Giusi Harper, of Houghton Harper Inc, responds to the Money & Careers report "Brakes still on fund"(May 22):

The inference that the performance of the Road Accident Fund with regards to its payment rate is linked to personal injury attorneys is far fetched. The RAF has always enjoyed deflecting attention from itself by using the "bad attorney" card and, to some extent, this "trick" has been successful in its anti-lawyer media campaigns.

The reality is that attorneys have a role to play in this field of law, because there are extensive precedents in our legal system that dictate possible paths to follow when judging a case - or they help set new precedents.

By allowing legislation such as the RAF Amendment Act and the proposed no-fault system, the law of delict - which focuses on damages arising out of negligent driving - will be erased in the area of motor vehicle accidents, taking us a step backwards.

The reference to "service centres in hospitals ... " is unknown to us. Even the procedure to claim funeral expenses is not straightforward, and I doubt funeral expenses are paid before a funeral.

And we often encounter matters where victims eventually go to attorneys because the "RAF has done nothing".

I am surprised by the statement that "victims are being paid on a first-come, first-served basis". This is not our clients' experience. In fact, the new RAF forms are so hard to complete that most accident victims are at a loss.

The amended act makes it almost impossible to claim from the fund. The bundles of complex documents require affidavits, medical reports etc that most laymen cannot obtain, draft, and pay for.

The RAF cannot claim that these expenses would not have been incurred had attorneys not been involved, because they are expenses the RAF itself would pay for to finalise a claim.

As a personal injury attorney with over 10 years' experience, I can confirm that attorneys have not used "loopholes in legislation ... to siphon vast amounts of money intended for victims ... " Attorneys performed their services strictly in terms of the law.

The RAF had huge internal fraud and unaccountability for missing millions. They started deviating from a system that worked and, instead of paying out claims, they instructed their panel of attorneys to take all matters to court.

The most concerning aspect is that the fund, with the aid of the government and the legislature, has managed to remain in existence despite its inability to administer itself. Despite this maladministration, it continues to collect fuel levies, Treasury cash injections, has changed the law to suit its pocket, continues to fund the lavish lifestyle of the executive, and discriminates against claimants.

I believe the RAF should be done away with and that, simply put, we return to the old system, where insurance companies be given the claims instead.