Skip to main content
Skip to navigation

Mail To a Friend E-mail this to a friend

Leader - Government waters down and buries PI reforms

Published 24/07/2008

The fact that the government’s long-awaited response to the personal injury reforms consultation is being seen by the industry as a cop-out will come as little surprise.

But even as rumours persisted in the market that those reforms would be watered down – after months of delay signalled outside pressure was making the government waffle – the Ministry of Justice seems to have backtracked further than expected with the long awaited publication this week.

It is no surprise that specialist union law firm Thompsons decided not to comment this week when asked for a reaction. They probably couldn’t get the words out because of the self contented grin on their faces.

Heart of the system

The new process will do little for the claimants who were meant to be put at the heart of the system – unless they have been injured in a motor accident, and even then, the changes are almost no different to those processes currently in place.

The other proposed amendments read now like a bruised and ignored check-list: after-the-event insurance – no change; small claims limit increase – scrapped; fast-tracked employers’ liability and public liability – ultimately ignored. Disease claims, for all intents and purposes, appear to not even have been considered following the responses.

The timing has also triggered the insurers’ ire. Days before the summer recess when the only thing on the minds of most ministers is the sun, sea and the long summer holiday ahead of them.

Nursing back to health

Last year, the government boldly stated that the claims system in its current form is “broken” and it must be changed to help the little guy, the injured party who is stuck in a bad system, and far away from their claim settlement being finalised.

But for many of the 270-plus respondents to the report, the decisions made by the MoJ this week will hardly repair that which had the potential to be shiny and new.

It begs the question: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Or, in the government’s case, even if it is broke, we likely won’t fix it.

This article has been reprinted with permission of the Claims Standards Council

Related articles