Injured people have been on the wrong end of 15 years of policy decisions that have all but reduced them to second-class citizens.
A succession of legislation has severely weakened access to justice for victims of negligence by chipping away at the rule of law and the well-established principle of 100 per cent compensation.
APIL has set out its views on the current landscape in evidence to House of Commons Justice Select Committee’s access to justice inquiry. Our conclusion being that there is irrefutable prejudice against personal injury claimants.
The driving force has instead been to protect businesses, insurance companies’ profit margins, and control insurance premiums. Meanwhile, an unfounded and untrue narrative about injured people and their motives for claiming compensation has been spun, and accepted as fact by policymakers.
Examples of bad policy for victims are the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act, fundamental dishonesty rules which are open to abuse by unscrupulous defendants, fixed costs not keeping pace with inflation, and compensation for victims of road crashes being slashed to arbitrary levels.
The LASPO Act led to successful claimants no longer being able to recover some of their costs from defendants. A justice minister at the time said that claimants should have ‘skin in the game’. The language used illustrates the negative perception of injured people – one based on misinformation and misunderstanding.
Ask anyone who has suffered a serious injury what they want and it is not money, and their situations are certainly not ‘games’. Victims just want their old lives back. No money is worth a serious, or life-changing injury.
Fixed recoverable costs in personal injury cases have not kept pace with inflation. It means the full cost of the work that law firms need to undertake as part of a claimant’s case is not covered. The implications are severe as firms grapple with trying to remain in business. They must give serious consideration to the cases they can - and cannot - take on. Some claimants in more complex cases inevitably risk being denied justice.
The Civil Liability Act led to the whiplash reforms which was a serious blow to victims of road crashes as it led to imposing unfairly low tariffs. The Government called it a ‘Bill to cut car insurance premiums’ which did not happen and, in fact, premiums have risen.
The Act also changed the way in which the personal injury discount rate is set. Victims in higher value compensation cases now need to take greater risks when investing their damages in order to recover the full cost of their needs.
According to the Government Actuary’s calculations a ‘typical’ claimant with a life expectancy of 20 years has only a 55 per cent likelihood of receiving 100 per cent compensation. In other words, 45 per cent of some of the most seriously injured people are likely to run out of money, and will have to turn to the State for support.
Delays in the civil courts, which are understaffed and crumbling, cause another barrier to justice as cases face unacceptable delays.
Whittling down the principle of full and fair compensation is plain wrong. People pay insurance premiums so if the worst were to happen there is a safety net of compensation to help pick up the pieces.
Injured people must be put first when policy is being determined. To do otherwise causes genuine hardship and has a broader impact on the whole of society. Anyone can be a victim of negligence. Whether everyone knows it or not, we are all invested in how the system works when someone is injured.