For claims professionals, the traditional road traffic accident (RTA) liability dispute is evolving. What once relied mainly on competing accounts now includes dashcam recordings, CCTV, vehicle telematics, smartphone footage, digital photographs, and other emerging data sources.
This shift doesn’t necessarily simplify liability determination. Instead, it shows the growing importance of identifying and preserving high-quality evidence during the earliest stages of an RTA claim.
The evidential window is often short
For solicitors handling RTA claims, there’s a significant difference between receiving a file with evidential sources already identified and one where the trail must be reconstructed weeks after the incident. This disparity highlights the need for improved front-end claims management.
CCTV Footage: A Race Against Time
CCTV serves as a prime example. A collision might be captured by nearby cameras from shops, businesses, residential systems, buses, car parks, or other sources. However, identifying these cameras doesn’t guarantee the footage will still be available when requested, as retention periods vary and recordings can be overwritten.
Claims professionals face the challenge of not only locating useful evidence but also securing it early enough. Witness evidence presents a similar issue. Contact details gathered at the scene are invaluable, but locating the same witnesses weeks later becomes significantly more difficult.
In disputed liability cases, these early actions can substantially shape the evidential foundation available to the solicitor.
Telematics introduces a different kind of evidence
Vehicle telematics adds complexity to the process. Commercial fleets have long utilized telematics, and connected vehicles alongside insurance products have expanded the volume of journey data generated.
Telematics and Data Interpretation
When relevant data exists and can be properly obtained, it may aid in reconstructing the events surrounding a collision. However, the claims sector must recognize that data alone doesn’t equate to proof.
Related Post: Law firms use flexible support during mergers
Telematics requires interpretation. Dashcam footage offers a specific perspective, and CCTV may capture the collision without showing all preceding events. Digital evidence must therefore be evaluated alongside traditional sources, including witness accounts, photographs, police information, and the physical circumstances of the accident.
Rather than eliminating liability disputes, technology is changing the material over which those disputes are conducted.
Historically, claims management companies were primarily valued for sourcing and qualifying potential claimants. However, legal partners increasingly benefit when the initial evidential picture is more fully developed. At National Claims, our approach is deliberately based around doing more of this work before and during the handover process.
National Claims’ Extra Mile Promise
Under the Extra Mile Promise, the team assists clients in obtaining relevant third-party information and documentation, including liaison with police, insurers, and transport operators where appropriate.
It is not about attempting to determine legal liability before the case reaches the solicitor but about ensuring the solicitor has a stronger starting point for that assessment. This distinction is critical.
A file that identifies potential CCTV, witnesses, police involvement, and available accident photographs provides a legal team with more resources than a basic collision description and a phone number.
The commercial implications for legal firms are noteworthy. Each missing document or unanswered question creates additional tasks after instruction. Across high volumes of RTA claims, this becomes a significant administrative burden.
National Claims has addressed this by focusing on improving the quality of case transfers. Across its operations, the company conducts evidence-gathering tasks, including third-party liaison and ELTO searches where relevant. Technology is employed to track outstanding tasks and maintain case momentum.
Read Also: Court limits regulator’s access to documents
Dedicated communication channels with legal partners have minimized routine back-and-forth and accelerated information exchange.
The results demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. Over the last 12 months, National Claims has had a more than 75% of successfully qualified cases transferred to panel firms. Its wider technology and automation programme has also reduced solicitor response times and helped create more efficient workflows between the CMC and its legal partners.
Consumers Take Charge of Evidence
Another aspect of this evolution is that consumers themselves increasingly arrive with evidence. Dashcams are common, incidents are frequently captured on smartphones, and people routinely photograph events immediately. Understanding car accident victim rights can also clarify why preserving this material, maintaining accurate records, and identifying relevant third parties early are key as a claim progresses.
Consequently, individuals pursuing compensation claims after car accidents often gather substantial material before contacting a claims organization. The role of the claims professional is therefore partly to recognise what may be relevant and ensure potentially useful evidence is not overlooked or lost.
This requires careful handling. A claimant’s interpretation of a video or data may differ from the legal interpretation. The intake process should focus on establishing what exists and preserving the information, leaving evidential weight and liability assessments to legal professionals.
The evolving evidential environment indicates a broader shift in the CMC–solicitor relationship. As RTA claims become more data-rich, simply generating leads becomes less valuable. The greater opportunity lies in enhancing the process between initial inquiry and legal instruction.
Key questions include: Was evidence identified promptly? Are critical details missing? Is there CCTV at risk of disappearing? Are relevant third parties known? Is the claimant engaged and clear about next steps?
Technology can support this process by identifying outstanding actions and preventing cases from stalling. Human intervention remains essential for evidence identification, understanding circumstances, and providing claimant support.