EWJ June 2024 web - Journal - Page 18
The OIC Portal is a system built for 9% of its users,
that does not cater for large professional organisations
and seemingly refuses to adapt to its now apparent
user base. It does not interact with case management
systems which results in duplication, double recording, or keying of information by users and time spent
finding information on multiple screens or systems.
In its written evidence, the MoJ acknowledged that
some high-volume professional users had experienced technical problems with the application programming interface (API) connection. It said, “there is
always going to be some technical issues when a digital system is launched, for example CPL (Claims Portal Ltd) encountered significant issues when launched
in 2010 which have been rectified over time”. The
MoJ added that it had full confidence in the mechanisms that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) had in
place to identify, investigate and resolve technical issues. The MIB told us that following the launch of the
OIC portal in 2021, a series of customer and stakeholder feedback initiatives had ensured the service’s
performance could be tracked and that it continued to
seek regular feedback from users.
Winn Solicitors Ltd noted that since the launch of
OIC, “claims handling had become a demonstrably
worse and less efficient experience for the professional
user base”.30 They contrasted the performance of the
portal with the pre-existing Claims Portal, which had
been built for professional users and which efficiently
handled cases, allowing interaction between case management systems. The Claims Portal allows professional users to set up an application to application
(A2A) connection to the Portal, which means that users
can work on claims in the Portal directly from their internal case management systems. Most volume users,
both on the claimant and the compensator side, connect to the Portal via A2A, and over 80% of Portal use
is via A2A. Claims Portal Limited told us:
In their written submission, the Law Society of
England and Wales said:
The OIC will inevitably be viewed as a model on which
to base future digital justice reforms. The main takeaway from its rollout is that the end user should always be included in the development of a portal or
online process from the very earliest stage, including
in the development of legislative reform, not just technological reform.
The main distinction between the Claims Portal and
the OIC portal is that the Claims Portal was designed
to be used by professional users whereas the OIC was
designed to be used by unrepresented claimants. That
presents challenges for the development of A2A (application to application) functionality and has resulted
in many of the business users accustomed to running
claims, at the processing level, smoothly and easily via
A2A in the Claims Portal, having to handle some or
all stages of the claim manually on the OIC web portal rather than via A2A. Users also face the challenge
of having to develop and maintain a connection to two
portals for low value RTA claims.
The Society added that a more holistic approach
should be taken with civil justice reforms, to ensure
that various technologies worked in conjunction with
existing platforms. They expressed the view that portals, such as the OIC, should be integrated into court
processes so that “efficiencies can be maximised as
much as possible, and updates made seamlessly”. One
example they noted was application programming interfaces (APIs) that had not been built into the OIC
from the beginning. They provided the example that:
In its written evidence, Unison told us the OIC technology did not assist “when the matter is anything
other than straightforward”. They provided examples
of where a case had to move to the Claims Portal, or if
a LiP dropped out to seek legal assistance (which they
indicated happened in a large number of cases), then
the case was re-allocated within the OIC portal forcing
the claimant to essentially begin again, and re-log all of
the information previously provided.
Claims that are unable to be resolved in the OIC and
require transfer to either the existing MoJ Claims Portal, or the courts, have needed rekeying of data entry,
which not only has risks relating to duplication, but
also is highly inefficient.
The OIC portal was designed with unrepresented
claimants and users in mind, whereas as we have already noted the vast majority of the portal’s actual
users are legal professionals. We are concerned to hear
that a number of professional users of the OIC service
continue to experience problems with the portal failing to adequately interface and integrate with other
systems. We are also concerned to hear about the
problems some professional users face when having
to copy information between systems, leading to inefficiencies and potential delays in claims being settled
and injured people receiving their compensation.
Robert James Solicitors provided an example of a LiP
who decided they were not satisfied with the offer they
received and wanted to issue court proceedings. Being
intimidated by this process, the LiP decided to instruct
solicitors to support them. Robert James Solicitors
said:
There is no way for a LiP to transfer their OIC claim
to their solicitor. A legal representative would have to
resubmit the claim on the OIC Portal, leading to further delays of at least 50 days and significantly delays
settlement of the claim. There is nothing to stop compensators from denying liability once the claim is
re-submitted to them by the claimant’s legal representatives. The solution to this would be to include a
button on the OIC Portal to transfer the claim from a
LIP OIC Portal to their legal representative.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
We appreciate that it takes time for new systems to
‘bed in’ and we are encouraged that the MIB continues to request and collate feedback from both direct
and professional users of the OIC and that it is committed to finding resolutions to problems as they arise.
However, it is vital that any technological problems
which professional users of the OIC face that affect efficiency, accuracy or timeliness are resolved as a matter of urgency. In its response to this Report, the MoJ
16
JUNE 2024