Report comment

Raynor and Co, it's counter intuitive to look at the reforms in the manner that you have.

A focus needs to be upon the fact that the reforms will see laypersons, up against legally represented insurers, having to navigate themselves through a complex portal system and court system.

A layperson will be expected to have the skills set to:
1. To have and know how to operate a computer.
2. To register themselves onto the RTA Portal.
3. Understand the attached Portal User manual and to be able to operate the Portal compliance ( such an idea is nonsensical )
4. To register themselves with ASK Mid and pay the associated registration fee.
5. To operate ASK Mid in to order to ascertain the name and address of their insurer of the Third Party.
6. To register with Ask Cue and pay the associated registration fee.
7. To operate Ask Cue in order to verify how many previous accidents that they have been involved in.
8. To register themselves with Medco and pay the associated registration fee.
9. To operate Medco and prepare a protocol compliant letter of instruction to the randomly selected medical expert.
10. To enter a contract with the said medical expert which deals with, inter alia, the expert’s payment terms.
11. To be able to have the knowledge as to whether they should apply for and obtain their GP and Hospital records.
12. To be able to complete Stage 1 of the Portal Process, which includes stating in clear terms why they consider the Third Party was to blame for the accident.
13. To be able to read and understand the Insurers Stage 2 response and decipher whether the offer is in line with your proposed new tariff.

In circumstances in which liability is denied on a personal injury case worth less than £5,000, does anyone seriously believe it is fair to expect a lay person to be able to have a sufficient grasp of the law to be able to prepare suitable Particulars of Claim; understand what directions are appropriate, be able to prepare their own lay witness evidence in a format that best particularises their case; be able to ( and have the confidence ) to stand up in court and represent themselves when in all likelihood being opposed by a barrister acting for the Insurer?

Such notions are nonsensical ( as are the comments supporting the reforms )

Please bear in mind this fact: as matters stand over 99% of all RTA cases that go to trial are of sufficient complexity to involve barristers for both parties.