RTA Portal Update Lesley Proctor www.rtapiclaimsprocess.org.uk
Presentation Objectives How the RTA Portal works History Process Performance Impact How it would work for EL / PL Claims The future Building Blocks Potential impacts and Learnings
Protocol vs Portal Protocol = the rules or legal framework of the MoJ s RTA PI Low Value claims scheme Introduced in April 2010 Purpose is to reduce the costs and lifecycle of low value claims and to shorten the time that claimants had to wait for the damages payable to them On the horizon - extension to 25,000 and expansion into EL and PL Portal = the secure electronic service that facilitates dealing with claims under the rules Rolled out in April 2010 Purpose is to help claimant solicitors to quickly and securely notify the compensator of the claim and exchange information within the timescales set in the Protocol Supporting A2A and web interface users
RTA Portal - History In the beginning... Implementation and Launch Settling Down Post crisis Company structure Filling the gaps
RTA Low Value Claims Protocol Assessments Stage 1 Evaluation Stage 2 Representation Stage 3 Indemnity Offer evaluation Paper hearings Fraud Counter offer Oral attendance Liability Final evaluation Infant approval
24 hrs Day 10 MoJ Reforms STAGE 1 Accident Occurs CNF received 15 Working Days Response Liability Investigation Stage 1 Fixed Costs 400 + 12.5% uplift where applicable Uplift only payable at conclusion of Stage 2 Liability dispute (ex seatbelts) + fraud claims drops out of the system No fixed costs normal costs regime applies
MoJ Reforms Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Settlem ent Pack 15 Working days Respo nse 20 Working days 5 days Stage 2 Interim Pack 10 Working days Respo nse Stage 2 Fixed Costs 800 + 12.5% uplift where applicable on stage 1 and 2 costs. VAT to be paid in addition
MoJ Reforms Stage 3 STAGE 3 Interim pack 10 working days Claimant may apply to court for determination Stage 3 Fixed Costs 250 Written + 100% uplift 500 Oral +100% uplift
RTA Claims Portal Secure electronic transmission of claims related information between the claimant solicitors and compensators It is not a case management system Primarily a web based solution Additional A2A functionality Benefits Faster routing of claims to the correct compensator Allows secure and encrypted delivery of claims related attachments
Role of RTA Portal Co Board Ensuring the Portal is fit for purpose System Performance, Availability and Scalability Governance Security Data Protection Data Retention Service Delivery User Helpdesk Change Management Service Performance Monitoring Supplier Relationship Management User Agreements Behaviour Committee Financial
RTA Portal Performance (as at July 2012) Total Number of Registered Organisations on the Portal 3128 Total number of Users 27,011 Portal System Availability 99.9% Portal System Performance 97.9%
Claims Processed (as at 30/06/12) Claim Notification Forma sent to a Compensator 1,561,764 Total CNF s that have left the Portal 598,625 Total CNF s that have settled 407,695 Total CNF s that remain in the Portal 388,741
Portal Co. Impact Behaviour issues Good, bad and ugly behaviour - errant behaviours High level committee inhibit satellite litigation - pilot Publish non-binding opinions Continuous active liaison with MoJ and, now, regulators Examples of issues considered Article 75, multiple solicitors acting for 1 claimant Insurers approaching claimants direct Supported successful progress
The Future EL / PL Government desire to expand RTA protocol vertically and horizontally Expand scope to support horizontal expansion into Eland PL up to value of 25k by April 2013
Building Blocks EL / PL Negotiate the new Protocols a financial extension is vastly different to the requirements for a new Protocol for EL/PL. Prescribe or negotiate fixed fees define the work required, then the fees the current fixed fees resulted from mediated agreement Agree the new rules of court amend the CPR required by the revised/new Protocols make the software follow the rules Prepare a business requirements document this improves the efficiency of complex projects Build the software new or clone existing? test the software communicate with users and software suppliers to users train and then implement in a timetable that users can accommodate Disciplined, project management required throughout
Process Impacts /Learnings Early notification of claim and defendant insurer identification No MID but ELTO PL more challenging Proactive and speedy investigation and liability decisions Pragmatic decision making learning from motor Skill sets, training and re-setting behaviour Turnaround time,,desktop Investigation. Fraud, handoffs Systemisation - Process driven handling Financial gains to be had with a Quantum/cost containment focus Claimant and defendant behaviours
The journey continues