about
michael's website
Email Michael
rss feed  

Archives
October 2017
November 2016
November 2015
April 2014
February 2014
August 2013
October 2012
August 2012
February 2012
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
February 2011
January 2011
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
Radio 702 this morning

I would love to hear your comments on the show on Radio 702 featuring Jacob Modise this morning.  I am certainly disappointed at the number of allegations made., completely lacking any factual basis that went unchallenged - such as the allegation that R4 billion last year was spent on on what would boil down to claims that were exaggerated or not real - as it was made to sound.  I certainly  got the impression that the Road Accident Fund or RAF believe no claimants are ever honest?  Certainly on the figures I heard on the show.

Posted by Michael de Broglio on Tuesday 26-May-09


Radio 702 this morning

Comments

Aly Chiman  said...
on Wednesday 05-Sep-18 01:31 AM
Hello there,

My name is Aly and I would like to know if you would have any interest to have your website here at lawblog.co.za promoted as a resource on our blog alychidesigns.com ?

We are in the midst of updating our broken link resources to include current and up to date resources for our readers. Our resource links are manually approved allowing us to mark a link as a do-follow link as well
.
If you may be interested please in being included as a resource on our blog, please let me know.

Thanks,
Aly

Gary Austin  said...
on Wednesday 03-Jun-09 05:34 PM
In response to Pauls comment on 26 May 2009, are statements that are published with the intent to mislead people, not considered to be criminal fraud - potential prejudice is all that is required!

Motorist  said...
on Tuesday 02-Jun-09 09:08 AM
First and foremost, Modise is a passenger on THE gravy train. He is NOT qualified to act in the position he holds in a Stalinesque grip, and for which he receives an over-inflated salary (and bonus no doubt). Run the RAF on a business-orientated schematic. As I tell the numerous claim handlers I try to liaise with, if the RAF were a business, it would be bankrupt (financially, as we know it is morally bankrupt). Selah!

anon  said...
on Wednesday 27-May-09 07:54 PM
Some facts from the 2007 annual report of the RAF:

(1) Mr Modise's total cost of employment from 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2007 was R 3,580,000.

(2) Of the estimated liability at 31 March 2007 for claims in excess of R 5 million, 79% were in respect of FOREIGNERS claims. QUESTION: Why not just abolish foreigners claims? Surely there is not an attorney in South Africa who would be against this?


anon  said...
on Wednesday 27-May-09 12:58 PM
We have followed Modise’s management of the fund for a while now! It is clear that he is on a PRO campaign to save face after the Carte Blanche expose. I would love rather to see him trying to mislead Debra Patta! Can we not organize that?
Aside from the misleading info. put across by him yesterday, the profession would do well to remember that he keeps harping on against the fault system. Interestingly enough, he alluded to the idea that the Ministry of Transport are working on a model based on a no fault compensation scheme! It is quite obvious that they have sought legal opinion regarding the limitation of constitutional rights in a ‘no fault scheme’. I believe they hold the view that if fault is removed same will justify the limitation of other rights.
When the glaring holes are punched into the New Act for being inconsistent with the Constitution, Modise will taken on the No fault gospel in a bid to avoid becoming redundant. Don’t be fooled, this man is very crafty! His perceived ignorance of simple legal principles is feigned. The layman listening to the interview yesterday was easily converted to the Modise school of thought, as misinformed as we may think he is, he has actually used this tactic in a number of forums and it is working.


Prakesh J Govender  said...
on Wednesday 27-May-09 12:30 PM
Had a great laugh when Mr Modise said that a self claimant will expect a claim to be settled in 3-4 months. The show was too short and not balanced. Not enough time to answer questions raised by the public or by other attorneys.

Marc Taylor  said...
on Wednesday 27-May-09 12:08 PM
I agree. The interview was a complete waste of time. 3-4 months to settle a claim if you lodge your claim directly with the RAF..... yeh right!!! With regards to fees and costs, clearly and despite everyones best efforts to enlighten Mr Modise, he still has no idea of the difference between attorney client and party / party costs. Unfortunately I don't think that the story on Carte Blance on Sunday night reached enough people as many people don't have MNET or DSTV.

