Guidance

Official Injury Claim Advisory Group Meeting: 19 April 2023 13:00 – 15:00

Updated 9 July 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Attendees:

• Ministry of Justice (Chair and secretariat) (MoJ)
• Motor Insurers’ Bureau (OIC service operators) (MIB)
• Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC)
• Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)
• Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS)
• Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL)
• Association of British Insurers (ABI)
• HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)
• MedCo
• Law for Life

Introduction

The Chair welcomed attendees and outlined the agenda for the meeting.

The Chair also updated on actions from the previous meeting, including exploring options for hearing a frontline voice both in stakeholder feedback and on the OICAG where necessary. The group were also updated on the planned minor changes to the ‘Guide to Making a Claim’ and the relevant screens on OIC, following the Court of Appeal judgment on mixed injuries.

OIC data and performance update

MIB provided an overview of the latest quarterly operational data, which was published on the OIC website on 13 April 2023.

A helpful discussion was held in relation to:

• The uptick in settlements this period. Feedback from the ABI was that compensators are seeing more medical reports coming through, which could potentially be down to the success of API solutions. Some members noted that it may be due to the Court of Appeal judgement providing more clarity and resulting in less friction between parties.
• The number of open claims on the OIC service. With regards to claim volumes and throughput, it was recognised that reaching a ‘steady state’ will take some time, and the difficulty in identifying an accurate baseline to predict what ‘normal’ would then look like was acknowledged. However, the data is now showing consistent monthly claims volumes being made.
• The HMCTS work in relation to court forms being returned due to errors. There was some discussion about why errors may be being made, and members were encouraged to speak to MoJ and HMCTS if they have encountered any problems with claim forms.

At the July 2022 Advisory Group meeting, a discussion was held about timeliness, with data shared on the average time taken between key stages of a ‘happy path’ claim – one with no disputes. MoJ and MIB committed at the time to follow up on this with similar data relating to claims where there is a dispute.

MIB shared relevant data and asked the group for views about the usefulness of this data to understanding claimant journeys and the operation of the service. Members made the following points:

• The key questions to answer are whether there is a blockage at any point in the claim process and how long is too long for claims to sit at any one stage.
• Relating to the second question, a discussion was had on how to distinguish live claims from ‘dormant’ ones. Claimants have up to three years – the relevant limitation period - to bring a claim, and there could be a number of valid reasons for a claim sitting seemingly dormant, e.g., waiting out prognosis. In some claims, however, the representative may have closed it on their in-house system but not on the OIC service. It is, therefore, not a straightforward exercise to easily identify claims which have actually been abandoned.
• One such stage where some claims are sitting apparently dormant is where liability has been denied and the claimant/representative has taken no further action.
• CPL have had a similar experience and have undertaken clean up exercises for those cases sitting in the system which will not progress. A key difference between CPL and OIC, however, is that CPL don’t deal with liability disputes and, therefore, do not have to consider liability denials which may sit in the system for months but cannot be considered closed whilst still within the limitation period.
• There was discussion of whether claims dormant for a certain period of time could be removed from the service, though claims are entitled to take the whole of the three-year limitation period to settle. Consideration of any solution like this would need to go via the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
• Another stage discussed was medical reporting. There are lots of legitimate reasons claims might sit at the medical reporting stage, but MoJ, MIB and MedCo are currently working together to interrogate the data and better understand the process and behaviours.
• Some members felt that the existence of a tariff by duration inevitably increases the time taken to progress through the service, as some claimants may be advised to wait out their prognosis in order to maximise their award. However, the point was also made that represented claimants will want to receive their compensation, so such behaviour is not inevitable.

ACTION POINT: Members to engage with their respective members on any issues relating to court forms and feedback to HMCTS.

ACTION POINT: MIB and MoJ will continue to explore what data is available, and useful, to understanding claim throughput and progress, based on feedback received

Member feedback

Members summarised some feedback from their respective sectors, covering experience of the service to date and suggestions for future areas of focus for the group. Members raised the following points:

• MedCo are happy to facilitate any stakeholder meetings in relation to medical reporting process if any difficulties are identified and that would be helpful.
• Members asked whether more consultation with users would be considered where any changes to the Pre-Action Protocol or Practice Direction are being proposed. MoJ confirmed that they would continue to seek feedback from the Advisory Group on service operation and potential changes, but that amendments to the PAP or PD are for the RTA sub-committee to approve.

ACTION POINT: MoJ to follow up with MedCo on their offer to facilitate a stakeholder meeting on medical reporting.

ACTION POINT: Member who raised 7(b) to find out whether the query was triggered by something specific or whether it was a general comment.

Medical Reporting Consultation

When the Whiplash Reforms were implemented, a number of changes were made to the Medical Reporting process for low-value RTA-related personal injury claims. The MoJ will shortly be consulting on several affected areas relating to the provision of good quality, independent medical evidence. This upcoming Medical Reporting Consultation will include looking at how the OIC medical reporting process works including:

• The process by which unrepresented claimants, through OIC, obtain Medical Reports from Medco whilst represented claimants follow the the process that was in place prior to the introduction of the Whiplash Reforms;
• Emerging behaviours around the commissioning of medical reports, including how to enable the expert to address all relevant issues; and
• The general quality of reports including whether they contain the information required to either support a claimant to progress and settle their claim via OIC or for the Court to decide the claim.

The MoJ provided members with a brief summary of the relevant areas that will be addressed within the upcoming consultation and asked for their reflections. A helpful discussion was had in relation to:

• Achieving the right balance in advice and guidance to DMEs and MROs on the required conclusion in their report regarding the type of injury. It is not the role of the expert to interpret the legislation, but they must address the relevant issues.
• Similarly, the role, and appropriate time, for experts to advise claimants in relation to prognosis, as claimants decide whether to wait out prognosis.
• The role of privilege in relation to the disclosure of medical reports.

Help hub demo

MIB gave a short presentation on the new ‘Help Hub’ area of the Official Injury Claim website, which was launched in February.

The aim of the Help Hub area is to provide clear and concise answers to common questions asked by claimants. The information provided within this area will be monitored and the content will take account of feedback received, including calls made to the Portal Support Centre.

Next steps and AOB

MoJ were asked whether Advisory Group papers and slides could be shared with staff within a member’s organisation. MoJ confirmed that the general principle, as per the Terms of Reference, remained that members should not share information or data which is not otherwise in the public domain. MoJ would, however, clarify whether specific materials could be shared at each meeting.

The MoJ summarised the actions arising and next steps, and confirmed that:

• the minutes will be circulated to members for approval before publication on Gov.uk
• the next meeting is scheduled for 19 July 2023.