It has been reported far and wide that it is in the public’s best interest to approach the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and lodge their cases directly with them. Not only will they settle your case fairly; they will also save you the legal fees of involving an Attorney.

However, a Bellville-based personal injury law firm, Simpsons Attorneys, claims that the RAF and/or their employees are clearly not resourced, experienced or willing to care enough to handle the number of claims they receive with the necessary diligence and skill required. Further the obvious conflict of interest in dealing with these matters should no longer be ignored.

Simpsons Inc has been approached in numerous matters where it is clear that The RAF is undersettling the Claimant’s cases and not acting in their best interests; they cannot effectively represent themselves and the injured Claimants at the same time. Having a legal representative will always result in a better outcome as the Attorney will always act in their best interests. Attorneys have a legal obligation towards their clients and can be sued for professional negligence, accountability exists, BUT what happens to the RAF claims handler who undersettles a claim?

They cite the following legitimate cases to support their appeal that the Road Accident Fund does not desire better outcomes for their clients:

CASE 1

• Mrs O lost her husband on 5 February 2008 in an accident in the Northern Cape.
• She, among various other widows/widowers, was approached by the RAF who undertook to assist her with her claim. At the time of the accident, Mrs O. was unemployed and had 4 children; Mr O was the breadwinner.
• The RAF completed the paperwork on her behalf and undertook to assist her further, however, they never informed her of the option of legal representation in claiming damages or proving her claim. Approximately 18 months later they paid her out an amount of R4500 as full and final settlement of her claim.
• It was only when someone referred her to Simpsons Attorneys that she discovered that she also had a claim for loss of support and that the RAF had let this claim prescribe.
• They issued a summons against the RAF in order to claim the loss of support against RAF for the negligent manner in which this claim was handled. The matter will be addressed during a trial in Kimberley later this year.

CASE 2

• During 2008 three clients were passengers in a vehicle when the driver lost control, causing the vehicle to roll.
• The clients sustained severe injuries. A claims representative from the Road Accident Fund approached the clients informing them that they can lodge a claim against the RAF directly.
• The clients entered into an agreement with the representative of the RAF.
• In this agreement, the clients were under the impression that the RAF will assist them with their claim against the RAF and will finalise it in a proper and professional manner without negligence.
• Unfortunately, the representative from the RAF only assisted the clients with their claims against the RAF and never informed or advised them of their common law claim against the driver.
• Therefore, the clients were paid an amount of only R25000.
• In 2013, Simpsons Attorneys were approached by these clients during a road trip in their community, when they informed them of the severity of their injuries and that they only received R25000.
• After consultation, the clients became aware for the first time that they have a right to claim the balance of compensation directly from the insured driver.

CASE 3

• The client went to the RAF to assist him with a direct claim in February 2013.
• The client lost his job and was not earning a salary at the time.
• In September 2013,the client was informed that the RAF required further information, more specifically the Accident Report, for which the client needed to pay R170 (taking into account the client does not earn a salary seeing as he is unemployed).
• He received a full and final offer from the RAF in 2015 in the amount of R3 976.75.
• In 2015, the client came for a consultation at Simpsons to ask whether they will be able to assist him.
• Simpsons requested all medico-legal reports and it came to their attention that the client had sustained a severe brain injury, and due to this now suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder as well as major depressive disorder.
• The client was diagnosed with major neuro-cognitive disorder and would never be able to maintain any form of employment, yet, he was offered a settlement of R3976.75.

Is the RAF really acting in the best interest of self-help clients? Does the RAF really care for the claimants?

Simpsons Attorneys are willing to advise clients who have received an offer from the RAF, to determine whether the offer made is reasonable and fair, free of charge.

For more information please visit www.simpsons.co.za or contact them on 021-949 2270.