There has been much debate around the Civil Liability Bill. Many are for the Bill, claiming that necessary actions needed to be taken in response to rising fraudulent claims despite its negative impact on lawyers. On the other hand, many have spoken out against this Bill one the basis of its effect on lawyers. Of course, the debate concerning the Civil Liability Bill is not so cut and dry.
According to the UK Government, the Civil Liability Bill, “makes important changes to the personal injury compensation system in England and Wales. The Bill reforms how the personal injury discount rate (PIDR) is set, aiming to ensure claimants get full and fair compensation to meet their expected needs while reducing the pressure on meeting excessive compensation claims on the NHS; and it delivers on a manifesto commitment to tackling the issues behind the continued high number and cost of whiplash claims.” To read more about this go to UK Government Will Introduce Whiplash Reforms in April 2019.
The Arguments for the Civil Liability Bill
There are many arguments for the Civil Liability Bill which include that a stricter stance needs to be taken to address fraudulent claims specific to whiplash injury claims. Individuals defending it see that the Government is taking a correlative approach to the situation. In other words, the response from the Bill towards these fraudulent claims is not too overextending. Furthermore, those defending the Bill have claimed that the differentiation between whiplash claims and road accident claims the Bill puts forward is correct in that they are addressing fraudulent action in regards to whiplash claims specifically.
The Arguments against the Civil Liability Bill
Those who have argued against the Civil Liability Bill do not agree with the notion that one section of claims is being targeted; argue that there is no substantive evidence for the Bill and that the system neglects to take into account the suffering, pain as well as the severity of specific injuries. Furthermore, they criticized the way in which the new limit will prevent lawyers from gaining back costs.
What is Your Take?
Both sides seem to have valid arguments. On the one hand it is imperative that they address the fraudulent claims in an effective manner. On the other hand, perhaps it I right of the opposing side to question the evidence. Bill or not, it should be implemented with due research behind it. What is your take on the debate? Whichever perspective you may have, if you are in need of injury claims services, we can help.