RAF CEO claims ‘systemic bias’ by judges against fund amid backlog crisis

Road Accident Fund (RAF) CEO Collins Letsoalo believes there might be systemic bias by judges against the fund.

Letsoalo also believes the RAF “favours the rich”, which is why it wants to simplify the process and pay claims based on defined benefits.

ALSO READ: High Court orders Road Accident Fund to pay costs in contempt case

He said the RAF respects “those that sit in other arms of the state” but admitted there is a difficulty “with some of our honourable judges”.

“We also know that sometimes we take certain things somewhere, and we know once we see on the other side, at the bench, there is someone sitting, we know the outcome. We already know that we have already lost this one, so let’s look at an appeal.

“Why is this the case? We don’t know,” he said at a briefing on Thursday about a campaign to reduce the RAF backlog of 321 000 claims that are three years or older.

Letsoalo’s comments about systemic bias by the judiciary were made in the context of many judgments against the RAF.

However, Letsoalo stressed that he is not saying that lawyers collude with judges.

“I said most judges were plaintiff attorneys, and so they are used to the system working in a certain way.

ALSO READ: Road Accident Fund ‘biggest liability after Eskom’

“There might be systemic bias, which is what we suspect. We might have evidence about systemic bias, but we don’t have evidence about the judges colluding with attorneys,” he said.

Lawyers inflating legal costs

Letsoalo indicated that some lawyers may be purposely delaying the submission of documents to validate a claim by their client to inflate the legal costs these lawyers can charge.

ALSO READ: Road Accident Fund’s accounting blunder ‘of Steinhoff proportions’ slammed by MPs

He said lawyers “create costs for themselves” unless a judge orders them to pay something in their personal capacity.

“The reality is that this system was done [created] by lawyers for lawyers.

“When we try to simplify it and say, ‘Make it a defined benefit so that we know if you are amputated from below the knee, this is how much you get, and all of us must get the same’, they don’t want that.

“It favours the rich and the ones who can afford [a lawyer].

“If you have a very good lawyer that can lie a lot as well, and you also have a very good doctor who can exaggerate your injuries, you will get more. That is the reality of it,” he said.

Letsoalo said that 97% of the claims backlog involves claimants who are represented (by lawyers), and the RAF not having the required documentation to process and validate the claim.

He said this is why the RAF Form 1 was introduced in July 2022.

“It has nothing to do with us not wanting to pay. We want to pay people,” he said.

The RAF said the form was introduced to make it easier for legal practitioners to lodge claims on behalf of claimants and to assist with settling claims faster.

ALSO READ: ‘There’s boxes everywhere’: Scopa unhappy after MPs visit ‘horror story’ at RAF offices

However, the High Court in Pretoria in March 2024 declared it unlawful and reviewed and set aside the board notice published in the Government Gazette in May 2022 and the RAF Form 1 prescribed by the minister of transport in terms of the RAF Act and published in a Board Notice in the Government Gazette in July 2022.

Letsoalo said the RAF is appealing this judgment, and the fund could continue to use this form.

Backlog campaign

He said the launch of the Drive Your Claim Forward campaign aims to reduce the backlog for claims submitted before April 2021 and the fund will use a call centre to facilitate this process.

Letsoalo said the RAF has received 380 000 contacts via email and calls since the call centre opened and has resolved at least 95% of these cases.

He said the campaign aims to inform and educate claimants about the documents required to process and finalise their claims.

ALSO READ: RAF ‘crisis’: Lawyers claim accident victims ‘literally prevented from lodging claims’

“Through the campaign, claimants will be educated about documents required for each claim, how to submit outstanding documents and where to go for further information.

“The anticipated outcome of this campaign is that RAF will process and finalise more claims, thereby reducing the waiting period for some of the claimants,” he said.

Lawyers behaving badly?

Letsoalo said the RAF has noticed that some lawyers have the information the fund requires to process the claim, but it is not given to the fund.

ALSO READ: Road Accident Fund to increase claim limit

He claimed this is related to lawyers charging for every call they make or take or email sent.

Letsoalo said when claimants sign a contingency fee agreement, their lawyer is entitled to 25% of the claim or their costs, whichever is lower.

“But think about it. He [the lawyer] wants these costs to be higher. It is the way that it works.

“If he brings the case here and we settled in 180 days, how much would he have billed?

“You must understand that, and it will give you the context of why people will not necessarily give us this information and why you must follow up as the claimant,” he said.

Letsoalo advised people to check all the cases lodged at the High Court in Pretoria about the RAF refusing to receive forms and ask themselves when the lawyer actually got that information.

“They bring it [the application] a week before prescription because then it is urgent. They are given a power of attorney [by claimants] but are abusing that to take us to court.

“Strangely, some of the judgments have agreed with them,” he said.

“We don’t know how, and that is why we are appealing some of them.”

This article was republished by Moneyweb. Read the original here