RTA track allocation: what is the complexity when value is less than £5,000 or £1,000 for exceptions (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists)?

• A. High complexity
• B. Low complexity
• C. Moderate complexity
• D. Very high complexity

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is how track allocation in RTA claims uses value to gauge complexity. When the value of the claim is below the set thresholds—typically under £5,000, or under £1,000 for certain exceptions like pedestrians, cyclists, or motorcyclists—the issues in the case are generally straightforward: liability is often easier to determine, damages are simple, and there’s usually less need for expert evidence. Such cases are directed to the small claims track or other low-complexity pathways, which are designed to be faster, cheaper, and with simplified procedures. This is why the correct choice is low complexity: the combination of low value and the typical nature of these RTA claims makes them less complex overall. Of course, if a claim has unusual features—like disputed liability requiring extensive expert input—the complexity could rise, but the standard expectation at those thresholds is that the track will be low in complexity.