Driving whilst using a mobile phone for texting or calling has been illegal since 2003. However, the law did not cover holding a mobile phone which allowed using social media or playing a game. 

As of 2022, it is illegal to hold a mobile phone whilst driving. Breaking this law could lead to a £200 fine and 6 points on your licence.

The only reason you should use a mobile phone whilst driving is to call 999 or 112 when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Otherwise, you need to be parked in a safe location.

Why change the law?

In 2019 a driver was caught filming an accident. The 51-year-old successfully appealed the decision based on the fact that he was not using the phone as a communication device.

Following the trial, two High Court judges said that the law has not been able to keep up with the development of mobile phone technology.

You are four times more likely to cause an accident when using a hand-held mobile device. So this change in the law should protect drivers from becoming distracted while driving.

Timeline of using mobile phones while driving UK laws

As a new technology mobile phones and driving have always been at odds with legislation.

At first, the use of phones in cars was a luxury. Entering the 2000s mobile phone use had become commonplace, and the dangers of using such devices became well known. 

Timeline of mobile phone use when driving laws in the UK:

• December 2003, the first laws were introduced that restricted the use of mobile phones for communication whilst driving.
• In 2007, drivers who used a handheld mobile phone while driving received a £60 fine and three points on their licence.
• By 2013 the fine increased to £100.
• From March 1st 2017 the penalty doubled. If you were caught driving while using a mobile phone in the UK you get a £200 fine and six points on your licence.
• In 2022, a loophole in the law where you can drive, take photos, videos or play games has been closed. If you drive and use a handheld device in any capacity you could receive a £200 fine and six penalty points on your licence.

Transport Secretary Grant Shaps commented on the law change:

“Too many deaths and injuries occur while mobile phones are being held.

“By making it easier to prosecute people illegally using their phone at the wheel, we are ensuring the law is brought into the 21st century while further protecting all road users.

“While our roads remain among the safest in the world, we will continue working tirelessly to make them safer, including through our award-winning THINK! campaign, which challenges social norms among high-risk drivers.”

The law change should make the roads safer and make it easier for culprits to be prosecuted.

Stone Rowe Brewer LLP provides high-quality legal services for individuals and businesses. Our private client lawyers are practical, proactive and user friendly. If you want to learn more about the video-witnessed wills legislation extension or have any general queries, please call us on 020 8891 6141. 

The government’s online portal, ‘Official Injury Claim‘ (OIC) went live at the end of May. The portal covers low-value injury claims caused by road traffic accidents on or after 31st May 2021, where compensation for injuries is under £5000.

Anyone can use the OIC without legal advice. However, the system is challenging to navigate with a 64-page user guide and many more pages of legal rules; if it’s concluded that you have suffered a whiplash injury lasting say 6 months, you would be set to receive £495.

In addition, the system is ambiguous; if you have suffered another type of injury alongside whiplash, lasting for 6 months, the new scheme doesn’t provide information about deciding on the number of damages in that situation. The government decided to leave this problem to the courts. Whilst a working party has been set up to look into what cases to take forward, it will take months for test cases to progress through the court system.

Is the portal working?

Whilst the number of RTA claims filed has fallen since the portal’s introduction, there are fears that many unrepresented people have not materialised.

The Ministry of Justice recently published its quarterly figures for the three months since launching the Official Injury Claim at the end of May: 41,387 or 45,718 claims were from individuals with legal representation.

David Parkin, the deputy director for civil justice and law at the MoJ, speaking at the Motor Accident Solicitors Society conference at the end of October, said there used to be thousands of whiplash claims. However, with ongoing covid related issues and fewer motorists, direct comparison is particularly hard.

Even though litigants in person are the portal’s target audience, and individuals can’t make claims under £5000, injured individuals appear content to instruct a lawyer to represent them through the process.

Unrepresented individuals brought just 4,331 claims, whilst claims made through law firms amounted to 30,658 claims and 10,622 through a different business structure.

Before the portal’s introduction, some feared insurers would be more inclined to deny liability if claimants were unrepresented. While the low number of LiPs makes it challenging to answer this, compensators admitted in part of 21,680 claimants during the quarter, of which 2,314 involved unrepresented claimants and 19,366 represented claims; just 4% of the 2,447 cases denied liability in full, involved litigants in person.

Parkin said: ‘Transparency and scrutiny are absolutely vital in this online claims system. Our perception is that the system launch and the first three months have been relatively smooth for a government-associated IT system. It is not without teething problems but it seems to be working relatively well.’

The issue remains surrounding compensation for injuries that don’t fall within the criteria for the new tariff system for whiplash; just 33% of claims were tariff-only, with 61% representing a mixture of multiple injury claims.

David Bott, the owner of north-west claimant firm Bott & Co, also spoke at the MASS conference. He said: ‘Up until the Court of Appeal says what damages are there is going to be a range of different behaviours. All the way through the process we cannot say to our clients what the value of the claim actually is – both sides are in this awkward position where nobody knows that value of a claim.’

Speaking at the annual MASS conference, new chair Sue Brown said: ‘It is unclear at this point whether [the low self-representing figures] are because claimants are deciding not to pursue claims, or whether it is because they are unable to pursue their claims without representation, unable to find the OIC or sufficient sources of information or advice, or for some other reason.

‘It is early days but OIC seems to be working reasonably well for professional users, although there are real problems with A2A for both claimant representatives and insurers which need to be resolved. The system will be fit for purpose only when it works for everybody.’

If you want to find out whether your claim can go through the OIC, contact us on 020 8891 6141 or email us here.

At Stone Rowe Brewer LLP our reputation is based on continually exceeding our customer’s expectations and delivering results in a straightforward, honest and open manner. We are proud to be an accredited practise of the professional body that oversees this area of the law (APIL-Association of Personal Injury Lawyers).

