Legal heavyweights have joined forces to implore the ministers of transport and justice and correctional services to urgently step in to resolve what they say is a “state of emergency” within the Road Accident Fund.
They have taken aim, particularly, at RAF chairperson Collins Letsoalo and the fund’s board — and want the ministers to constitute a new board “containing individuals who are willing to actively serve the South African public instead of wasting time and money in courts, trying to change long-standing legislative and legal frameworks”.
The joint memorandum has been prepared by the Law Society of South Africa, Black Lawyers Association (BLA), NADEL and other law bodies whose members deal with personal injury claims.
Apart from the ministers, it has been sent to the RAF, relevant parliamentary committees and the auditor-general.
“We do so as an outcry, not only on behalf of the victims of road accidents in South Africa ... but also as officers of the court,” the memorandum, dated July 20 2023, reads.
They put the blame for the woeful state of affairs on bad decisions taken by the board — including the decision, in June 2020, to disband the panel of 100 law firms that assisted the fund with handling claims, without any contingency plan.
To back this up, they point to a judgment handed down by a full bench in Mpumalanga in January this year, where the judges said this was inexcusable and the fund’s claim handlers, who had deposed to affidavits in the matters before them, had pointed to “a bus that had no direction”, claiming they were overwhelmed by the chaotic situation.
The judges had questioned whether the chairperson and the board appreciated the provisions of the act.
In the memorandum, the lawyers said the termination of the panel left the RAF without the benefit of input by legal professionals and the fund was left “entirely unrepresented” for a year, during which time the vast majority of trial matters were finalised in court without it having any legal representation.
In July 2021 the state attorney was appointed to act on behalf of the RAF, but there were simply not enough state attorneys and claims handlers to cope with the load.
Another bad decision involved a directive to its claim handlers in August 2022, to repudiate all claims for past hospital and medical expenses of those who had private medical aids, “a directive contrary to more than 100 years of established law”.
Discovery Health challenged this in court, and the directive was reviewed and set aside.
The Supreme Court of Appeal had refused to grant the RAF leave to appeal this ruling, and it had now approached the Constitutional Court.
This was a waste of money.
“The RAF continues to implement this unlawful directive by rejecting all claims for past hospital and medical expenses — with knock-on effects for both claimants and medical aids.”
Last year, the fund had also amended its requirements for claim submissions.
They now had to include medico-legal reports and actuarial calculations, letters from Sassa and the UIF confirming the claimant had not claimed from them.
“These government institutions have no administrative resources to prepare and issue such letters. Also, no claims are accepted without a salary slip, even for employees who work as street hawkers or are remunerated in cash.
“For more than a year, thousands of claims that were previously accepted and registered are nowhere to be found on the RAF’s premises or on their claims system.”
In May this year, a judgment was handed down in the Eastern Cape division, ordering the RAF to suspend the enforcement of the new requirements. But to date, it had not complied with this.
The fund had also been rejecting claims by foreigners if they could not prove they were in South Africa legally.
For more than a year, thousands of claims that were previously accepted and registered are nowhere to be found on the RAF’s premises or on their claims system.
— Lawyers against RAF
This was being challenged in court as being unconstitutional.
Day-to-day dealings with the RAF were also a nightmare. Correspondence was ignored and the helpline was non-functional.
The RAF, and more recently the deputy minister of transport, blamed its woes on attorneys they accuse of fleecing the system.
But these allegations were blatantly untrue, the lawyers said.
Among the solutions they propose is for the appointment of a new board, a suitably qualified CEO, and qualified and experienced claim handlers with administrative assistants.
They also propose that the panel be reintroduced, alternatively that the state attorney's office be staffed sufficiently.
They have also proposed that until such time as the backlog of claims is cleared, reducing the number of matters ending up on trial, that the Treasury allocate funds for the creation of a specialist RAF court in Pretoria to appropriately deal with litigated RAF matters.
To the RAF, they say: “Respect and abide by orders of the court and tried and tested legal principles, instead of spending funds meant to compensate injured road accident victims on personal legal crusades thereby enriching the very legal professionals it accuses of fleecing the system.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.