Yesterday I
chaired a conference entitled ‘Whiplash: The Evidence’. It was hosted by the
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), of which I am a Fellow, and took
place at the Grange City Hotel, near the Tower of London.
The Tower is
well-known for having a bloodthirsty history, but I was surprised to learn that
the Grange City Hotel has also hosted amateur boxing events. Perhaps some of
the bouts even happened in the same room set aside for APIL yesterday – a
strange thought.
But then
again, perhaps a sense of conflict lurking in the margins was appropriate, for
when it comes to the ongoing debate about whiplash it seems that polarised
views have been taken and battle engaged. Or, to use a boxing metaphor, the two
sides have not only laced up their gloves but have climbed through the ropes
and now find themselves bloodied but still standing in the mid-point of a
particularly savage fight.
My hope,
after yesterday’s conference, is that the hostilities cease. The two sides –
insurers and government on one side, with claimant solicitors and medical
experts on the other – need to forge a dialogue and start working together to
resolve the problems of a system that has become dysfunctional. Nothing is ever
gained by rushing through reform; change needs to be holistic and sensibly
considered. It is not too late for this to happen even in an area as
controversial as whiplash.
In the hope
that compromise between the two combatants can be found I suggested yesterday
that solicitors should hold their hands up and acknowledge that there are
problems in our profession. That there are problems is, after all, no secret. Some solicitors have forgotten the standards
they should adhere to, others think more of their profits than their clients.
We need to commit to the Benson principles – about which I have written here
before – and agree to robust regulation by a regulator which enforces
professional standards and has the tools and inclination to punish those who
transgress. A robust regulator will help to stamp out the various other
maladies which dog our profession – cold calling, advertising which incites
litigation, and conflicts of interest.
If the legal profession is prepared to
hold out an olive branch, I hope it will be reciprocated by the insurance
industry – and prove to be a prompt for a united approach to reform in this
sector. This, of course, would entail the insurance industry accepting that it
needs to put its house in order, too. Many practices need to change, not least
calling injured parties and convincing them to settle (with no medical
assessment and no legal representation), then chalking up the resulting
under-settled cases as ‘whiplash’ claims. We then need to ensure that the drive
to ‘reform’ is slowed down and properly managed. At present, the bandwagon is
pushing for the introduction
of insurer-driven changes to the RTA portal and small claims court by April
2013. This is clearly wrong.
Reforms that I would like to see the
insurers accept can be succinctly summarised. No personal injury claim should
ever be settled without supporting medical evidence – or legal representation.
If this were agreed I have a strong suspicion that the ‘whiplash epidemic’
would soon start to abate. Next, we need to upskill our understanding of
whiplash as an injury. There needs to be consistency across all cases, informed
by the necessary biopsychosocial model. There also needs to be better data
sharing. Insurers need to share IFB data with claimant representatives. By
sharing this information we can identify patterns of claiming and ensure
improved fraud prevention.
Add to this a commitment by insurers
to pass on costs to motor policy purchasers via a simple percentage mechanism
where claims costs reduction equate to reduced premiums and we will have a
system with less fraud, less costs and increased fairness.
Isn’t that worth striving for?
I hope so. Here’s to less by way of
pugilism by the opposing sides and more consensus, understanding and
compromise.
I completely agree, John
ReplyDelete