I couldn’t agree more with the letter ‘Passing the buck’ from Howard Shelley. However, what Mr Shelley identifies is only the tip of the iceberg.

I am currently researching the accident compensation process for road traffic accidents with a value of £10k, as part of a PhD. Early research shows that for the last five or six years, claims dealt with by ‘panel’ solicitor firms have been poorly handled by inexperienced staff and multiple fee-earners.

Poor standard medical evidence is being obtained too quickly within weeks of the accident, and claims settled within months. As a consequence, heads of damage are being missed and compensation levels are too low, primarily because by the time claimants realise they have not recovered in line with the typical four-six months’ prognosis the claim is already settled. Allegations are being made that claimants have felt bullied into accepting settlements.

In addition, I hear stories of poorly repaired vehicles where parts are now routinely being filled or glued, when prior to fixed fees they would have been replaced, and ‘phantom’ faults and damage invented to write vehicles off, because car repairers cannot make a profit from the £1,200 or so of fixed fees they are paid for the repair by insurers. Last year I wrote to all 38 underwriters of motor vehicles, the AA and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers to ask for disclosure of data for my research - among other reasons to establish whether car insurance premiums have been forced up by personal injury claims. Your readers will not be surprised to hear that not one has even acknowledged my request.

My research is still at an early stage, but I believe the average cost of a claim to an insurer for the last five or six years, for the 95%+ of RTA claims, is around £2,600-£1,200 fixed solicitors’ costs, £1,200 for the vehicle repair and £1,200-£1,500 damages for the injury claim, less the £1,000 referral fee. Contrast this with the situation not so long ago: where the claimant received much more in compensation for however long it took to recover from the injuries, not based on some conveyor-belt medical report; vehicles were properly repaired by the vehicle franchise and not some conveyor belt ‘glue and patch’ car repairer; and solicitor firms were paid whatever it took to properly represent their client’s best interests, however long it took and by appropriately qualified staff.

There was no empirical data before the introduction of the Woolf reforms which could even state what the costs of personal injury claims were, let alone whether the costs were ‘disproportionate’. Costs were originally fixed in 2003 based on some hypothetical model. My experience is that the primary upward driver of costs is the defendant insurer. If they take a reasonable view on liability and compensation, costs can be proportionate. Whether costs can and should be proportionate is a whole issue of its own. Therefore the entire process of reform from Woolf onwards has been arbitrary.

Through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill the government and insurers are pushing for fixed costs in RTA claims under £10k to be further reduced to £600, on the basis that car insurance premiums will be reduced. Again, there is no empirical evidence to support this. I have had sight of a document from one large defendant firm which states that car insurance premiums will rise.

If costs are reduced to £600, independent firms will be cut out of the process altogether as it becomes uneconomic to obtain those claims through advertising. But this is exactly what the insurers want, isn’t it? Insurers want to be able to drive claims through their chosen firms when there are real issues about these commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest. The government and insurers should not be allowed to hide behind Chatham House rules when the whole profession has been cut out of the process from the Woolf reforms onwards.

The whole process should be halted while a thorough review of the claims process takes place. Quite simply, no research has ever been carried out on the levels of costs and the reasons underlying them. Until this has been carried out claimants will continue to be let down badly by the system.

Elaine Hughes, solicitor, Adept Law, Barton upon Humber, North Lincolnshire