Nic  said...
on Wednesday 27-May-09 09:47 AM
I did not hear the interview with Mr Modise on 702, but obviously facts were the last thing on his mind, or on the mind of the interviewer.
In February 2008 I was involved in a matter where the RAF offered (on the day of trial, for the first time, which is why the matter had to be pushed to trial) R 40 000 in settlement of 100% of a claim. The RAF had no expert witnesses, but in stubborn disregard for a wave of evidence refused to offer anything more. After 4 days on trial, the plaintiff was awarded R 433 000. Similarly, in another matter the RAF offered R 60 000 on the morning of trial (again without witnesses), but after 3 days of trial was ordered to pay R 560 000. The list goes on - these are not isolated cases.
The golden thread that runs through all RAF cases is that the RAF makes settlement offers for the first time on the day of trial (or, to be fair, the day before). The close proximity of a trial date is (somehow) pivotal for any RAF official to consider any claim. If the matter is not pushed to trial, they will not consider it. Plaintiff's attorneys act in the best interest of their clients when they push matters to trial, since the RAF is not performing the function for which it was brought into existence:
"The [Road Accident Fund] exists to administer, in the interests of road accident victims, the funds it collects from the public. It has the duty to effect that administration with integrity and efficiency. This entails a thorough investigation of claims and where litigation is responsibly contestable, the adoption of reasonable and timeous steps in advancing its defence. These are not exacting requirements. The must be observed." Per Howie JA in RAF v Klisiewicz, Case No 192/2001 (SCA).
However, the RAF contests every matter, whether responsibly contestable or not, yet complain when the matters are taken to trial by attorneys who act "in the interests of road accident victims".
I am probably preaching to the converted, but until Mr Modise and other RAF officials understand the reason for the existence of the RAF (and their own positions for that matter), our court rolls will be crowded. And notwithstanding numerous punitive cost orders against the RAF, the penny is yet to drop.
Who knows, maybe one day someone will get to ask Mr Modise questions to his/her heart's content...in the witness box. Now, wouldn't that be something?

Susan Nel  said...
on Wednesday 27-May-09 09:40 AM
Unfortunately I was not able to listen to the interview, I am just SO FRUSTRATED with the RAF. Claim's handler tells me that two of my files that she is working with have offers on the system and are waiting for approval by the senior, I must please phone in two weeks time, when I phone she is on maternity leave and the senior tells me there is NO offer. There is no risk as far as merits are concerned, however, I will have to issue summons, once again a huge waste of unnecessary legal fees! Well done RAF

VICKY BOVE  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 09:45 PM
Redi Direko, obviously did not watch Carte Blanche!! I did not bother to listen to this morning's broadcast as she made her views crystal clear the last time Modise was on her show. We are all aware that Modise has his own agenda- "Let's destroy all lawyers!" From what I have heard, direko is merely ensuring that the RAF gets as much publicity as possible- unfortunately to the prejudice and detriment of road accident victims. Modise shouuld perhaps familiarise himself with the RAF mission statement.

PN  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 09:27 PM
I don,t believe that Mr Modise is as stupid as he would like us to believe over the issue of costs , he understands full well the difference between attorney client and party/party costs .
He deliberately uses this ridiculous argument of his to sway the unsuspecting public into believing that he has their interest at heart. this is certainly not the case .
If anything I suspect that he has a hidden agenda.
He sets out to portray the attorneys as the common enemy against whom the public must unite into getting us out of the system,and that he is their saviour.
He reminds me a bit of BOB our neighbour North of our border.
I personally think that the Law Societies need to take action against him for misleading the public and bringing the profession into disrepute .


Les Kobrin  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 08:17 PM
I was one of the callers who managed to get through. I invited Modise to attend the High Court roll call to witness how many RAF Counsel ask for the matter to stand down until 11-30 to obtain instructions from the Fund. I hope I made the point that this is the reason why matters are settled at the doors of Court and that no blame can be attributed to Plaintiff's Attorneys. I also attempted to stipulate that it is not the fault of Plaintiff's Attorneys that costs are unnecessarily incurred. I found Modise sanctimonious arrogant and condescending. Moreover Redi was punting his cause and the remarks Modise made are devoid of substance and depict his own agenda. I challenge the LSSA now to issue a statement and publish it in the media deploring the remarks he made about Plaintiff's Attorneys.

