Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Campaigners say government plan will mean cyclists being denied access to justice

Plan is to increase small claims limit such that most cyclists would be unable to recover legal costs

British Cycling and Cycling UK have appealed to the government to revisit its small claims reforms, arguing that they will penalise vulnerable road users.

The plan is to increase the small claims limit for personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000 for all those involved in road traffic incidents.

The aim is to crack down on bogus whiplash claims but the change would also mean that many injured cyclists would be unable to recover their legal costs and would therefore be denied access to justice.

“The Government insists changes are needed to tackle fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims, but unfortunately, their proposals have lumped cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and horse riders into the mix,” said Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns.

“That's a problem, as whiplash claims for these people are like hens' teeth and hardly ever happen. Broken bones and other injuries are the norm, and with 70 per cent of cyclists' claims being under £5,000, victims will be out of pocket once the legal wrangles with insurance companies are over, as they will have to foot the bill for their own legal costs.”

Over 6,000 people supported Cycling UK’s initially successful campaign to change the proposals in December 2016, and another 1,000 have added their voices since the charity began campaigning on the issue again in March.

For its part, British Cycling has been working with the Vulnerable Road Users Group to seek to remove vulnerable road users from the reforms on the basis that they should be protected rather than penalised.

British Cycling policy adviser Chris Boardman said: “This move will have huge unintended consequences for anyone involved in a collision that is not driving.

“It will now become almost impossible for cyclists to get legal representation without sacrificing a significant proportion of the compensation that they would be entitled to and I appeal to the government to rethink this approach.”

Catherine West, Labour MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, has tabled an Early Day Motion calling on the government to remove vulnerable road users from the reforms.

Both British Cycling and Cycling UK are encouraging people to write to their MPs in support of the motion and have provided tools for doing so on their respective websites.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
Simboid | 5 years ago
1 like

Cycling DAG, I stand corrected.

I'm no lawyer though and the two times I've represented myself in a small claim against my local council and the tv license police (both of which I won) were in magistrates court with a panel of magistrates conferring on a decision.

Avatar
Beecho | 5 years ago
2 likes

this Pub’s WiFi is

Avatar
Beecho | 5 years ago
2 likes

shit

Avatar
Beecho | 5 years ago
4 likes

Can I use this as an excuse to buy even more expensive bikes?

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Beecho | 5 years ago
2 likes

Beecho wrote:

Can I use this as an excuse to buy even more expensive bikes?

good thinking

Avatar
zero_trooper | 5 years ago
3 likes

Government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? These whipca$hers should be tackled at source and prosecuted for fraud.
Or something more conspiratorial? As commented above, this rule change makes cycling insurance much more palatable to the average cyclist.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

Is it possible to win back your legal costs from the other party if you win the case?

Avatar
Simboid replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Is it possible to win back your legal costs from the other party if you win the case?

Almost never.

I think the idea of small claims is that the amounts in question generally don't merit complex legal argument and therefore don't have to go before a judge, however raising the limit by so much will bring this into dispute.

Also small claims are decided by a small group of magistrates with one presiding, none of whom are necessarily lawyers. They aren't really in a position to assess legal costs.  

Avatar
Cycling DAG replied to Simboid | 5 years ago
4 likes

Simboid wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Is it possible to win back your legal costs from the other party if you win the case?

Almost never.

I think the idea of small claims is that the amounts in question generally don't merit complex legal argument and therefore don't have to go before a judge, however raising the limit by so much will bring this into dispute.

Also small claims are decided by a small group of magistrates with one presiding, none of whom are necessarily lawyers. They aren't really in a position to assess legal costs.  

Not quite right. Some costs are recoverable but not necessarily all of them.

Legal costs are not assessed generally until a claim is valued at over £25,000. Fixed costs apply below that if a claim is in the 'Fast Track' (i.e. not a small claim) and in reality never cover the full extent of pursuing a personal injury claim. That's why solicitors will often charg, typically, 25% of whatever they recover, to cover the shortfall in recoverable costs.

If the small claims limit increases to £5,000 then you will find fewer solicitors prepared to take on claims, especially if there's any hint of a dispute regarding liability.

Oh, small claims are not decided by "...a small group of magistrates with one presiding, none of whom are necessarily lawyers". Small claims are heard in the county courts, not the magistrates courts. They are decided by a district judge (or a deputy district judge).

Lastly, unless the MoJ change the court fees that are payable then currently the court fees for issuing a claim for a value of not exceeding £5,000 are £205 for the issue fee and a further £545 for the hearing fee. These should be recoverable if the claim is successful.

You really should be considering legal expenses insurance to cover any expenses of pursuing a claim as well as the legal costs.

Don't underestimate the benefits of a solicitor, regardless. Don't expect the defendant's insurer to 'play fair' - they won't and they will undersettle if given half a chance!

Avatar
Simboid | 5 years ago
1 like

On the other hand my insurance company provides legal cover (as do most) as will membership of any union you may be a member of  so legal costs aren't a problem for some of us at least and small claims courts are faster and cheaper for all concerned.

Most cyclists aren't insured though which is a problem unless you put your own case which, again, is far easier in small claims court as it's less formal and a degree in legalese isn't mandatory.

So yes, this will be a bad thing for most people therefore it's a bad idea. However it's also a chance for you to get up to 5K in compensation without a lawyer rather than 1K, which may well be a good thing.

Confusing or what?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Simboid | 5 years ago
2 likes

Simboid wrote:

On the other hand my insurance company provides legal cover (as do most) as will membership of any union you may be a member of  so legal costs aren't a problem for some of us at least and small claims courts are faster and cheaper for all concerned.

Most cyclists aren't insured though which is a problem unless you put your own case which, again, is far easier in small claims court as it's less formal and a degree in legalese isn't mandatory.

So yes, this will be a bad thing for most people therefore it's a bad idea. However it's also a chance for you to get up to 5K in compensation without a lawyer rather than 1K, which may well be a good thing.

Confusing or what?

You mean third party or something else?

those with household insurance and/or a club membership are covered from a third party POV, how did you assess your "most" statement, where did you get your facts? How does this compare to pedestrians and indeed a significant % of motorists (over a million uninsured in any capacity) whom are known to be at solely at fault in a very large proprotion of road incidents?

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
5 likes

Yet another example of politicians ignoring cyclists.  Never mind all the wonderful rhetoric they produce whenever their asked about cycling, how about them actually doing something?  Our MPs and parliament are a waste of space and a monument to hot air.

Latest Comments