Fixed Costs, Mazur and the Risk of a Two-Tier RTA Market

The point (before anyone reaches for the violins)

This isn’t a “woe is me” piece. Plenty of people have it harder than claimant lawyers, and nobody is entitled to a commercially viable business model simply because we’d quite like one.

But we are entitled — and more importantly, clients are entitled — to a civil justice system that works in the real world. At the moment, there’s a widening gap between:

the fixed costs framework we’re asked to operate within, and
the supervision, accountability and risk expectations increasingly placed on firms delivering that work.

That gap matters. Because it shapes behaviour. And behaviour, in the end, shapes access to justice.

1) Low value. High responsibility. Fixed costs.

Fixed Recoverable Costs were sold as predictability: a system where costs are controlled and parties can plan. But for claimant representatives in lower-value RTA work, “predictable” has increasingly meant something else:

predictable margin compression,
predictable risk transfer, and
predictable pressure on supervision and process.

This isn’t unique to one track. In reality, the economics of Band 1 work — whether in the Fast Track or Intermediate Track — often struggle to stack up once you factor in what the job actually requires:

proper file ownership
clear escalation routes
audit trails
meaningful sign-off at key stages
and supervision that is real, not theoretical

The Court of Appeal in Mazur didn’t invent those requirements. But it did shine a brighter light on them.

And when work is priced by reference to a pre-Mazur world — while expectations shift — commercial reality does what it always does. It adjusts.

That’s where the numbers start to creak.

2) What Mazur changed (and what it didn’t)

The Court of Appeal’s decision in CILEX v Mazur restored a long-standing and sensible principle: delegation within supervised teams is lawful, provided the authorised person retains responsibility and exercises proper direction, supervision and control.

So this isn’t:

a return to chaos
a suggestion that “paralegals can’t do anything”
or the end of delegation

And crucially, further clarity is still awaited. The SRA has confirmed it is reviewing its Effective Supervision guidance following the March 2026 decision.

That matters, because the costs regime most claimant firms operate under wasn’t designed with that evolving level of scrutiny in mind.

3) Why supervision isn’t just compliance — it’s cost

In principle, everyone supports proper supervision. It protects clients, develops staff, and maintains confidence in legal services.

But supervision isn’t free.

At a basic level, considering litigated cases, it involves:

an authorised individual genuinely attached to the file
time to review key stages
escalation and sign-off at risk points
proper documentation of delegation
and the competence to supervise effectively

Even where sampling models are used, the Law Society has been clear: what’s appropriate depends on risk, and the authorised person must still be able to stand behind the work.

And that’s the point.

The more supervision has to be demonstrable and auditable, the more it costs to deliver even a “straightforward” case — precisely the kind of case fixed costs assume can be run lean.

Simple doesn’t mean risk-free.

4) A quick reality check: what this looks like on the ground

Take a straightforward RTA claim where liability is admitted early.

On paper, it’s exactly the sort of case the fixed costs regime is designed for — contained, predictable, efficient.

But even in that case, you still need:

proper oversight at key stages
sign-off on settlement decisions
an audit trail showing who did what and why
and supervision that could withstand regulatory scrutiny if questioned

None of that disappears simply because the claim is “straightforward”.

The issue is that the fixed fee assumes a level of input that no longer reflects how the work has to be done in practice.

5) The commercial reaction: the “complexity preference” nobody asked for

Here’s the uncomfortable bit: fixed costs create incentives.

If Band 1 work produces thin returns but still carries real regulatory, negligence and costs risk, firms will naturally drift towards cases where:

there is higher banding potential
more recoverable work sits within the scheme
or the complexity justifies the supervision time required

That’s not greed. It’s triage.

And this is where the risk of a two-tier system starts to emerge — not by design, but by outcome.

Because if the market shifts towards:

complex claims being more viable
straightforward claims becoming harder to justify

…then the system quietly penalises the very people reforms were meant to help.

6) The access to justice impact: “pay more or go alone”

This is where it stops being theoretical.

In a world where claimant solicitors can’t make Band 1 work stack up, the options narrow:

the claimant pays more (directly or indirectly),
the claimant runs the case as a litigant in person,
or the claim isn’t pursued at all

It doesn’t take much imagination to see how a two-tier system forms:

Tier 1: cases that are complex enough to attract representation
Tier 2: cases that are “simple” enough to be priced out of it

And once that happens, “predictable costs” start to look less like a consumer benefit — and more like a barrier to access to justice.

7) Costs fixed in a pre-Mazur world; supervision evolving in a post-Mazur one

This is the core issue.

We now have:

supervision expectations in flux
regulatory guidance under review
increasing scrutiny of how work is actually delivered

…all sitting alongside a costs regime built for a different operational reality.

If compliant delivery requires more:

time
documentation
and senior input

Then one of two things follows:

either the cost is absorbed (meaning less representation), or
the scheme evolves to reflect the real cost of doing the job properly

Again, this isn’t a complaint. It’s arithmetic.

8) A constructive way forward

If we want to avoid a two-tier market, we need to be realistic about what keeps a claimant model both sustainable and compliant.

For Regulators

Clear, practical guidance that reflects how real teams operate — not just ideal models.

For Policy-makers

If fixed costs are here to stay, the pricing needs to reflect what safe delivery actually involves: supervision, accountability, and quality control.

For Firms

Treat Mazur as a prompt to tighten processes, not just carry on as before. Good supervision is not an optional extra — it’s part of the product.

Conclusion: a fork in the road

Mazur didn’t rewrite the rulebook. It reinforced it: delegation is lawful, but responsibility remains with the authorised individual, and supervision must be real.

The bigger question is what we do with that.

If expectations rise — or are clarified in a way that demands more time, more documentation and more senior involvement — while costs remain fixed as though none of that carries a price, the direction of travel is fairly obvious.

We drift towards a system where:

“simple” claims are subsidised, or
left to litigants in person

We’ve seen versions of that before. It doesn’t end particularly well for access to justice.

That outcome isn’t inevitable. But it is predictable — unless reforms catch up with reality.

And if the civil justice system is meant to work for ordinary road users, the straightforward claim matters just as much as the complex one.

The Motor Accident Solicitors Society

The Motor Accident Solicitors Society is a membership organisation for road traffic accident claims experts. As a non-profit organisation formed in 1991, we’re widely known as the expert voice on all matters relating to RTA claims. Our members widely benefit from this high profile not only through recognition of their expertise, but also from the important role that MASS plays within the RTA/PI claims industry. If you’re a law firm dedicated to representing road traffic accident victims, aligning with MASS is essential. Since 1991, we’ve set the gold standard in expertise, ethical practice and efficiency.

To contact the society, visit our Contact Us Page and fill out an enquiry form. Alternatively, you can also reach us by email on enquiries@mass.org.uk or by telephone on 0117 925 9604.

Fixed Costs, Mazur and the Risk of a Two-Tier RTA Market is a MASS Legal feature, written by Darren Wilson – Legal Director, Irwin Mitchell and MASS Regional Coordinator