Whiplash Reform and the Official Injury Claim service

Given that some of the witnesses the Committee would have intended to call to give oral evidence are parties to the case of Hassam v Rabot to be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2024, and the centrality of the treatment of mixed injury claims in assessing the overall implementation of the whiplash reform programme, the Committee has decided to pause its inquiry until the Supreme Court has ruled on the case. In the interim, we nevertheless wish to raise some concerns in relation to the operation of the OIC service to date, which were highlighted in the written evidence we received, and which we have set out in the remainder of this Report. We have also published the written evidence to the inquiry. We note that these are Parliamentary Proceedings, and that just as we are pausing our inquiry in respect to the Supreme Court, parties to the case should bear in mind that Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 applies to the Committee’s proceedings and so not make reference to this evidence in the ongoing case. (Paragraph 7) Use of the O C portal by litigants in person

The OIC portal has been designed to support people who have suffered injuries from road traffic accidents to make a claim for compensation without the need for legal help. Initial estimates had suggested 30% of users would not have legal representation, yet this is currently the case for less than 10% of users, and even this figure is disputed by some who suggest it is likely to be lower still. This is largely because of a lack both of awareness around the existence of the OIC and of confidence in navigating a potentially complex system.

Whilst we accept that the majority of OIC users will continue to use legal representation, it is not clear to what extent a lack of awareness of the portal is responsible for the low number of unrepresented claims. Accordingly, we recommend that the MoJ and Motor Insurers’ Bureau conduct research to better understand this, and whether steps to improve awareness of the OIC portal and user-confidence in the system would encourage more litigants in person. (Paragraph 23) Technical issues for professional users

The OIC portal was designed with unrepresented claimants and users in mind, whereas as we have already noted the vast majority of the portal’s actual users are legal professionals. We are concerned to hear that a number of professional users of the OIC service continue to experience problems with the portal failing to adequately interface and integrate with other systems. We are also concerned to hear about the problems some professional users face when having to copy information between systems, leading to inefficiencies and potential delays in claims being settled and injured people receiving their compensation.

We appreciate that it takes time for new systems to ‘bed in’ and we are encouraged that the MIB continues to request and collate feedback from both direct and professional users of the OIC and that it is committed to finding resolutions to problems as they Whiplash reform and the Official njury Claim Service 19 arise. However, it is vital that any technological problems which professional users of the OIC face that affect efficiency, accuracy or timeliness are resolved as a matter of urgency. In its response to this Report, the MoJ should set out what steps it is taking in conjunction with the MIB to address these concerns, and when it expects them to be resolved. (Paragraph 33) Unresolved cases and timeliness

We are concerned by the growing number of unresolved cases in the OIC portal, which now stands at 349,000. For the minority of cases that have reached a settlement to date, the average time taken to do so is 251 days and is predicted to increase further as more complex cases, which have taken longer to reach conclusion, begin to settle.

One of the objectives of the OIC portal was to simplify and speed up the process of making a claim for whiplash injuries. Whilst we acknowledge that the nature of the claims process is such that there will always be a stock of cases in the portal at different stages in the claims lifecycle, and that some will take longer to reach a resolution than others, we recommend the MoJ investigates further the reasons for the growing number of unresolved cases and the deterioration in the timeliness of reaching settlement, and publishes its findings by the end of the year. This should include an analysis of all stages of the claims lifecycle, including those aspects which defendants are responsible for progressing, those which claimants are responsible for progressing, and those where improvements to the OIC portal itself could raise performance. It should also include an analysis of timeliness in comparison to how equivalent cases previously progressed in the MoJ’s Claims Portal, and of the apparent disparity in settlement times between represented and unrepresented claims. (Paragraph 40) The cost of motor insurance

The Government estimated that the whiplash reform programme would remove more than £1.2 billion from the cost of providing motor insurance, and that these savings would be passed on to policyholders through lower premiums. However, whilst the total number of minor personal injury claims has reduced in the last two years, the cost of motor insurance has continued to rise, with insurers citing cost of living pressures, the effects of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the increasing cost of care in relation to high value and catastrophic claims. It is, therefore, difficult to determine the extent to which these upward pressures have been offset by any savings arising from the whiplash reform programme.

We note the requirement in the Civil Liability Act 2018 for HM Treasury to report to Parliament in the 2024–25 financial year on the extent to which savings have been passed on to policyholders. Whilst we acknowledge that many factors may impact on the cost of motor insurance premiums, it is vital that the direct effect of the whiplash reforms is properly assessed. We recommend that the Government ensures this process is as transparent as possible, including publication of the submissions made by insurers. Given the whiplash reforms are still bedding in, and the large number of cases still awaiting settlement, we further recommend that the Government conduct a follow-up assessment one year after the publication of its planned review. (Paragraph 50) 20 Whiplash reform and the Official njury Claim Service