By Legal Futures Associate National Claims
For claims professionals, the traditional road traffic accident (RTA) liability dispute is changing. What might once have depended predominantly on two competing accounts can now involve dashcam recordings, CCTV, vehicle telematics, smartphone footage, digital photographs and a growing range of other data.
That does not necessarily make liability straightforward. What it does mean is that the quality of evidence identified and preserved during the earliest stages of an RTA claim is becoming increasingly important.
For solicitors receiving road traffic accident claims, there can be a substantial difference between a file arriving with the potential evidential sources already identified and one where the trail needs to be reconstructed several weeks after the event.
That creates a growing role for better front-end claims management.
The evidential window is often short
CCTV is perhaps the clearest example. A collision may have been captured by a nearby shop, business, residential security system, bus, car park or other camera. But identifying that a camera existed does not mean the footage will still be available when somebody eventually requests it. Retention periods vary and recordings can be overwritten.
The challenge for claims professionals is therefore not simply establishing whether useful evidence exists but identifying and seeking to preserve it early enough.
Witness evidence creates a similar issue. Contact details obtained at the scene can be invaluable. Trying to identify the same witnesses several weeks later can be considerably more difficult.
For a road traffic accident compensation claim in which liability is disputed, those early actions can materially affect the evidential picture subsequently available to the instructed solicitor.
Telematics introduces a different kind of evidence
Vehicle telematics adds further complexity. Commercial fleets have used telematics extensively for years, while connected vehicles and insurance products have expanded the amount of journey data potentially being generated.
Where relevant data exists and can properly be obtained, it may provide information capable of assisting with the reconstruction of events surrounding a collision.
The important point for the claims sector, however, is that data is not synonymous with proof.
Telematics requires interpretation. Dashcam footage provides a particular viewpoint. CCTV may show the collision without capturing everything that preceded it.
Digital evidence therefore needs to be considered alongside more 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.
What should reach the solicitor?
This raises an important question for CMCs like National Claims: what should a good RTA instruction now look like?
Historically, the value of a claims management company could be viewed primarily in terms of sourcing and qualifying a potential claimant.
But legal partners increasingly benefit when more of the initial evidential picture has already been established. At National Claims, our approach is deliberately based around doing more of that work before and during the handover process.
Under our Extra Mile Promise, the team can assist clients with 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. It is about ensuring the solicitor has a stronger starting point from which to make that assessment. That distinction matters.
A file identifying potential CCTV, witnesses, police involvement and available accident photographs give a legal team more to work with than a basic description of the collision and a telephone number.
Better evidence can improve efficiency as well as outcomes
The commercial implications for legal firms are also worth considering. Every missing document or unanswered factual question creates another task after instruction. Multiplied across significant volumes of road traffic accident claims, that becomes a substantial administrative burden.
National Claims has therefore focused on improving the quality of the case transfer itself.
Across its wider claims operation, the business completes evidence-gathering work including third-party liaison and ELTO searches where relevant, while technology is used to identify outstanding tasks and keep cases moving.
Dedicated communication channels with legal partners have also reduced routine back-and-forth and accelerated the exchange of information.
The results demonstrate the value of that 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.
Those metrics matter because a high-volume claims relationship is only valuable if the cases arriving with a firm are sufficiently well qualified and prepared.
Technology is also changing claimant behaviour There is another side to the development. Consumers themselves increasingly arrive with evidence.
Dashcams are commonplace, incidents are captured on smartphones and people are accustomed to photographing events immediately. Understanding car accident victim rights can also help explain why preserving this material, keeping accurate records and identifying relevant third parties early may matter as a claim progresses.
That can mean somebody making a compensation claim after a car accident has already assembled a considerable amount of material before contacting a claims organisation.
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.
It also requires care. A claimant’s interpretation of a video or piece of data is not necessarily the legal interpretation. The job at intake is to establish what exists and preserve the information, leaving questions around evidential weight and liability to the appropriate legal professionals.
From lead generation to case preparation
The changing evidential landscape points towards a broader evolution in the CMC–solicitor relationship. As road traffic accident claims become more data-rich, simply generating a lead becomes a relatively limited proposition. The greater opportunity is to improve what happens between initial enquiry and legal instruction.
Was evidence identified promptly? Are key details missing? Is there CCTV that could disappear? Are relevant third parties known? Is the claimant engaged and clear about what is required next?
Technology can support that process by identifying outstanding actions and preventing cases from losing momentum. Human intervention remains essential when evidence needs to be identified, circumstances understood or a claimant needs support.
For National Claims, the direction is clear: the modern CMC should increasingly operate as a claims-preparation partner rather than simply an introducer.
CCTV and telematics may be changing how liability disputes are resolved, but they also highlight something more fundamental for the sector.
The quality of a road traffic accident claim can be influenced long before it lands on a solicitor’s desk.
As the volume and sophistication of available evidence grows, making those early stages count will become an increasingly important part of effective RTA claims management.
