TERRIBLE TARIFFS TACK-ON

Gavin Renwick
Mar 27
8 min read

Updated: Mar 28

WHIPLASH TARIFF SET TO > INCREASE FROM 31 MAY 2025

The MOJ in a tariffic decision for Road Traffic users has announced an increase to the 'Whiplash Tariffs' for claimants suffering from soft tissue injuries. The Changes will apply to all Road Traffic Accidents that occur on and from 31st May 2025. While still awaiting parliamentary approval, it is expected to pass without controversy.

This article summarises the key changes, provides a Q&A regarding the tariff before concluding with a list of the applicable links to the relevant legislation at the end of the commentary.

S U M M A R Y

Following a Statutory Review of the Whiplash Regulations 2021, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has published the new tariff figures which will apply to all soft tissue injuries sustained on or after 31st May 2025.

DURATION:	OLD / NEW (£)	GAIN (£)	OLD /NEW (£)	GAIN (£)
	AWARD FOR PHYSICAL		AWARD + PSYCH

0 - 3 MONTHS:	£240 -> £275	+ £35 / 14.58%	£260 -> £300	+ £40 / 15.38%

3 – 6 MONTHS:	£495 -> £565	+ £70 / 14.14 %	£520 -> £595	+ £75 / 14.42%

6 – 9 MONTHS:	£840 -> £965	+ £125 / 14.88%	£895 -> £1’025	+ £130 / 14.52%

9 – 12 MONTHS:	£1’320 -> £1’510	+ £190 / 14.39%	£1’390 -> £1’595	+ £205 / 14.75%

12 – 15 MONTHS:	£2’040 -> £2’335	+ £295 / 14.46%	£2’125 -> £2’435	+ £310 / 14.59%

15 – 18 MONTHS:	£3’005 -> £3’445	+ £440 / 14.64%	£3’100 -> £3’550	+ £450 / 14.52%

18 – 24 MONTHS:	£4’215 -> £4’830	+ £615 / 14.59%	£4’345 -> £4’975”	+ £630” 14.50%

E X P L A N A T I O N

Below we answer the most common questions rightly or wrongly asked. Should the answer not display correctly, then please click on the question or contact us directly:

Q1 - WHAT ARE THE WHIPLASH TARIFFS?

On 31 May 2021 the droll conflict between insurers and the legal profession came to decisive and almost-sudden conclusion with the coming into effect of the Civil Liability Act 2018 (3 years late). This brought into law the 'Whiplash Regulations 2021' limiting the amount of compensation people could claim for soft tissue injures arising from RTAs.

Since the 31st May 2021, every RTA has been subject to the whiplash regulations and the resulting soft tissue injuries assessed accordingly to the tariff.

Q2 - WHAT HAS CHANGED?

Prior to the Whiplash Regulations claimants suffering from soft tissue injuries/whiplash had their compensation (damages) assessed by the court under the long established common law principles of 'Pain Suffering & Loss Amenities' (PSLA). That meant the court would first look at the nature of the accident and then assess:

Pain: - This is the physical injury. i.e. how long the injury was expected to last e.g. 3 months? Was it just 1 area of the body affected such as the neck or was the pain spread over multiple areas of the neck, shoulder and back?
Suffering: - This is the mental injury i.e. the degree of mental anguish that is parasitic to the physical pain. This could be from lack of sleep which prevents the brain from completing it normal maintenance cycle leading to a build of serotonin and other free radicals. That produces what we commonly refer to as 'brain fog', 'mood swings' and a general unwanted bad temper.
Loss of Amenities: - This is 'things you enjoyed before your injury, which we are now prevented from doing due to the injury.' While it may be a long list of grievances it is right that the court takes them into account. Due to someone else's negligence you - missed the gym, can't play the guitar, drums or saxophone without experiencing, couldn't walk your dogs and had to ask other people, needed help with shopping, missed the visits from your grand children and anything else that impacted on your quality of life.

Having considered evidence of the aforementioned, the court would award a general sum ('General Damages') it considered fair to that specific claimant in their unique circumstances. These awards were collated by the Court of Appeal in the 'Judicial College Guidelines' (JCG) which provided brackets of suitable awards based on the extent of the injury. The JCG was updated usually every 5 years to account for inflation and published for everyone so insurers could judge their future risk and plan accordingly.

Equally, the logic or ratio behind the judgements were published separately in various law reports e.g. Kemp. This benefitted the public as our trained judiciary had a wealth of jurisprudence to rely upon when assessing a Claimant's particular circumstances. Regretfully, none of this is considered by the tariff.

Q3 - WHAT ABOUT 'TRAVEL ANXIETY'?

'Travel Anxiety' is not a medically recognised psychological injury as the notion the brain fears moving the human body through empty space is patently ridiculous. However, we are a hunter-gather species and when we suffer an injury the body learns to expect danger and floods our systems with adrenaline and other hormones accordingly. In modern time, such a reaction is an aggravating factor and is accounted for in the second column of the tariffs which offer a slightly higher award.

Q4 - WHAT EXACTLY IS 'WHIPLASH? COULD WE NOT JUST CALL IT ...

