Report comment

Why are the tariff amounts so much lower than either the weighted median payout (from insurer data) or the JC guidelines? For injuries of duration of 4 - 6 months, the tariff represents a 79% drop in the damages you are likely to recover . Why?

The government claims that Jackson's report agrees with the tariff system. It does no such thing. In fact, he says: " any figure for general damages derived from text books, law reports or software systems can only be a starting point. The judge will then adjust that figure as necessary, in order to take account of the particular features of the case before him or her."

In terms of the figures, he goes on to say that: "That calibration should accord as nearly as possible with the awards of general damages that would be made by the courts. " Which has patently not happened here.

The consultation also says that the Insurance Fraud Taskforce was in favour of tariffs in its January 2016 report. Again, it says no such thing. It says: "The announcement on whiplash reform at Autumn Statement 2015 may have significant implications for soft tissue injuries [...] the scope of the reforms is not yet clear so the Taskforce therefore considers that further work needs to be undertaken..." It then suggests, in one line, that the government could consider "introducing a system of predictable damages for soft tissue injuries". That's in. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Is there any way to find out how they came up with the figures they did? I don't imagine writing to the MoJ will get any meaningful response.