Guidance

Official Injury Claim Advisory Group Meeting: 19 July 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)
• 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)

Apologies:

• Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC)
• MedCo

Item 1: Introduction

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

2. The Chair also updated on actions from the previous meeting, including feedback on any issues with court forms (action closed – no issues raised).

3. It was agreed that MoJ would follow up with MedCo on the action from the last meeting to set up an engagement meeting with medical reporting stakeholders.

4. The Chair confirmed that MoJ’s consultation on the medical reporting process had been published and will run for 12 weeks, closing on 10 October 2023.

Item 2: OIC data and performance update

5. MIB provided an overview of the latest quarterly operational data, which was published on the OIC website on 11 July 2023.

6. The following discussion included points raised on the Portal Support Centre call numbers, which increased towards the end of 2022 to approximately 300 per month. A question was asked about how many calls were from unrepresented claimants and MIB took the group through that data in more detail. The quarterly data report provides information on call volumes received from both represented and unrepresented claimants per month, but only records the total number of calls received per topic and not the number of individual claimants making the calls.

7. The group also discussed the reasons for claim removal as selected by compensators. It was suggested that the correct reason may not always be being selected and the ABI noted that they had done some work with members to better understand this issue. The group agreed that this work should be considered further with a view to identifying whether any additional support for claims handlers is required.

ACTION POINT: MoJ, MIB and ABI to discuss and share ABI report on compensators’ reasons for exit with all Advisory Group members.

Item 3: Filtering dormant claims

8. MIB gave an overview of some work done to identify and apply filters to the overall OIC claims volume data, to highlight the proportion of claims which are dormant or abandoned but not closed on the system. This helps to clarify the number of active, outstanding claims on OIC in a more accurate and effective manner than by subtracting the number of settlements and exits from the total number of claims registered.

9. Members were informed that Claims Portal (CPL) experiences a similar issue with dormant claims and operates a “clear up” policy whereby claims which have not progressed are removed, but only after the statutory limitation period has expired. There was acknowledgement that there are policy and technical decisions for MoJ and MIB to take as to how such claims in OIC should be dealt with once the relevant three-year limitation period has passed.

10. It was also suggested that there could be better communication between claimants/reps and compensators, to ensure claims are closed promptly if they are no longer going to be pursued. The group discussed whether prompts for action could be sent to the parties where a claim was sitting dormant but remained within the statutory limitation period. It was suggested that 180 days would be an appropriate timeframe for a prompt to be sent.

11. The group agreed this action should not result in a deletion of the claim, but act as a reminder to close or progress it where appropriate. It was acknowledged that it remains the claimant’s choice about whether to progress their claim and at what speed. For example, they may wish to wait out a prognosis.

12. There was general agreement that what is being seen on OIC is not unique to this system or these claims, as demonstrated by the experience of CPL. This is, therefore, something to continue to monitor as a tool for better representing the number of outstanding claims, rather than a problem to solve.

Item 4: User feedback

13. MIB provided an update on direct claimant feedback, received via a user survey sent to every unrepresented claimant exiting the service. Through this survey, claimants are asked to rate various aspects of the survey out of five. The key points are as follows:

• A questionnaire is sent to every direct claimant within a week of exiting the service, either through settling or for other reasons. Between 5-7% of the surveys issued are returned;

• The aggregated feedback numbers are used to review and update the OIC website FAQs and Help Hub;
• The overall feedback scores provided by users are positive and improving across all areas; and
• A piece of work is also underway, which will run through 2024, to ensure that material on the OIC website remains helpful, and additional self-serve topic-specific videos will be added to supplement the information already provided.

14. MIB provided the group with an update of the feedback from the recent OIC professional user roundtable sessions, held during June.

15. MIB organised two events for working level claimant and defendant users and a further wash up session for representative bodies and larger organisations. MoJ officials attended each session to observe and listen to the feedback from users. These sessions considered operational issues, system enhancements, user behaviours and potential policy changes.

16. The roundtables were used to identify 5 key areas for consideration, including improving the claimant journey where a court decision is needed, recoverability of counsel fees, equality of arms, aligning the medical reporting process and improvements to the transfer process between compensators and third party administrators. The following points were made in discussion:

• Cost effectiveness for users is not the only factor to consider for compensators, as they also value certainty to support future policy pricing and reserving tasks. So, data which aids an understanding of where claims are and how long they will take to progress is helpful;
• The process for leaving OIC to get a court decision before returning to the system is clunky and could be improved. For example, a claimant could have to go to court to get a liability decision, go back to OIC to get medical evidence and return to court to decide quantum if that can’t be agreed between the parties.
• The group also discussed issues with behaviours such as low offers to settle from compensators, and whether the recoverability of counsel fees should be allowed.
• The process for taking forward mixed injury claims could be improved as it is currently problematic if information is not input to system correctly. The pros and cons of including compulsory fields were discussed. MIB are aware of issues with this process and are considering them. The group was reminded to encourage their members who use the system to ensure accurate information is input, as the automation of the system means that bad data is replicated throughout the process including in the court forms.

Item 5: Member feedback

17. Members summarised feedback from their respective sectors, covering experience of the service and suggestions for future areas of focus for the group. Most feedback had been covered by discussion of the roundtables, but members also raised the following points:

• Additional mechanisms for tackling poor behaviours by users would be helpful. Sanctions for such behaviour would also be desirable, though it was accepted that this is difficult in a non-costs-bearing environment, and that it is beyond the powers of the CPRC to include sanctions in a pre-action protocol;
• It was noted that unrepresented claimants are more likely to claim an uplift for exceptionality and further guidance on exceptionality would be helpful. It was also observed, though, that exceptionality is subjective and dependent on the individual and their circumstances, and is better left to judicial discretion;
• It was acknowledged that the APIs connecting users’ services with OIC are now working much better, and credit was given to the MIB team for their perseverance in achieving this.

18. It was raised that the current lack of a digital link between the OIC and HMCTS digital services is not ideal. MoJ acknowledged this, but noted that, as ever, time and resource were limiting factors. Further digital integration is, however, in-keeping with the Government’s ambitions for the Civil Justice system.

Item 6: Next steps and AOB

19. 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; and
• the next meeting is scheduled for 25 October 2023.