As many road users are aware, so called ” smart “motorways have become increasingly common in recent years throughout the country.

What is a smart motorway?

According to the RAC, a smart motorway is a section of a motorway that uses traffic management methods to increase capacity and reduce congestion in particularly busy areas. These methods include using the hard shoulder as a running lane and using variable speed limits to control the flow of traffic.

Although undoubtedly well intentioned, smart motorways have come under increased scrutiny in recent weeks. A proposed national rollout has been postponed by the Secretary of State for Transport following reports of increased near misses on smart motorways and 38 deaths over the past 5 years.

We have all witnessed or experienced an instance of “stranded vehicles” on the motorways and know how frightening those circumstances must be. I am sure it is therefore right to pause the rollout whilst further evaluation takes place.

As busy personal injury practitioners, we are well aware of the devastating consequences of serious road traffic accidents which often lead to catastrophic life changing injuries and even death.

Following such accidents, it is crucial to obtain quality legal advice so as to ensure that adequate rehabilitation packages are in place and the victims of such accidents and their families can obtain justice.

Our experienced personal injury Lawyers can provide advice and assistance to those seriously injured in road traffic accidents.

Many young women will have been shocked in the last few years learning of the many deaths resultant of Cervical Cancer.

Amber Cliff, a 25 year old Business Graduate died of cervical cancer in 2017. Amber’s family fought to change the medical protocols and guidance on cervical smear tests so that any woman under the age of 25 can request a cervical smear test if she is experiencing unusual symptoms relating to the disease. Many are still fighting for this change.

Cervical cancer is something that can go undetected and often will not show signs until it is advanced. Women from the age of 25 are currently offered a cervical smear test to check the presentation of the cells in their cervix and ensure that there is nothing untoward going on. Commonly known symptoms relating to cervical cancer are abnormal bleeding between periods, bleeding during and after sexual intercourse and bleeding after the menopause.

Unfortunately Amber was reported as displaying the symptoms of cervical cancer from the age of 18. She sought advice from her GP who advised there was nothing to worry about. Under the current medical protocols in place, her GP would have been correct in giving this advice as it is very unusual for a woman of her age to be displaying these symptoms caused by the disease. Nonetheless, had Amber been offered a cervical smear sooner, it may well be that she would have experienced a different outcome.

“Medical Protocols are of course essential to ensure uniformity of delivery across the UK” said Clare Gooch, a Medical Negligence Solicitor at SRB. “However, whilst the fight continues to alter these protocols, there are instances where the protocols currently in place are not adhered to or are poorly administered, which can lead to catastrophic consequences”

We urge you to seek urgent medical attention if you are experiencing any symptoms that relate to cervical cancer. Don’t put off that all-important cervical smear test. If you are over the age of 25 and haven’t already had one, get it booked now!!!!

Getting checked is best – Have a cervical smear test!

Is there a lack of knowledge and understanding about personal injuries claims being pursued in England & Wales? Apparently so. Reading the BBC’s news coverage regarding road traffic accidents this week, and the reality of roadside accidents and whiplash.

Whiplash can cause a whole host of long side effects from chronic pain to dizziness and even other neurological issues. Making whiplash a serious legal concern after a car accident.

From this article, you can learn how “The committee pointed out that there has been a 70% rise in motor insurance injury claims in the past six years, despite a 23% drop in the number of casualties actually caused by road accidents.” This means claims culture could be on the rise in the UK.

You can additionally learn if whiplash is on an upwards trajectory and what legal changes might be applied to change this from getting more uncontrollable in the future.

The Law Society has issued a statement that robustly opposes plans to remove the right to recover general damages for soft-tissue injuries.

Speaking at the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers’ annual conference, Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon told delegates:

‘The current environment for making personal injury claims is becoming more hostile. The pace of change in the personal injury litigation landscape is fast and unrelenting and changes seem to lack substantial evidence in support.’

She said: ‘We are concerned that the proposed changes may have the effect of hampering access to justice for those seeking to claim compensation for injuries they have suffered through no fault of their own.

‘The Law Society strongly opposes plans to remove the right to recover general damages for minor soft-tissue injuries. We are gravely concerned about how minor soft-tissue injuries will be defined and it is simply wrong, in our view, that people who suffer what could be injuries that impact on their lives through no fault of their own, are unable to recover compensation.

‘The government seemingly believes that plans to raise the small-claims limit for personal injury claims to £5000 and abandon general damages for “minor” whiplash injuries will help stop fraudulent claims. We disagree. It is critical that fraud is tackled but stopping people making legitimate claims is not the answer. It is important to be clear, there is a difference between fraudulent claims and what the government is referring to as unnecessary claims, which it believes are being brought for inconsequential injuries.’

Catherine Dixon highlighted that: ‘Claims for soft-tissue injuries are not considered unnecessary by those who are harmed through no fault of their own. There is a danger to justice if government fails to differentiate between fraudulent, “unnecessary” and legitimate claims. If a claim lacks merit it should be defended. Insurers should not pay out on claims which are either fraudulent or indeed on claims which lack legal merit.’

She added: ‘The myths fuelling the perception of a compensation culture are not based on fact and must be tackled. The Young Report, commissioned by prime minister David Cameron, stated that, while there was a perception of a compensation culture, this was not in fact the reality. If the government is looking to tackle fraud, then raising of the small claims and the removal of the right to general damages for minor soft-tissue claims is the wrong approach.’

She concluded: ‘The Law Society await the detail of the government’s proposals and we will be responding to the consultation robustly.’

For more information please call our personal injury team on 020 8891 6141, and they will be able to discuss the best action to ensure you receive the justice and treatment you deserve.