The Assosiation of Personal Injury Lawyers Voice Concerns over PI Reform

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has urged the UK government not to rush into the radical changes which are due to be implemented in the UK personal injury compensation claims system. The changes will particularly affect the road traffic accident (RTA) portal system. Over the past two months, the government had initiated a call for evidence in order to evaluate how much money was being made by personal injury practitioners so it could make the changes accordingly. Accurate data collection was something which both the Law Society and the APIL volunteered with in order to put together a case demonstrating the costs and complexities of carrying out car accident compensation claims and other types of personal injury cases.

The concern is that media pressure regarding the so called ‘compensation culture’ will force the government to act hastily, meaning that personal injury lawyers well not realistically be able to continue their practices. A spokesperson for the APIL stated that the it had ‘serious concerns at the speed with which the reforms are progressing’. The spokesperson went on to state that the association had particular concerns over the aggressive timetable which appeared to be compromising the process, failing to allow sufficient time for independent data collection and analysis. It looks like there will not be proper time for procurement processes of new IT and insufficient time for build and testing the new systems.

These steps would be essential to successfully implementing adjustments to personal injury law. The APIL did not respond, however, on the governments call for recommended figures regarding the costs that lawyers should be able to recover from car accident compensation claims and other types of portal work. The current limit of road traffic accidents is £1,200 and was reached after two years of negotiation with the Association of British Insurers (ABI). The ABI also declined in submitting a recommended figure, stating only that the cost must come down. The Ministry of Justice last week confirmed that any potential changes to the portal system will be published towards the end of the summer. This is likely to be preceded by an independent report by Nottingham University on personal injury and car accident compensation claims
in England and Wales.

About My Compensation

I am a director for personal claims specialist, My Compensation. I write for a number of legal blogs and publications in the UK and the US.
This entry was posted in Administrative law, Injury & Accident Law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Assosiation of Personal Injury Lawyers Voice Concerns over PI Reform

  1. Lance P. Richard P.A. has an experienced team of legal professionals who are committed to defending your rights in Personal Injury, Criminal, and Family Law cases throughout Florida.

  2. Attractive element of content. I simply stumbled upon your site and in accession capital to claim that I get actually loved account your weblog posts. Any way I will be subscribing for your feeds and even I success you get entry to constantly quickly.

  3. Thanos says:

    Your going to have a hard time with this one. I assume you were the drveir of your car. As such, the only coverages that would apply to you would be Medical Payments or Personal Injury Protection (PIP). It depends on what state you live in as to if you have Med Pay or PIP.Med Pay only pays for medical bills. It does not pay lost wages or pain/suffering. It is not a required coverage.If you live in a no fault state then you are required to carry PIP. PIP works a little different in each state that has it. In general PIP covers medical bills, lost wages. However, a lot will depend on the wording in your policy. Bodily Injury Liability pays for injuries you cause to other people. It does not apply to the drveir of your vehicle. From what your company is saying the Med Pay or PIP (if you have it) do not apply in your situation. So there is no source of recovery under your own policy. A lawyer can’t change the language in your policy. Now you may be able to recover from the owner of the tree. But that’s not going to be easy and is certainly not a sure thing. There are a lot of factors that come into play.What was the condition of the tree?Why did it fall (such as a storm)?Was the owner on notice that it had fallen?Also the tree is a fixed object. It’s a hazard that is there to be seen. You did not see it. So your own negligence will come into the equation as well.

Leave a Reply