Guidance

Official Injury Claim Advisory Group Meeting: 21 April 2022, 11:00 – 13:00

Updated 18 March 2024

Applies to England and Wales

1. Attendees:

• Ministry of Justice (Chair and secretariat)
• Motor Insurers’ Bureau (service operators)
• Civil Procedure Rule Committee
• Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
• Motor Accident Solicitors Society
• Forum of Insurance Lawyers
• Association of British Insurers
• Support Through Court
• Law for Life
• HM Courts and Tribunal Service
• MedCo

2. Introduction

The Chair welcomed attendees and outlined the agenda for the meeting.

MoJ reported on the outstanding actions from the December meeting, which were:

1. Medical Reporting data and vehicle volumes/usage data to be included as agenda items for discussion. MoJ confirmed these issues were included on the agenda for the current meeting.

2. An update on OIC search engine optimisation (SEO) and visibility. Whilst paid-for ads will always comprise the top results on search engines, OIC is currently appearing on the first and second results pages for key search terms. MIB have reviewed and updated the backend SEO information on the OIC website, including relevant meta descriptions, to ensure that it is clear that OIC is an official system. MIB also continue to publish regular content on the OIC website and social media channels, and MoJ regularly review and update the Whiplash Reform Programme pages on Gov.uk to support improved SEO. Search engine algorithms will also ‘learn’ to list OIC higher on the list as time passes.

3. MoJ updated the group on the Data Requirements Survey which was sent to members following the December meeting, and invited comments from members on the summary response paper provided. Members confirmed that their requests had been considered and were reflected and answered in the report.

4. An additional request was also raised relating to data on claims which incorrectly start in either OIC or Claims Portal and subsequently need to transfer. It was noted that Claims Portal do gather this data and should be able to provide this to the group. MoJ will also discuss with OIC and will provide an update at the next meeting.

5. MoJ confirmed that, as stipulated in the Terms of Reference, a light touch review of the membership, function and operation of the Advisory Group had been completed by officials. No significant changes were proposed at this time. MoJ invited comments from members and the following points were made:

6. As most claimants are currently represented, any future changes to the membership might wish to reflect this.

7. Members discussed how more user insight might be provided, including from professional users with practical experience of the service, as well as from direct claimants.

8. MoJ reiterated that this group is not a forum to raise specific technical issues and MIB continue to engage with users directly on such.

DECISION: Data Requests Report agreed by members.

ACTION POINT 1: MoJ to consider additional data request, in liaison with Claims Portal, about claims which start in the incorrect portal.

ACTION POINT 2: MoJ to consider feedback from members on the future makeup of the Advisory Group.

3. OIC performance

MIB provided an overview of the operational data published on the OIC website on 11 April (covering the period 1 December to 31 March). A breakdown of additional data was also presented to provide the group with further context. A helpful discussion was held in relation to:

1. The relative immaturity of data in relation to settlements and tariff distribution, with agreement that these will evolve over time;

2. All additional data (as agreed in the Data Requests Report) needing to be fully integrated into the presentation. It was agreed that, when available, the remaining extra data would be sent out to members separately. MIB noted that for some of the requested data there was a need to consider commercial sensitivity and the impact on market behaviour.

3. The factors behind the tariff award distribution. As the data matures the drivers of the distribution of tariff awards for both unrepresented and represented claimants should become clearer. Medical report prognosis data may also be relevant to understanding this.

4. MIB provided additional context to the data on exits due to ‘complex areas of fact or law’. This is a decision made by compensators that the claim is not appropriate for the OIC Portal and should exit and is not the claimant deciding the claims process is too difficult. It was also noted that this process is set out in the RTA Small Claims Protocol (RTA SCP) and that the options provided to users of OIC are the same as those set out in the RTA SCP. It was suggested that it would be helpful to explore the reasons underpinning these exits with compensators to gain additional insight about the circumstances when this is used. ABI agreed to consult with their members and gather further information. Any information from other members would also be welcomed.

5. The group agreed that it would be helpful to understand throughput/flows, by having access to data in relation to the progress of claims through the key stages on the service. MIB confirmed this can be done. MoJ stated that work is needed to define these key stages, as consideration of the complexities of the different claim pathways is required. It was agreed that this data could help to identify potential areas for improvement in either the efficiency of the service or the RTA SCP underpinning it.