Leigh de Souza  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 07:07 PM
One sided interviews like this are always unfortunate.
I have read the comments here and in Modise's defence I don't believe that he is lying.
What is clear though, is that after all these years he's been CEO he has STILL, despite our fervent attempts, not learnt the difference between party and party & attorney own client costs.

The statement regarding ATTORNEYS deliberately running matters to court was also disappointing.We all know this is not the case. Again here, I have to wonder how clear a picture Mr Modise really has of the operational problems within the organisation. One must accept that he is simply unaware and/or misinformed.
In one breath we hear that contingency fee agreements are a huge problem and in the next breath we hear that attorneys run matters to court to increase costs.
Now surely if attorneys are charging on a contingency basis, deliberately running matters to the steps of Court would be an unnecessarily tedious exercise?? The basis of his reasoning simply made no sense to me.

What is horrific is that I genuinely believe, that Mr Modise GENUINELY believes that the information diseminated this morning was correct. THAT TO ME, is the most disturbing issue of all.

Jeremy Manton  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 06:29 PM
It seems as if Direko and Jacob Modise are one and the same person. It amazes me that he couldn't appear on Carte Blanche to explain his lies and yet he always appears on her show. Unfortunately Direko is biased towards the RAF and believes that attorneys are crooks charging 50 to 60% contingency fees.

Arno Theron  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 05:46 PM
Should we not consider bringing a High Court application, interdicting Mr Modise from making further defamatory comments against our profession and/or prohibiting him from publishing any further lies?? Mr Modise should rather spend his time [for which I understand he receives exorbitant remuneration] to resolve the inefficiency within the RAF, than to concerne himself with atorneys' relations with their clients. We are all aware that Law Societies acts vigorously against attorneys who act unethically and dishonestly. Had the same measures been aplicable to lazy, incompetent and inefficient RAF employees, imagine the possibilities in creating a sound [and solvent] Road Accident Fund!

jock   said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:56 PM
No Radio 702 in the Eastcape .

fatima  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:39 PM
It's quite clear that Mr Modise has no idea has to how his organisation is run. He fails to understand that the RAF has been established to compensate victims of accidents and that the public contributes daily to the RAF. Every individual has the right to claim compesation for their injuries and Mr Modise is currently depriving all persons from exercising this right. Mr Modise should stop worrying about Attorney and client relationships and should concentrate on the proper managment of the RAF. Further does Mr Modise even know what a contingency fee agreement entails........... An interview has be arrranged between Mr Modise and Attorneys both to be interviewed at the same time.








Tonya Ehlers  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:31 PM
I can't bear to listen to Modise any further, I will have a stroke. He tells blatant lies and changes his story as he feels the need in order to win support from the public who have never had to try and work with the RAF. He never has any actual facts and figures, he merely makes it up as he goes along. It is pointless to even try to argue with a compulsive liar and an arrogant spinner of tales; we will have our day in court.

NEIL GOODWAY  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:28 PM
YES WELL ........... WHAT MORE CAN I SAY. ALL 9 COMMENTS HAVE LEFT ME WITH NOTHING TO SAY CAUSE ITS ALL BEEN SAID
I WONDER WHAT MODISE THINKS WHEN HE LOOKS IN THE MIRROR EVERY MORNING. I WOULD AVOID LOOKING IF I WERE HIM

WE NEED MVA ATTORNEYS ON RADIO EVERY SECOND WEEK
NEIL

Gerrit Sieberhagen  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:27 PM
From what I read I am actually happy that I coudnt pick up Radio 702 this morning....it sounded as if it was a lot of one -sided waste of airtime.
For at the last 12 to 18 months there are everyday between 10 and 15 Cases against the RAF on the High Court role in Cape Town. Almost none of these matters ever results in any evidence being led before a Judge and almost everyone is settled on that day.The waiting time in Cape Town High Court for a Courtdate is more than 2 years. The RAF knows this and misuses this situation to buy time. They either make a ridiculous offer or no offer at all untill a day or 2 before the High Court date.The waisted costs [ for their account] for attorneys , advocates and experts on these 12 to 15cases at least R500 000. 00 per day only in Cape Town.!! Sadly to enroll and wait is our only option...to beg an equitable offer earlier is to expect the impossible.

