Report comment

I hope people will take this in the manner it is intended; a genuine query, as opposed to trying to start an argument or disparage others...

All other areas of contentious law barring personal injury and housing disrepair claims are subject to a small claims track limit of £10,000.00. Matters brought before the employment tribunal generally have no entitlement to costs recovery, Practititioners of those areas of law have found a way to make a living out of this.

On what grounds do claimant personal injury practitioners believe personal injury claims should be held to a different regard?

I appreciate that, on occasion, there may be some more complex legal issues to address, but the same is true of other areas of law. I also acknowledge David and Goliath argument that is litigant in person against an insurance company with unlimited funds. However, an employment matter against a FTSE100 company surrounding whistleblowing and/or discrimination would similarly involve complex legal concepts.

I acknowledge that the market will contract and there will be a loss of jobs. This is horrendous for those impacted. However, I recall a figure from previous articles and comments of circa 44,000 jobs directly attributed to the personal injury sector. That is incredibly high and I anticipate fed by the vigorous marketing of CMCs to generate low value claims.

Is there a legitimate need for the above volume of staff or has it ended up artificially inflated by the mass production of claims through CMCs? The PI department in my prevous firm was largely staffed with paralegals and "litigation executives", with little to no legal background prior to their current employment. There has been a massive drive in many firms towards commoditisation of low value personal injury services.

I do not dispute the insurance industry's rhetoric is hyperbolic. They have their own interests to serve (namely the shareholders). I also do not hold much hope for the proverbial £35 saving on my car insurance. However, it needs to be accepted that such changes are coming. It is how the sector adapts that will make the difference.

From an outsider looking in, it certainly appears that what is already a very procedurally driven claims process could be further streamlined and the template report documents expanded upon to address some of the concerns raised in the below comments. Solutions to the pre-determined decision of the government are what are needed now.

I admit it has been several years since I last dealt with personal injury claims. Also, my apologies for the lengthy comment, but I would welcome people's comments; if for nothing else but to address my curiosity surrounding the sector.