Submitting RAF Claims Independently: The Pitfalls

For many years, the Road Accident Fund (RAF) has been actively discouraging claimants from using the services of attorneys to represent their interests. However, submitting RAF claims independently can have serious pitfalls for road accident victims and their families.

This is why the Law Society of South Africa does not recommend that road accident victims try to claim compensation without proper legal representation.

Attempts to encourage direct RAF claims

What the RAF refers to as a direct claim is any road accident claim for which the claimant does not enlist the services of an attorney.

Through its RAF on the Road campaign, the RAF organises community outreach events, driving out to targeted communities to encourage road accident victims to lodge direct claims, then and there.

The RAF has also placed representatives in major government hospitals to promote direct claims.

It can be argued that practices like these play on the vulnerability of recently injured patients and their families. It’s uncomfortably close to touting; a practice that the legal fraternity considers unethical.

The pitfalls of submitting RAF claims independently

Direct claims are firmly in the interests of the RAF – but they’re not typically in the best interests of claimants. Below we detail some of the pitfalls.

Under-settlement of RAF claims

Direct RAF claims have lower success rates, and attract significantly lower payouts, than claims handled by qualified legal professionals.

It’s no secret that the RAF is inundated with claims, or that it’s facing serious financial issues. It lacks the time and resources to give each claimant’s case the in-depth and personal attention it requires. It also has an interest in avoiding hefty payouts.

Another reason why direct claims tend to be under-settled is the complexity of the claims process. This process is a lot less straightforward than the RAF implies.

For someone who doesn’t have a background in personal injury law, it’s challenging to meet the requirements and to present optimal support for a claim.

Also, direct claimants often can’t tell if settlement amounts they’re offered by the RAF are unfairly low.

This depends on familiarity with similar RAF cases and their outcomes, and with the legal details surrounding what compensation types and amounts can be awarded.

Unfair rejection of claims

If a direct claim is rejected, the claimant has little to no recourse against the RAF.

Prescription (expiry) of RAF claims

A significant number of RAF claims remain in the hands of the RAF for so long that they pass their prescription dates. This is when the claims legally expire, or become invalid.

Failure of the RAF to meet its obligations

The RAF has become notorious for failing to meet the legal deadlines that apply at various stages of the RAF claims process.

For example, the RAF regularly fails to respond within the 120 days it has to respond after a claim has been lodged.

After submitting RAF claims independently, direct claimants have little recourse at this point.

By contrast, claimants with proper legal representation can trust their attorneys to take appropriate steps (like issuing the RAF with a summons) to expedite the process.