Fair example

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) would be the first to acknowledge there is considerable room for improvement within the claims process, which is why, for the past year, we have worked closely with the government and other stakeholders in preparation for the Department of Constitutional Affairs' (DCA) long awaited consultation paper.

APIL's remit is simple: we want injured people to receive full and fair justice when they have been injured through negligence.

We believe there are ways to speed up the system and make it more cost and time effective, and we are more than willing to work with everyone involved in the claims process to achieve this common aim. But the needs of victims must remain paramount.

There have been many proposals thrown into the streamlining pot over the past year which would leave thousands of injured people high and dry. APIL has made no secret of its opposition to an increase in the small claims court limit. I firmly believe any increase would be a retrograde step and certainly not the action of a civilised society in the 21st century. Why? Because the small claims court is for claiming back money on a faulty fridge, not a place where injured people are forced to battle against the odds for compensation to which they are legally entitled. Personal injury cases are complex and, without legal assistance, injured people would undoubtedly suffer against the legally represented insurance companies who frequently refuse to admit liability. This is not about lawyers' self interest '“ there is a very real danger that thousands of people will be denied justice.

We have yet to discover what the government will unveil in its consultation paper, but we firmly believe that wholesale reform of the current system is not the answer to improving the process. Reforms brought in by Lord Woolf back in 1999 took a lot of time, collaboration and effort to introduce, and have allowed for the provision of rehabilitation, care, damages and successful conclusion of claims for many thousands of injured people. We want to build on these reforms.

There has been extensive debate about the cost and time involved in personal injury claims, yet there are solutions which do not require the current system to be cast aside. Substantial costs and time savings can be made by building on the success of the pre-action protocols within the civil procedure rules. Simple, immediate notification of claims to insurers, for example, means insurers can investigate quickly while recollections are fresh, witnesses easily found and documentation is readily available. There should be no need for the claimant's solicitor to investigate in depth, provided an immediate decision on whether to deny liability is made by the insurer. The benefits are substantial: insurers will save the additional administration costs of re-opening and re-investigating files or investigating late notification claims. As fewer cases will require detailed investigations into liability, the claimant's basic legal costs will be reduced.

Binding, early admissions of liability are crucial. We know that insurers delay admitting liability in many cases which slows down the process and inevitably adds to costs. Our own research of more than 700 firms found that 63 per cent of defendants failed to admit liability within the pre-action protocol period. If pre-action admissions are binding, claimants will not be vulnerable to the whim of the insurer, and the need to investigate liability issues years after the event (ATE) will be eliminated. Without binding admissions, claimants can never be told with certainty they will be compensated, and will never have peace of mind to plan for the future in anticipation of proper compensation.

Trust in the system would also develop considerably if clearer time frames for payment of damages and costs were agreed and adhered to. This would eliminate the need for both sides to waste time chasing correspondence, and claimants would again be reassured about when their compensation could be expected. We are confident that substantial savings in both costs and time would result.

The importance of putting the injured person at the centre of the process cannot be stressed enough. During the past year victims' needs have, at times, been overshadowed by insurers effectively claiming injured people do not need independent legal representation. This is simply not true. Independent legal representation is the key to ensuring victims receive proper advice and full and fair compensation. Initial offers made by insurers increase by over 50 per cent from the first offer to final settlement. It is also crucial to remember that people actually want legal representation and that without it, most people would not pursue their legal rights. A MORI poll commissioned by APIL found 64 per cent of people out of over 2,000 surveyed would be unlikely to pursue their case without an independent solicitor, and 80 per cent of people believe that without an independent solicitor to help them they would not receive the right amount of compensation from an insurer.

APIL welcomes speed and efficiency, as long as it provides independent care and representation and recognises the needs of the individual. After all, injured people are not commodities.