Respectfully - Judges are not idiots (and we're not just saying that). Every adult and most minors over the age of 10, know what whiplash is i.e. an intermittent pain in the neck, upper back and shoulder region suffered following a sudden and unexpected jerking motion common to any type of RTA. While the medical definition may change, it's legal definition is defined under the regulations as:

Part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 “whiplash injury” means an injury to the soft tissue of the neck; back or shoulder that is of a description falling within subsection (2), but not including an injury expected by subsection (3).

Q5 - SO, IS THAT ALL I CAN CLAIM FOR IF I AM INJURED IN AN RTA? WHAT ABOUT ...

NO - The tariffs only apply to soft tissue injuries to the neck, back and shoulders. Any other injury is assessed under the traditional principles of PSLA:

e.g. a Claimant suffering from whiplash to the neck, shoulder, broken wrist and Situational Anxiety would receive his tariff for the whiplash and all other injuries would be separately.

Q6: - DID THE CHANGES APPLY TO MINORS & PENSIONERS?

YES - In fairness, neither the MOJ nor the insurance industry has ever claimed to be Robin Hood. That is the sole remit of the solicitor profession and the occasional barrister with direct access.

Q7: - WELL AT LEAST IT APPLIES TO ANNOYING BIKE RIDERS, RIGHT?

NO - The changes do not apply to bikes or motorbikes. So e.g. a 25 year old motorbiker can still claim compensation under the old rules and receive >75% more than either a child or vulnerable adult in a car. People on a motorbike are considered 'Vulnerable Road Users.' A separate article will cover this and is outside the scope of this note. While seeming at first unfair, it is a simple fact that a Vulnerable Road User is at a greater risk of injury and other loss.

Q8: - WHY THE CHANGES? WHAT WAS WRONG WITH PSLA?

TORIES - The tariff is an age-old continental model used in e.g. Germany. As soft tissue injuries are difficult/impossible to objectively verify; proof of the existence let alone the extent of the injury rests entirely on the credibility of the claimant and the subjective reporting of their symptoms to a medical professional. The system was thus open to abuse/fraud and by comparison, claimants in England Wales whom despite having their evidence tested in court by trained judges, appeared to be more 'generously compensated' to the point of being positively spoilt.

Regretfully, our system did not satisfy either the global insurers or 'the traditional Daily Mail reader.' The judiciary were frequently derogatised in the press as being nieve 'little Englanders' (the writer posits, judges sitting in Cardiff would object most strongly to this), haplessly awarding or chucking sums of money away you would have to be 'sober as judge to believe'.

So it was with perhaps some irony, that the conservative government while hysterically putting to the torch every bit of legislation containing the word 'Europe', also threw the English common law model to the wind and we got stuck with these ridiculous tariffs. For the avoidance of doubt, your judges have no discretion when it comes to the tariff.

Finally, solicitors whom lobbied for the insurance industry may have a different account. But it is with no small amount of schadenfreude that once the claims dried up, the insurers did not need these firms of solicitors anymore. Consequently the vast majority of solicitor firms whom had helped bring about the changes subsequently either went into liquidation or hastily merged into what their friends now call 'claim handling factories.' These 'firms' process fixed fee tariff work, requires almost no legal training and you can ask them what they think if you wish.

Q9: - YOU LOT SOUND TERRIBLE! DO I HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LAW FIRM?

NO - This office believes in access for justice which is fundamental to any 'civilised society.' That means anybody can access the courts with or without a solicitor.

For whiplash type injuries or any injury <£5000 there is the 'Official Injury Claim' online portal. That platform which is operated independently, allows anybody to register their own claim directly with the insurers.

However, this office does not deal with claims <£5000 and should you need legal representation in the small claims court you should contact a firm that does. We can provide recommendations but in most cases, your insurer (whom should be the first point of contact anyway) will have a panel law firm to assist you.

Should you have any questions that have not been answered above then please do not hesitate to reach out using our contact form.

C O M M E N T

Gavin Renwick frequently acts for both defendant insurers and injured claimants. He has been privileged to work with and for some of the best Defendant legal firms in England and makes special mention of the BLM Leeds branch (since absorbed into Clyde & Co). In our opinion: -

Need for the Tariffs: - Defendant solicitors were more than adapt at identify fraudulent cases, robustly defending them and settling genuine claims as required. As for solicitors whom encouraged fraudulent claims, these firms were quickly identified by their fellows, ejected from the profession and dealt with extreme prejudice accordingly. We make special mention of Horwich Farrelly (Manchester) and the Solicitor Regulation Authority's 'execution' of now defunct Asons Solicitors.

There was never any need for a tariff to deal with suspected fraud. Claimant and Defendant solicitors kept each other in check, they enjoyed the fight and both took the gloves off when they suspected their fellows of foul play. Simply put, we all know who we were dealing with and fraudulent win solicitors are routinely dealt with by superior advocates.
The Current Changes: - The increase still grossly undercompensates injured claimants who now receive less than 50% of what they would have in real terms when compared to 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, an injured road user will now receive less in real terms than what they did in 2012. This is despite 2 economic crashes, rampant inflation, a constitutional divide and 1 global plague.
The Future: - The insurance industries promises of the financial savings being passed to their policyholders in the form of lower premiums has still has not materialised. Indeed, this appears to have been silently dropped since the Tories were ejected from power. It is expected the tariff will remain and be adjusted every 5 years or so to account for inflation.
Tone: - We make no apology for the tariffic joke at the commencement of this article.

D E F I N I T I V E - D E C I S I V E - D I R E C T