6. The group asked about data on the experience of unrepresented claimants when exiting without settlement, for any reason. MIB explained that the research commissioned with Ipsos MORI (see item 5 below) is looking at this and is the first step in gaining such insight.

As suggested at the December meeting, MoJ provided an update on the latest Department for Transport data on traffic volumes and vehicle usage between February 2019 and September 2021. The data demonstrated the impact that Covid-19 has had on vehicle usage but also showed that volumes are slowly returning to pre-pandemic levels. It was also confirmed that additional data on 2021/22 should be available by the time of the next Advisory Group meeting in July, and a further update would be provided then.

ACTION POINT 3: MIB to contact members in relation to the additional data from the Data Requests Report.

ACTION POINT 4: ABI (and any other OICAG members) to seek feedback from their sectors on the underlying reasons for claims being removed from the OIC system for reasons of ’complex areas of fact or law’.

ACTION POINT 5: MoJ to write to Advisory Group members to agree the ‘key stages of a claim’.

4. Medical reporting

MedCo presented a helpful overview of the data they capture on the medical reporting stage of the process. This includes data on the overall timescales for obtaining medical evidence for both represented and unrepresented claimants. It was noted that to understand the full picture data from OIC was also needed.

Members suggested that it would be useful for MedCo and MIB to collaborate in order to provide more detail about the medical reporting journey. This could include looking at what happens both pre-and-post reports being produced and uploaded onto OIC. For example, data on choosing report providers, uploading and agreeing reports and any changes to prognosis periods would be helpful.

ACTION POINT 6: MoJ to discuss with MIB and Medco what additional data is available to facilitate a more in depth look at medical reporting at the next meeting.

5. User feedback

MIB provided an update on the latest findings from the OIC unrepresented claimant exit survey and on the results of their professional user engagement meetings. Exit surveys are sent out to unrepresented claimants when they exit the service for any reason, including after settlement. It was noted that the outcome of a claim has a significant influencing factor in how the survey is answered. Further, MIB have spoken with or surveyed most of the top twenty (by volume of cases) claimant firms in order to understand their experiences within the service (a further exercise will be completed again in the coming months).

Overall, feedback on the service is positive, but the survey has highlighted some areas where scores are slightly lower and these will be looked at and used to inform further discussions on improving user journeys. Members will continue to be updated on the results of these exit surveys at future Advisory Group meetings.

Members discussed the guidance available on making a claim, including the MoJ’s ‘Five Steps to using the Official Injury Claim service’ overview, published on Gov.uk in February. It was suggested that data be collected on the impact of this and of other guidance resources. MoJ agreed to investigate what data is available.

MedCo asked for any feedback or comments from members on the medical examination experience. In addition, they confirmed that the MedCo Board had decided that remote medical examinations will be banned from July, with exceptions for vulnerable claimants.

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: 1. API issues continue to be reported as creating delays and lower volume users have reported some difficulties in creating application to application integration;

1. A schedule of development updates, similar to that utilised by Claims Portal, would be helpful to allow users to prepare for software changes;

2. Reports of non-compliance with the timescales specified in the Pre-action Protocol for making a first offer;

3. The approach to be taken by the courts on mixed injury claims is still unknown until enough cases go through the court system. Members asked whether data on claim forms being created versus proceedings issued could be provided;

4. The likelihood that, as time passes, the service will begin to see more complex cases and disputes coming through to settlement;

5. Some claimants were choosing to pursue claims for the non-injury elements of their claim first outside of the OIC process. This has potential to create issues further along a claim’s progress, as there is a requirement for all parts of a single claim to made at the same time;

6. In the protocol it is stipulated that, in certain circumstances, the defendant’s version of events should be provided to the medical expert. Instances have been reported where unrepresented claimants haven’t provided their medical expert’s details to the defendant;

Members questioned the flexibility and functionality of the service where the wrong insurer has been identified and requires redirection to a different insurer or where a claimant has inputted incorrect information. Such issues may result in delays, although it was acknowledged that improvements have been made following conversations with MIB.

ACTION POINT 7: MIB to explore whether data on claim forms being created and proceedings issued could be provided

6. Summary and AOB

MoJ summarised the meeting and next steps, including that:

1. minutes will be circulated to members for approval and;

2. the next meeting will take place on 18 July.

MoJ informed the group that there were upcoming events around the one-year anniversary of the launch of OIC. These include the ABI ‘one year on’ event in London (24 May) and Legal Futures PI conference in Manchester (25 May).