Guidance

Official Injury Claim Advisory Group Meeting: 20 January 2023 14:00 – 16:00

Updated 18 March 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Attendees:

Ministry of Justice (Chair and secretariat) (MoJ)

Motor Insurers’ Bureau (OIC service operators) (MIB)

Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC)

Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)

Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS)

Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL)

Association of British Insurers (ABI)

HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)

MedCo

Apologies:

Law for Life

Introduction

The Chair welcomed attendees, outlined the agenda for the meeting and confirmed that the new Deputy Director for Civil Justice Policy will take over as chair from the next meeting.

The Chair also updated on actions from the previous meeting, some of which were covered within the agenda including the review of the Advisory Group and data on returned Court forms. The remaining actions, including MIB discussions with the ABI on reasons for exit from the portal and the description of MROs and DMEs, are ongoing.

The publication of the Court of Appeal (CoA) judgement on mixed injury claims earlier in the day was noted, and the Chair confirmed that it did not form part of the agenda for this meeting. MoJ will be considering the judgment and any implications for the OIC process, and MoJ/MIB (as appropriate) will communicate any next steps to stakeholders in due course.

OIC data and performance update

MIB provided an overview of the latest quarterly operational data, which was published on the OIC website on 11 January 2023. This included outlining how the rise in exits in this reporting period could be attributed to some professional users undertaking ‘clear up’ exercises during the quarter. It is understood that these exercises are now completed and that the rise in exits does not represent a longer-term trend.

A helpful discussion was held in relation to:

• The ongoing conversations between the MIB and the ABI in relation to the selection by compensators of reasons for removing claims. It was noted that if any proposed changes to the reasons available for selection impacted on the Pre-Action Protocol or Practice Direction, they could not be made without CPRC approval. It was clarified that the current proposals would entail tweaks to wording only, rather than more substantive changes;
• MIB noted that revisiting the categorisation of exit reasons was possible, but it is for the MoJ to decide what is important in terms of visibility of data;
• ‘Additional’ being selected as a reason for exit where claims are valued above £5000 or where claims go to Court and the possibility that, as a result of the CoA judgment, we may start to see more claims citing ‘additional’ as the reason for exit. It is important to understand what lies behind reasons for exit and it was suggested that, should this happen, work to further split out the reasons ‘additional’ is selected may need to be undertaken;
• The possibility that, if there is a further mixed injury appeal to the Supreme Court, parties may ask for a stay of proceedings, which may not be recorded as an exit and therefore would remain on OIC as an outstanding claim;
• The suggestion that, as a consequence of the CoA judgment, we may see more claims starting erroneously in Claims Portal Ltd (CPL) instead of OIC, due to perceptions of the value of a claim. It was confirmed that there is a ‘wrong portal’ category of exit from CPL which can be monitored, and CPL have also added a feature to record when a claim has come from the OIC service (subject to input). This data would be useful in understanding any trends in this area;
• The confirmation that there was a relative increase in Portal Support Centre calls in the latest period which were dominated, as before, by queries relating to the medical process. MIB confirmed that this will continue to be monitored.

MIB confirmed that OIC will now be publishing monthly aggregated data tables (from this month), as well as continuing with the longer quarterly publication. The monthly data will also be provided in an excel (table) format. This data will be published on the OIC website and it is intended that data will continue to be issued on a monthly basis on or close to the 10th.

Unrepresented claimant experience

MIB updated members on the changes and developments that have been implemented following the various user feedback initiatives in the last year. Feedback on the support available to users will continue to be monitored and remain a focus for the OIC.

MIB outlined their development of a ‘Help Hub’ area on the OIC website to provide clear and concise answers to common questions asked by unrepresented claimants. This will augment what is already available. A ‘user experience’ specialist has been involved in its development and it should be live within the next couple of months. The ‘Help Hub’ will also be monitored and the content will take account of calls made to the Portal Support Centre.

MoJ facilitated a discussion exploring whether, and how, further support for unrepresented claimants might be provided. This included outlining the various existing resources and support available to help unrepresented claimants. Discussion was focused on two broad areas where additional support could be explored; these were via Third Sector advice agencies and via insurers (as the first point of contact following an accident).

