EWJ June 2024 web - Journal - Page 17
In addition to the guide, the MoJ has provided a
staffed helpline which can provide users of the portal
with help on using the system and progressing claims.
Between 1 April and 30 June 2023, the Portal Support Centre received 5,467 calls. Of these, 819 were
from professional users and 4,648 were from unrepresented claimants.16 In its written submission, the
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) estimated that between May 2021 and the end of 2022
for every ten unrepresented claimants, more than six
calls were being made for support. The Association
told us “A service which is supposed to be easy to use
should surely not generate so many calls for help”.
or of the OIC”. The Department added:
The proportion of claimants who are unrepresented
is not on its own a measure of access to justice or the
usability of the OIC, but outcomes are. OIC data
shows that unrepresented claimants are settling their
claims for similar amounts to represented claimants,
and more quickly.
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.
In addition to the complexity of the claims process,
many of the submissions we received suggested that
the low public profile of OIC could be a reason for the
small proportion of unrepresented claimants using
the portal.18 For example, Zurich Insurance Company UK told us:
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.
The general lack of public awareness remains a key
factor. Promotional and educational campaigning of
the process has been minimal since the reforms went
live on 31st May 2021 and could be improved and issued at frequent intervals to raise awareness and improve public understanding.
In addition to this, some submissions suggested that
information about OIC could be improved if results
via internet searches were made more visible.20
Zurich also told us:
Technical issues for professional users
Several of the submissions we received expressed
concern about the lack of system integration between
the OIC portal, and existing case management systems used by legal professionals. For example, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) raised
concern about the technical problems its members experienced when supporting claimants with the OIC
process:
Simple Google searches relating to making a whiplash
claim routinely result in various legal firms’ offerings
appearing in the top listings with users having to scroll
down the listings before the Official Injury Claim
details are visible. Improving visibility of the OIC on
online search engines could prove beneficial.
Allianz, one of the UK’s largest general insurers, said
that, due to a lack of publicity, people were unaware of
the OIC’s existence. It also expressed concern about
the existence of a number of fake websites which appeared when using a search engine to look for the
portal. Allianz said such websites could lead claimants
to unnecessarily access misleading services and that
this might erode trust in the online portal itself.22 Research conducted by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau
found that 59% of users found their way to the OIC
service through their insurance company, 12% did so
through Internet search, 10% via a solicitor/law firm,
6% through a claims management company, and 13%
through other routes.23
It was the Government’s assumption that the portal
would be used mainly by unrepresented claimants
but, as the committee notes in its call for evidence,
most claims are made by professional users. This lack
of foresight meant that not enough work took place
to ensure the OIC portal would integrate smoothly
with the case management systems of different law
firms. Without this integration, information about a
claim must be entered separately into two systems.
This increases the workload, which is neither efficient
nor cost effective.
The Association told us its members “had experienced
technological problems at every stage of the claims
process”.28 These included claims forms being rejected due to claimants’ National Insurance numbers
having a space wrongly entered, the uploading of documents failing randomly, messages being sent but not
received, settlement offers not being received by
claimants, and offer amounts being received which
were different from what was intended by the insurer.
APIL cautioned that unless the technical problems experienced by their members and other users were
fixed, the average time it took for claims to be settled
would become longer, especially as new claims entered
the portal. The written evidence from Winn Solicitors
Ltd concurred:
The MoJ told us: We know that several stakeholders
feel that there should have been a national awareness
campaign to advertise the launch of OIC. However,
the Government made a deliberate decision not to
spend public money on a short-lived marketing campaign that would have been irrelevant to much of the
public; OIC is not a service an individual will need to
use regularly.
In their written evidence, the MoJ also told us that
“increasing the number or proportion of unrepresented claimants has never been an aim of the reforms
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
15
JUNE 2024