OMAR  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:13 PM
in my opinion what transpired on radio 702 today was not an interview but appeared to be an organised PRO campaign that clearly favored the Road Accident Fund without them even having to pay for it. Ms. Direko's acquiescence to almost everything that Mr. Modise rambled on was clearly alarming and certainly did not advance the cause of post 01/08/2008 road accident victims in this country. I also found very interesting the manner in which both Ms. Direko and Mr. Modise trivialised what they deemed to be "minor" or non obvious injuries sustained by accident victims. Talk about the subjective nature of the curernt system! They obviously have no knowledge of the concept of post traumatic sequelae and have brushed aside the intervention of a myriad of medical specialists including physiotherapists and orthopedic surgeons , who obviously do not know as much as Ms. Direko and Mr. Modise! If sorry money is such a bad idea in our law i wonder if Mr. Modise would be so transparent and tell us how much of money he has made in terms of perfomance bonuses and perks since his arrival at the RAF. Finally , i would like to state that in our very recent political past there have been calls made by various stake holders to uphold the Rule of Law. The nonsense that Mr. Modise continues to pontificate in public clearly shows that he has no understanding nor regard of the sense and purpose behind the Rule of Law nor does he respect or value the vast body of legal judgments and their underlying rationale that have been passed by learned and respected Judges in this country. Perhaps as a suggestion , a copy of the case of Bovungana Vs RAF should be given to every radio & tv station interviewer that decides to comment / interview members of the Public or stakeholder in RAF related matters. Perhaps the learned judges scathing but frank and honest remarks may fall on unwilling ears !

Pieter Labuschagne  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:12 PM
I was totally stunned at how easy it was for Modise to lie through this one-sided interview. It was almost impossible to get through on the 702 lines, but I would not be surprised if the calls were screened at Modise's request. We all know that he does not like confrontation, because he knows very little about the RAF or the legal system.
Sometimes I cannot believe that I still deal with claims against the RAF! No wonder the rest of the handlers / seniors / managers at the RAF is so pathetic and incompetent, they're just following Modise's lead!
Is there no way that we can get rid of him?
PS-Please complain to the interviewer about this one sided and useless interview at RediD@702.co.za

Nakka de Klerk  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 04:01 PM
Shouldn't attorneys attempt to schedule a program of their own with 702 for purposes of raising their own views?

Modise is not available to participate in the Carte Blanch program about the RAF and seems to prefer to participate in a program where he is able to make unchallenged statements.

masilo  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 03:56 PM
clearly , Mr Modise is not suited to run a large organisation like Rroad Accident fund.A comment like if i lodge a claim it "get settled within four months," is completly wrong.

I also found madan Direko too one sided

Jan Schubart  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 03:52 PM
I believe that Mr Modise is so misinformed it is a joke.

Suggestions made as long ago as the Melamed Commission went unheeded. Why would suggestions and comments now be listened to?

If the staff were professional and did their work properly, claims would be properly assessed and coulde be dealt with.

I believe that the investigation costs and medico legal aspects are probably overstated.

What I would like to see is a proper breakdown of expenses against income and that compared to the actual compensation paid. Meaningful comment could then be given.

By merely raising income (via the levy on petrol) and capping benefits is shooting a fly with a shotgun and will in the long term solve nothing.

The comemnts others have expressed on the calibre of staff etc is wholeheartedly endorsed.

One must remember that on the Redi show, only what Redi wants us to hear will be highlighted, criticism even constructive criticism is supressed.

Why not ask the professional insurance market to act as claims agents? This was successfully done years ago and allowed claims to be dealt with professionally. Greed was probably the reason for then taking the matter "in house" and the results we have today witness this.

I rest my case.

Wollies  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 03:43 PM
I was in court (dealing with more incompetence) when Modise was delivering his bias. I was informed that it was VERY one-sided.

Ismail  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 02:36 PM
702 definitely owes the legal profession an opportunity to air our views on these RAF issues. Jacob Modise was pathetic to say the least and clearly succeeded in deceiving the public. It's a pity that he can get away with such deception.

