or setting it at a capped figure dissaude persons willing to submit fraudulent claims? All that will happen is that those same people will still do it, without having to worry about scrutiny from their own solicitor, and if damages are capped at a nominal £425 will insurers even bother to scrutinise such claims or will they just pay out because it's most cost effective, encouraging those who make such claims to continue doing so? Insurers say they will pass on any savings (yeah right) but will not be compelled to do so, oh and no doubt they will be pushing their LEI cover even more than they do already because their policyholders will otherwise be left high and dry if they are the innocent and genuine victim of a minor RTA, and no doubt that LEI will be at about equivalent cost to the otherwise reduced premium.

How about this: make LEI a compulsory part of motor insurance, and allow Claimant's to choose their own solicitor pre and post issue. It'll never happen, but that would be some sort of counterbalance to the otherwise detrimental effects of these changes on innocent members of the public.

I've practiced costs for 16 years for Claimants and Defendants, and I can honestly say that more than 90% of the time when costs have been over and above what might be considered reasonable or proportionate it has been down to paying party conduct, and the other 10% of the time costs have been reduced to a reasonable level through sensible discussion or the Court's scrutiny. A quick example: family outing in a private hire minibus; driver rear end shunts another car at a roundabout; the passengers (who all happen to be Asian) suffer mild to moderate soft tissue injuries (£1000-2500 each); despite no suggestion of anything untoward from the Defendant's driver (who had no link whatsoever to the Claimants), phantom occupancy/LVI/exaggeration are alleged against all Claimants (including 5 children) - matter proceeds to a 5 day trial only to settle at the doors of Court, and 9 predictive costs matters end up costing over £100k in costs.

The system wasn't broke, it just needed tweaking, and at least parties were on an even footing because both had access to the professional advice they needed, both understood the costs implications and both had the opportunity to test any contentious issues through the Courts if needed. This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Removing the legal rights of many to supposedly combat the actions of a few has the whiff of the US president-elect's proposed ban on muslims entering the US.

Add to this the proposed (i.e. inevitable) extension of fixed recoverable costs and I think I can start looking for a new career.

Adios amigos, it's been emotional...