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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll