I'd like to respond to your article (Claims conference, 14 July) by asking: "Would a no-fault system really be that bad?"

It seems to me that 'no fault' legislation to provide compensation could be linked to the requirement for the injured party to undertake rehabilitation under some approved scheme.

For those who agree to rehab the compensation will be automatic, at a level governed by an assessment body.

The compensation could be delivered by way of monthly payments while the rehab proceeds, then a final lump sum after completion of rehab.

For those who refuse rehab there must be a suitable penalty if they subsequently fight a case in court. For example, they must bear their own costs even if successful and/or the level of compensation should be limited by the court to an amount that it considers would have been made had rehab been undertaken - due regard for the time that rehab would have reduced the period of incapacity.

The courts could still have discretion over the compensation amount where they wish to avoid an injustice or wish to make an example of the defendant.

These ideas would not result in any increase in insurers' costs and would probably reduce costs because there will be a reduction in the spurious claims that plague the industry.

The system would overall be fairer and more stable. As to insurers' costs, a more predictable outcome on claims will save money, except perhaps for the legal profession.

Chris Wick