ROAD ACCIDENT FUND SECOND AMENDMENT BILL OF 2003

For the past ten years I have been involved in many aspects of housing for the disabled. I have assisted road accident victims by compiling architectural reports for compensation claims and have also been involved in the implementation of the actual construction of suitable accommodation.

I have perused the above mentioned bill and wish to comment as follows:

1. My interest and comments are based on my specific experience with

a road accident victim, Mr Trevor Finch, who was rendered a paraplegic

as a result of a motor vehicle accident on the 8th October 1991, exactly

12 years ago.

An apportionment of fault was agreed at 80% in favour of Mr. Finch and he was offered:

- an undertaking in terms of Article 43 in respect of 80% of medical expenses and in respect of the supply of services and goods;

- no cash payment, on the basis that, after taking into consideration the tender of the undertaking, Mr. Finch was financially better off in his injured state as compared to his uninjured state. (He receives a monthly pension from WCC).

I first met with Mr. Finch on the 2nd February 2000 at his home after being contacted by the RAF to assist in the process of affording him with suitable ablution facilities. During this visit Mr. Finch was visibly upset and expressed his disappointment with the system as he had at that point in time been without an accessible bathroom for more than 8 years.

Both Mr. Finch and his wife presented as motivated people and I was impressed by their endeavour to have suitable alterations made to their home. Unfortunately, as they were not fully informed on the correct procedure to follow in order to have the undertaking exercised, they were often knocking on the wrong door for assistance.

Since I became involved, over more than three years ago, slight progress has been made regarding the provision of a suitable bathroom for Mr. Finch. We have been met with many obstacles of which the following are the most important:

- Mr. Finch had to be the legal owner of the house he was living in, before we could proceed to obtain approval for proposed alterations from the Road Accident Fund. In order to take transfer of the property, which was purchased on a delayed transfer basis, Mr. Finch had to settle the outstanding capital balance. As he had no cash available Mr. Finch had to apply for an advance on his pension money from WCC. He received a lump sum in lieu of pension to the amount of R33, 000.00, but his monthly income was reduced as a result.

- Mr. Finch is not able to save enough money from his monthly income to put aside for the construction of the bathroom and the apportionment of fault further complicates matters. In order to be able to contribute his portion of 20% towards the building costs Mr. Finch will have to apply for a further advance of his pension. This in turn implies a further reduction in his monthly income.

In the meantime building costs are escalating and the longer the building process is stalled, the more expensive it will become and the bigger the burden of the 20% apportionment against Mr. Finch. The escalation in building costs might in the end render it impossible for him to raise sufficient money as the amount that can be considered for commutation of his monthly pension is subject to a maximum.

In the light of the above I am of the opinion that Mr. Finch would have been better off had he received a portion of his claim for damages as a cash payment. This would have enabled him to speed up the building process, limiting the extent of his 20% contribution as well as the extent of the liability to the Road Accident Fund.

At the time Mr. Finch was offered a settlement that was perceived as reasonable and appropriate. What seemed as a considerable benefit to

Mr. Finch on paper has proven to be quite the opposite in reality. He has been living in an environment not conducive to promoting wheelchair use or his independence. He does not have the right of use of his home to the full extent had he not been injured.

2. In general: Regarding the granting of an undertaking certificate in terms of Article 43 the fund is relieved of the need to pay the claimant immediately for the estimated assessed future costs of items such as renovations to property. Payment thereof is deferred until such cost was actually incurred in future.

In many cases these costs are never incurred as a result of the lack of available cash or knowledge of the system. For many people, unlike

Mr. Finch who remains motivated to have his home environment

improved, the honouring of the certificate may be deferred indefinitely.

I would like to conclude by voicing my concern regarding the wish of the Road Accident Fund to increase the ambit of the Undertaking Department, to pay for loss of future income and general damages claims in instalments.

In relation to my first hand experience with Mr. Finch, I am of the opinion that it will prejudice future claimants, dis-empowering them to institute necessary changes to their home environments.

Petra Coetsee

RESEARCH

Where the certificate might be of benefit in relation to unforeseen medical expenses per se, I am of the opinion that it is of no benefit to either the claimant, or the RAF, to put any building work and in particular the

provision of accessible ablution facilities on hold.

The perimeters of the required alterations to which a claimant would be entitled in terms of an undertaking would vary in each instance. One would assume that an appropriate worded certificate in terms of Article 43(a) would include reference to the exact definition of the building work that would be seen as reasonable As most I am of the opinion that

It also would have saved taxpayers money, as there would not have been lengthy files of correspondence between the parties involved.

I have chosen this example as I wish to illustrate the my perceived shortcomings I have perceived used Mr. Finch as an example in order to illustrate my perceptions of the Road Accident Fund undertakings in respect of future medical expenses

Mr. Finch has spent the last 12 years without proper bathroom facilities. These facilities were are due to him but due to a lack of capital he was put in a position worse off than what was perceived he would have been in.

By offering an undertaking an offer is made to pay for expenses occurred and proof is delivered. But what happens

May I however point out

Imposes implication with regard to the following:

Lengthy correspondence between representatives of the fund and myself.

Quality of life has been impacted on