The MoJ invited comments from members and the following points were made:

• The Third Sector are well placed to judge whether the current level of guidance available for unrepresented claimants is suitable; and
• It is challenging to identify the level of support provided by the Third Sector in relation to unrepresented claims, as data on this isn’t routinely collected by the Third Sector.
• It is important to take an evidence-led approach to the provision of guidance, led by unrepresented claimant feedback
• The ABI can discuss insurer guidance for claimants with their members

ACTION POINT: MoJ to pick up the discussion about unrepresented claimant support with the ABI and Law for Life respectively.

ACTION POINT: The ABI to speak to their members about what more – if appropriate – they can do to support unrepresented claimants and/or signpost them to useful information and guidance.

Member feedback

Members summarised some feedback from their respective sectors, covering experience of the service to date and suggestions for future areas of focus for the group. Members raised the following points:

• There is a desire from compensators for OIC to assist with the verification of genuine claimants and the identification of fraudulent claims via the collection of additional data. Members suggested this could form a future agenda item;
• Some users have complained about being timed-out too quickly in certain tasks in the portal;
• There is a limit to the size of upload of supporting documents, which is a problem when, for example, a user has wage slips comprising multiple documents;
• Some users have complained about being asked for an authentication code via text each time they log onto the portal, despite selecting ‘remember this for 30 days’;
• MIB confirmed in the meeting that points b, c and d were down to user security settings and have been dealt with. For any continuing problems, MIB asked for further details to follow up. Point C is about ensuring the system is safe and allowing routine data traffic to flow. The system has a 20Mb upload limit. If files are larger, they should be split and sent in smaller data packets.
• Some Direct Medical Experts and Medical Reporting Organisations have reported that there have been occasions where they have not been paid by compensators for reports completed;
• Medical Experts seeing claimant’s only a few days after the accident, which is not ideal in terms of providing an accurate prognosis as injuries may not have settled down at that point. It was suggested that additional education and/or training by Medco could be implemented to reduce the frequency of this happening.

ACTION POINT: MedCo to review training content and to remind experts of the issues in relation to early examinations.

Transfer from OIC to Court process

MIB and HMCTS provided data on volumes exiting the OIC service to go to Court.

MIB noted that it will take some time before the correlation between court pack downloads and claims issued at court can be fully understood.

HMCTS also presented data on the reasons for the return of court forms to claimants due to error. This included for reasons such as incomplete addresses and incorrect or missing fees. The data showed a high return rate, but HMCTS noted that this is not unusual for the life stage of these claims. It was noted that, when claims are returned, an explanation for the return is provided.

Whilst returns present a problem because they add time for claimants and court staff, HMCTS noted that it is likely that the issue will resolve as users become familiar with the process. They also noted that they are creating guidance for users dealing with a high volume of cases about the most common errors. helpful discussion was had in relation to:

• The proportion of returned claims which were subsequently issued vs returned again. HMCTS will look into whether any data can be obtained on this; and
• HMCTS plans to recirculate job cards and re-run training for local courts who are only now starting to hear cases. Advisory Group Members were asked for their assistance with the development of new or refreshed guidance.

A member raised a point about processes differing between County Courts. It was noted that, if there are any concerns about good practice, such as behaviours contrary to the Pre-action Protocol or Practice Direction, they should be raised with MoJ/HMCTS and/or the CPRC member of the Advisory Group.

ACTION POINT: FOIL to contact CPRC representative to discuss Court discrepancy issues, copying in MoJ and HMCTS

ACTION POINT: HMCTS to reach out to members for comments on guidance in relation to returned forms

ACTION POINT: HMCTS to explore whether any data can be provided on returned claims not being issued

OICAG review

Time did not allow for this agenda item so the MoJ summarised the objective of the item; to open a discussion about the membership of the group including whether, and how, we should seek to obtain a frontline voice where necessary. The MoJ asked for members to write to them with comments.

ACTION POINT: Members to write to MoJ with thoughts about the membership of the group; specifically relating to frontline representation.

Next steps and AOB

1. The MoJ summarised the actions arising and next steps, and confirmed that:

• the minutes will be circulated to members for approval before publication on Gov.uk; and
• the next meeting is scheduled for 19 April 2023.