MPs and peers are to hear about APIL’s vital campaign work to improve the law to help victims injured due to negligence.

They will be gathered at a parliamentary reception at the House of Commons later this month.

And in readiness for the reception, a new booklet called Justice for Victims of Negligence has been produced which lays out what Government can do to tackle the issues.

At the event, APIL representatives will explain why we need a modern approach to bereavement damages, and why a law is needed to help victims of asbestos-related lung cancer. They will also talk about the need to abolish the time limit in civil claims for survivors of child sexual abuse, and the need for a comprehensive consultation on the redress scheme for victims.

Read more about the parliamentary reception in the November edition of PI Focus.

In his latest blog, APIL chief executive Mike Benner has said: “It is essential that the law is fit for purpose so that it can do its job properly and help to put injured victims of negligence back on track. Their needs must be at the heart of policymaking.” Read the full blog here

APIL has welcomed proposals concerning a new licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures.

In response to the Department of Health and Social Care, APIL emphasised the need for mandatory public liability and treatment risk insurance. It must be made clear to those performing procedures that they must hold appropriate insurance policies to cover a claim for compensation in case something goes wrong and someone is injured.

The consultation also included proposals concerning high-risk non-surgical procedures. APIL agreed that high-risk procedures should be restricted to qualified and regulated healthcare professionals registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Concerns have been expressed that the proposed three-tier system to classify different categories of non-surgical cosmetic procedures might create a false sense of security about those included in the green and amber categories. Members reported that some of the procedures in the green and amber categories can also lead to life-changing injuries, so the public must be effectively informed of the risks.

Read the full response on APIL’s website here.

APIL’s campaigns and communications team needs case studies involving victims of crime who have gone on to receive considerably more in compensation for their injuries after appealing Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) decisions.

Research has found victims are being under-compensated by tens of thousands of pounds if they do not challenge CICA decisions.

Analysis of the data involving more than 350 cases shows there were huge discrepancies between initial offers made through the CICA’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) and how much victims received if they went on to appeal.

We want to hear from members about cases, even if the victims prefer to be anonymous, so we can compile examples of what type of injuries victims suffered and what they went on to receive after appealing. This will be incredibly powerful in our campaigns and communications work.

Members who have dealt with cases or have clients who wish to share their experiences should contact APIL’s press and communications officer Julie Crouch at [email protected].

The latest edition of PI Focus is out. Issues covered this time include how the new intermediate track works and why jaw injuries caused by whiplash often go undiagnosed.

Also in the spotlight in PI Focus is the issue of how soldiers and veterans are having to fight for fair compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

It comes after Veterans UK, part of the Ministry of Defence, came under scrutiny as a result of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme review.

APIL is to run a conference on military claims. Topics to be covered include women in the armed forces, serious sexual assaults in the military and service complaints and civil claims. The conference takes place in February 2024 and delegates can attend in person or virtually. For more details on the conference and to book click here.

E H Mundy & Co Ltd

Claim against train company

CFA-Assignment/Ratification

Rheumatologist – Nottingham

new DCP question - help

Default Judgment Order but no costs mentioned

RTA or PL

Court Fee