The heat is rising on the UK government as solid arguments, backed by experts, add a new level to counter the one-sided argument put forward by ABI in the UK. Consultation period on PI reforms ends this coming Friday. Then make sense of all the arguments for/against.
----------------------------------------
APIL (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers) have intensified their campaign in recent months to raise awareness in the community of the imbalance proposed by the UK government.
The figures collated and stated in the APIL 70 page submission feeding into consultation (due this Friday) includes a leading economist view supporting their findings.
APIL's 70-page response questions the assumption that RTA-related soft tissue injury claims are too high and are increasing. It points out that claims numbers registered by the DWP’s Compensation Recovery Unit have fallen 41% since 2010/11.
Any data relating to fraud, suggested APIL,
relates to the level of motor and liability insurance fraud in general, overlooking that in 2015 just one out of every 400 motor claims was proven to be fraudulent.
‘The government is naïve enough to believe that the savings insurers will make on paying compensation will result in lower insurance premiums,’ added Sugarman. ‘Insurance industry figures show quite clearly that the industry has made savings of around £500m a year since the last round of personal injury reforms three years ago but premiums have actually increased by 8% during the same period.’
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/w...s-like-an-inconvenience--apil/5059245.article
Compass did this instead and found that
even if 90% of savings were passed on – “which we consider to be implausibly high” – the government’s preferred reform options would
result in net costs to consumers and tax payers.
“At a
more realistic 80% pass-through rate, all of the proposed policy options
result in net costs to consumers and tax payers.
http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/lates...pact-pi-reforms-skewed-lawyers-say-economists