Liz Bakkes  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 02:31 PM
Is there anything good to say about this interview? The host acknowledged that the legal profession had great difficulties with the new act, yet she did not give the profession an opportunity to have a representative taking part. Mr Modise has confirmed for the umpteenth time that he has no idea of third party matters. I don't think I heard anything from him that was true or realistic. The only good thing about it, I suppose, is that most people working hard at doing their bit for the public, would not be listening to 702 at 10h00 on a Weekday morning. This station certainly did nothing to persuade me to become a listener. Thanks to the two attorneys who actually managed to get through, and made clear and correct comments.

Refilwe Mokgadi  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 02:01 PM
Experienced claims handler have all resigned from the RAF. Five years back, some of the accident victicms were maybe paid within 3-4 months. But since Mr Modise , the fund is collapsing every day. 90% of the claims handlers dont know what they are doing as they are unexperieced and are new from school. Offers are no longer made as before. I dont know what is happenning .What are they doing there? Files are lying in their achives department/system, what ever they call it. Their pannel Attorneys are getting swamped on the daily basis. Files and court orders are not even forwarded to finance for payment , unless you have issued warrant of execution . If Modise can try to adopt the old system by Kgomongwe to try and authorise unlimited over time to all employees at the fund and to target/work on domant files as well as the proverbial 1% matters , maybe the whole issue of paying lot of money to the Attorneys as he says might be minimal. The problem at the fund is not with Plaintiff's Attorneys but lot of Projects that the fund is creating within including cost of unnesseray expects they usually appoint.

anon  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 01:29 PM
dont worry guys he will get a trashing like he got in the cape come the con court challenge . he is a mouse who twice avoided carte blanche knowing that he wont be able to lie his way in front of millions and an ally will not be sitting across him.

Ernest van Staden  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 01:14 PM
I agree. Clearly he has never been involved in a claim against the RAF and honestly, does he know what type amounts are awarded for costs and what about the Contingency Fee Agreement Act? This is the problem today, the people who run these type of departments have never even worked for the department. It's like taking an Engineer and making hom Minister of Finance.

Riette Jooste  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 01:12 PM
Mr. Modise admitted to paying millions to foreigner's claims but why don't they just exclude foreigner's claims (they can take out insurance), especially in the light of the Soccer Worldcup next year.

Also, trying to settle matters with the RAF is a futile exercise. Most of the claimshandlers are not competent and cannot assess the matters and that is presuming you get hold of them in the first place.


Gareth Demmer  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 01:01 PM
Can it not simply be said that either Mr. Modise is deluded or that he is a very clever silver tongued liar. Whichever it is he is skilled at converting believers. How can anyone compete when he is given such a platform. Where is the interview that consists of only attorneys giving their view and taking questions?

Stephan Spruyt  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 12:45 PM
An absolutely one sided show , by the clearly prejudised Ms Direko.Funny how Mr Modise is alowed to ramble on for minutes at a time , while callers are rudely cut short .Mr Modise still hasnt the faintest understanding of legal cost , third party compensation or any legal procedure in short.I tried to call for more than 30 min but was unable to get through , not enough time for qeustions.Ms Direko should also prepare for an interview if she has no knowledge about the subject and isnt going to allow an opposing view on her one sided show.Her qeustions and Mr Modise's answers were atrosious.The subject of Common Law Rights wasnt even touched , it should have been the opening qeustion!All and all a waste of my time , lets just sort this thing out in Court and see if Mr Modise will there be as free spirited in his remarks....."Attorneys take 50% contingency fees from client , above the legal cost we pay them..."!!!!!

Paul du Plessis  said...
on Tuesday 26-May-09 12:39 PM
Is there not some forum for making this guy accountable for lying to the public? His most outrageous comment: Redi's question - If I was incapacitated today and claimed directly from the RAF - how long would it take you to pay me out? Jacob: I would say ... (thinking) 3 - 4 months. Are we sure he is actually at the RAF? what a joke

Post a Comment

* Your name:
* email:  (will not be published)
   Security Code:
*Security Code: Please type the above characters

 

Home




Johannesburg Web Design South Africa