Government 'wilfully blind' to impact of tribunal fees, says Law Society

Tens of thousands of people have been unable to assert their workplace rights due to the massive hike in employment tribunal fees, the Law Society has said, accusing the government of being ‘wilfully blind’ to the impact of the controversial measures.

Responding to the Ministry of Justice’s review of the impact of tribunal fees, Chancery Lane said the ’oppressive’ fees must be removed to ensure justice is upheld for those who need it.

Society president Robert Bourns said: ’In the face of plummeting numbers of cases going to the tribunal, falling settlement rates, and thousands of people saying they could not take their cases to the tribunal due to high fees, only by being wilfully blind can the government claim there is “no evidence” that fees are stopping people enforcing their rights.’

An estimated 14,000 people per year have unsuccessfully attempted conciliation for their employment dispute but were unable to take their case to the tribunal because of fees.

Bourns said: 'With employment tribunal cases having fallen by around 70% immediately after the fees were introduced, these 14,000 people are the tip of the iceberg.

'Tens of thousands of other cases have simply disappeared from the system, to be written off by the government as somehow unmeritorious or unworthy, adding insult to injury for those whose employment rights have been ignored.’

Although justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said the current system is ‘generally working effectively and is operating lawfully’, the ministry will consult on proposals to extend support to people on low incomes.

People over 25 earning up to £1,250 a month (gross) would be exempt from fees, up from £1,085 now. There will be additional allowances for people living as couples and those with children. Fees will be remitted for certain proceedings related to payments made from the National Insurance Fund.

However, Bourns said: ’The solutions the government now proposes are little more than tinkering around the edges, which can never address the tens of thousands of individual workers effectively barred by these fees from asserting their rights.

'If the government is genuine about workers being able to defend their rights at work it must restore access to the employment tribunal. This means removing oppressive fees to ensure that justice is upheld for those who need it.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Government 'wilfully blind' to impact of tribunal fees, says Law Society

Courts bill: whiplash plans will clog up courts to boost insurer profits, says Law Society

The Law Society has hit out at plans to raise the small claims limit for all road traffic injuries to £5,000, claiming the move will not only deny justice to accident victims but also clog up the courts. 

A spokesperson said: ’These changes will deprive motorists and their passengers from being able to recover the cost of essential legal advice for any injuries worth £5,000 and under when a negligent driver crashes into their car.

’While we are glad that the MoJ has listened to some of our concerns, and has decided to restrict the increase in the small claims limit to £2,000 for personal injury cases other than road traffic claims, we cannot accept that a £5,000 limit for motoring claims is reasonable.

’The government is treating injuries that would be regarded as grievous bodily harm in the criminal courts as small claims. A limit of £5,000 will mean injuries including facial scarring, fractured ribs, a bruised chest and whiplash to the neck would be considered as ”small claims”. This means people will be forced to bring claims themselves without expert legal advice.

’The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) does not appear to have properly considered the fact that this will clog up the court system creating a David and Goliath situation where people recovering from their injuries, deprived of legal advice, have no choice but to act for themselves.

’Those defending claims meanwhile are likely to be able to pay for legal advice. The increase in the number of litigants in person that will result from these changes will have serious consequences for the courts.’

Chancery hotly disputes the government narrative underpinning the proposals that reform is all about curbing fraudulent claims.

The spokesperson added: ’Fraudulent claims are repellent but they should be dealt with by targeting the fraudsters - not the vast majority of honest claimants who have been injured and bring genuine claims.’

The Society has, however, campaigned for some of the changes proposed in the bill and it welcomed a proposal to ditch the practice of insurers offering compensation for whiplash ahead of any medical assessment. This should be extended to all claims, the Society argues.

But like the Assocation of Personal Injury Lawyers, Chancery Lane is dismissive of the government’s insistence that reform will cut motor premiums.

The spokesperson added: ’We are utterly sceptical of the notion that off the back of these changes motorists will have their insurance premiums cut as the insurance industry has significant form falling short when it comes to passing savings to its customers.’

As the Society pointed out, the Association of British Insurers conceded to the Commons Justice Select Committee during a session on personal injury reform that the insurance industry saved ‘hundreds of millions of pounds’ from reforms to personal injury in 2013 and that the number of whiplash claims has come down in the last year.

The findings of an economic study by Compass Lexecon also show that gains from the government plans will boost insurers’ profits.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Courts bill: whiplash plans will clog up courts to boost insurer profits, says Law Society