Blog: Whiplash reform requires unified push

Last week's news that the Ministry of Justice has at best deprioritised whiplash compensation reforms - and at worst shelved them - has added further uncertainty to an insurance market in need of certainty.

The resulting discord between those for and against the changes was evident and expected. The government said it would outline new plans for tackling whiplash ‘in due course', leaving all players in the personal injury claims arena to ponder how exactly this will be conducted and over what period of time.

When hearing then Chancellor of the Exchequor George Osborne's Autumn Statement proposals last year, I was sceptical at how readily the exclusion of whiplash itself could be implemented, but the increase in the upper limit of the small claims court from £1000 to £5000 did appear to be capable of proceeding in 2017.

At the recent Claims Summit, the main panel discussion took place just hours before the news broke. One question was quite predictive of where we now find ourselves: If the government was not to lead reform, "what should be done, given a clean sheet of paper - the caveat being all sides would need to agree?"

Now more than ever the insurance industry needs to demonstrate to government and consumers that, even amid regulatory ambiguity, we can take active and collaborative steps to tackle the defects in the system and show that insurance works. From constructive dialogue between the defendant and claimant representatives, to improving the dialogue between brokers and consumers in the event of a claim, we can help prevent spurious parties entering the system.

The Association of British Insurers' motor conference today is an opportunity for us all to make a consistent case.

We sincerely hope the government re-engages insurers and the wider personal injury market, while revisiting policy in this crucial area - and does so before the end of the year.

The real villain of the piece here is the 'made-up' injury claims. While it is not easy for defendants to prove the non-existence of subjective symptoms, invoking fundamental dishonesty to remove qualified one-way costs protection is a big stick with which to hit anyone who may be considering a whiplash claim following a low velocity impact.

One action we can all take is to promote awareness of using 7726 - the numbers spell SPAM on your phone keypad - for reporting unsolicited texts which invite claims. I welcome Access to Justice's recognition that there are players at the far end of the claimant spectrum who are having a detrimental effect on the entire market through such tactics.

We can all play a more active role in rooting out those that compromise justice for genuine claimants to make the best of the situation ‘as is'. Insurers need to explore every avenue and this includes lobbying other regulators such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

While the non-implementation has been welcomed by some, the plain fact is that without decisive action, motorists will continue to pay the price. Osborne had previously quoted a saving of up to £50 in motor premiums across the piece. But we should be wary of averages: the policyholder whose claims experience has been impacted by such claims has to pay much greater premiums.

Unless we collaborate across all of the industry to drive workable practices, then we risk maintaining the status quo, which is not effective for genuine claimants or innocent motorists. A market quarrelling among itself is going to do little in influencing a government, but a unified industry that has the needs of consumers at its forefront will be able to make a difference.