Government must make exceptions for vulnerable users such as motorcyclists in crackdown on fraudulent small claims says Fletchers Solcitiors

Fletchers Solicitors has said that the Government’s latest crackdown on fraudulent small claims must make exceptions for vulnerable road users, such as motorcyclists, or risk denying fair access to justice.

In its response to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on reforming the whiplash claims process, Fletchers – which deals with around 30% of all motorcycle accidents in England and Wales – warns that the planned blanket approach for all road users ignores the reality for vulnerable groups. This includes the 18,000-plus motorcyclists who represent 10% of all casualties on the UK’s roads each year, despite only making up 1% of all road users.

The proposals, which aim to impose stricter limits on damages for minor soft tissue injuries, referred to as whiplash injuries, will also require all claims under £5,000 to go through the small claims court and therefore not be able to recover sufficient legal costs even if they are successful.

Ed Fletcher, CEO of Fletchers Solicitors, said that there was a genuine danger that the rights of vulnerable road users would be harmed if exceptions were not made to the Government’s plans to tackle fraudulent small claims. 

“While the Government has concerns about a perceived compensation culture amongst car users, problems with fraud simply do not apply to claims from vulnerable road users,” he said.

“Compared to the ABI’s estimate of 70,0000 dishonest motor claims detected in 2015 alone, we estimate [that] less than 0.0002% of motorcycle claims involve findings of dishonesty.

“Insurers recognise this and, as a result, motorcycle insurance is already good value, about a third of the equivalent insurance for car drivers. The Government’s focus is clearly on reducing car insurance, not motorbike insurance.”

Fletcher pointed out that the proposals to deal with fraudulent small claims had also failed to take into account the complex nature of accidents involving vulnerable road users who aren’t protected by a car when an impact takes place.

“Not only are their injuries more complex and varied as a result, but also, in our experience, the question of who is to blame is twice as likely to be disputed in motorcycle cases compared to the average motor claim,” he said.

“This makes it harder for such matters to be dealt with fairly through the small claims court. Such road users are therefore more likely to require more in-depth legal advice and also very detailed (and more expensive) medial reports to support their case.

“Applying a blanket approach across all road users therefore puts these groups at a substantial disadvantage for no benefit other than to put unreasonable obstacles in the path of legitimate claimants.”

Fletcher added that the correct solution would be to draw a clear distinction between claims from different types of road user.

“We believe that any reforms bought in by the Government in order to crackdown on whiplash claims should be limited to claims as defined by the proposed definition in the consultation, with special emphasis on the distinction between occupants of a vehicle and vulnerable road users. This will ensure that bikers and other vulnerable road users, who are not part of the perceived problem, continue to be protected by society.”

Mark Dugdale