The 31 May 2025 Whiplash Tariff Reset: Two Tables, One Date
The 2025 amendment did not replace the whiplash tariff figures — it created two tables, and which applies turns on when the cause of action accrued. The full figures, the 20% uplift conditions, and why a section 6 breach leaves the settlement standing.
On 31 May 2025 the whiplash tariff was reset. The amending instrument did not replace the figures — it replaced the single table with two, and the test for which one applies is the date the cause of action accrued, not the date the claim was made or the date proceedings were issued.
That distinction will outlast the uprating. Accidents from before 31 May 2025 will still be settling for years, and a file assessed against the wrong table is mispriced from the outset.
The two tables
Regulation 2 of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, as amended, now distinguishes between causes of action accruing "before 31st May 2025" (Table 1) and "on or after 31st May 2025" (Table 2). In each table, column (a) is the tariff for one or more whiplash injuries; column (b) is the tariff where one or more minor psychological injuries are suffered on the same occasion.
| Duration of injury | Table 1 (a) | Table 1 (b) | Table 2 (a) | Table 2 (b) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not more than 3 months | £240 | £260 | £275 | £300 |
| More than 3, not more than 6 months | £495 | £520 | £565 | £595 |
| More than 6, not more than 9 months | £840 | £895 | £965 | £1,025 |
| More than 9, not more than 12 months | £1,320 | £1,390 | £1,510 | £1,595 |
| More than 12, not more than 15 months | £2,040 | £2,125 | £2,335 | £2,435 |
| More than 15, not more than 18 months | £3,005 | £3,100 | £3,445 | £3,550 |
| More than 18, not more than 24 months | £4,215 | £4,345 | £4,830 | £4,975 |
The amending instrument is the Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025, S.I. 2025/615, in force 31 May 2025. One point of discipline: the instrument itself states no percentage increase. Its explanatory note says only that Table 2 has increased damages amounts. The figure of 15% that circulates in the trade press comes from a ministerial announcement in March 2025, reported as reflecting inflation since 2021 plus a buffer for predicted inflation until the next review in 2027. Attribute it to the announcement, not to the regulations.
Note also the outer boundary that has not changed. Regulation 1(2) provides that the Regulations "apply only to causes of action which accrue on or after 31st May 2021". Anything earlier sits outside the tariff regime entirely.
The 20% uplift, and its two conditions
Regulation 3 permits an uplift, capped. Regulation 3(3) is explicit: "The greater amount in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) may not exceed the relevant tariff amount by more than 20%."
Regulation 3(2) sets what must be satisfied first. The court must be satisfied that the degree of pain, suffering and loss of amenity "makes it appropriate to use the greater amount", and either that the whiplash injury is, or one or more of the whiplash injuries are, "exceptionally severe", or that the claimant's circumstances increasing the pain, suffering and loss of amenity "are exceptional".
Both limbs are needed: appropriateness plus exceptionality. An argument built only on severity of symptoms, without engaging the exceptionality limb, is not an uplift argument.
Section 6, and the consequence practitioners get wrong
Section 6 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 is the provision that catches regulated persons. A breach occurs where a regulated person knows or suspects that a whiplash claim is being made and does, arranges or advises any of: "inviting a person to offer a payment in settlement of the claim; offering a payment...; making a payment...; accepting a payment in settlement of the claim" — in each case "without first seeing appropriate evidence of the whiplash injury or injuries".
Now the part that is routinely misstated. Section 7 provides:
"(5) A breach of section 6— (a) does not make a person guilty of an offence, and (b) does not give rise to a right of action for breach of statutory duty."
"(6) A breach of section 6 does not make an agreement to settle the whiplash claim in question void or unenforceable."
So a section 6 breach is not a criminal offence, gives the other side no cause of action, and does not unwind the settlement. The settlement stands. The exposure is purely regulatory: section 7(1) requires the relevant regulator — the SRA, for solicitors — to have "appropriate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance".
That is a counterintuitive combination and worth being precise about. A firm that settles without medical evidence has not committed an offence and has not created a voidable agreement. It has created a regulatory file against itself.
The small claims and fixed costs frame
Track allocation under CPR 26.9 caps pain, suffering and loss of amenity at £5,000 "in a claim for personal injuries arising from a road traffic accident, except as provided in sub-paragraph (bb)", and at £1,500 "in any other claim for personal injuries". The £1,000 figure applies only in the rule 26.10 circumstances — a detail frequently reported wrongly as the general non-RTA limit.
On fixed recoverable costs, the Ministry of Justice's own public notice records that FRC was extended across the fast track from 1 October 2023, applying "to claims where proceedings are issued on or after 1 October 2023, save for personal injury". For personal injury the trigger is the date the cause of action accrues; for disease claims, FRC applies only where the letter of claim had not been sent before 1 October 2023. A claim is governed by the costs table in force on its issue date for the life of the case.
Two review exercises are live. The FRC Interim Implementation Stocktake opened on 31 October 2025 and closed on 5 January 2026; the Government has committed to reviewing whether the FRC figures need inflation adjustment, and to reviewing the vulnerability provisions. The original review slipped because too few cases had yet flowed through the courts.
Two portal details worth the file note
Under the RTA Small Claims Protocol, a represented claimant's representative must search askCUE PI before the claim is entered on the Portal. And the liability response deadline is 30 days from acceptance on the Portal, or 40 days where the Motor Insurers' Bureau is the compensator; miss it and liability is taken to have been admitted in full by the compensator.
The protocol was also amended on 6 April 2026 to replace references to the Motor Insurance Database with Navigate (Motor Insurance Policy Database). A name change only — but it changes the search a file has to evidence.
No PI-specific CPD requirement
Neither regulator imposes a personal injury syllabus. The SRA prescribes no minimum hours at all; the obligation is reflection and an annual declaration, as set out in our guide to SRA continuing competence. The accreditation requirement in this area attaches to the medical expert, not the solicitor: the protocol requires the first report to be a fixed cost medical report from an accredited medical expert, selected through MedCo.
Practitioners working across both jurisdictions should note how differently the two tariff systems are behaving. In Ireland the equivalent figures are frozen at their March 2021 level because the revision mechanism was found to require legislation — see our analysis of why the 2021 Personal Injuries Guidelines still govern every Irish award.
This page was last updated:
Learnsignal Education Team
Expert Tutor at Learnsignal
Qualified professional with years of experience helping students advance their professional careers.
View all posts by Learnsignal Education Team
