header-logo header-logo

RTA portal fees cut controversy

09 May 2013
Issue: 7559 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Plans to slash fees go ahead despite concerns that lawyers won’t be able to cover costs

Severe cuts to road traffic accident (RTA) portal case fees went ahead this week despite fears of personal injury solicitors that the new system is not financially “viable”.

The fees have been slashed from £1,200 to £500 from 1 May, for uncontested compensation claims worth up to £10,000.

The change does not affect the amount of compensation claimants can obtain.

From 31 July, the portal will be extended to include claims worth up to £25,000 and to include employers’ liability and public liability claims.

The cuts in portal fees are part of a package of reforms introduced by the government to put Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on civil costs into practice. On 1 April, the government implemented major reforms to “no win, no fee” cases and banned referral fees.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling says the “compensation culture” is “pushing up the cost of insurance”.

However, Deborah Evans, chief executive of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) says: “These changes mean lawyers will be faced with a series of fees that are too low to be viable so they will have to recover full success fees just to cover basic costs.

“As they will have to charge the full 25%, it means claimants will only receive 75% of their damages if they win. This reduces further if they have to pay after the event insurance on top of that and further still if they accept earlier offers. Damages may have risen by 10%, but because of these extra costs, claimants will be worse off this year than they were last year.

“APIL’s concerns do not stop there. There is a real inequality between defendant and claimant when claimants work with fixed fees but defendants are unfettered. This could encourage defendants to run up costs in an attempt to price claimants out of the market.

“Unfettered costs give an advantage, particularly in the Pt 36/qualified one-way costs shifting area where the genuinely injured person is held to account for the full amount of defendants’ costs should they fail to beat the Pt 36 offer. We hope the Ministry of Justice will look at this closely.

“Referral fees may have been banned but our concern has always been that they will simply be driven underground. Only time will tell.”

Issue: 7559 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll