PAWE and Recent Employment Changes: Ensuring an Accurate Average

The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 recognizes that using a 52-week average is inappropriate if your earnings permanently changed shortly before the accident. If you had a "change in circumstances," the insurer is required to calculate your PAWE based only on the period after that change occurred.

To trigger this rule, the change must be a permanent or significant shift in your employment status, such as:

• Starting a completely new job with a different employer.
• A formal promotion within your current company.
• A permanent increase in your contracted hours (e.g. moving from part-time to full-time).
• A significant pay rise unrelated to standard CPI increases.

Insurers frequently ignore this rule and default to a 52-week average because it results in a lower PAWE and lower weekly payments. They may argue the change wasn't "permanent" or that you haven't provided enough evidence of the new rate.

If you recently changed jobs or received a raise, do not accept a PAWE based on old earnings. You should provide the insurer with your new contract or a letter from your HR department. If they refuse to adjust the calculation, contact us to discuss an Internal Review based on Schedule 1 Clause 4.

Recent-employment-change disputes usually turn on proving that the new arrangement was real, operative, and more representative of your earnings at the accident date than the older 52-week history.

• Effective date evidence: The contract variation, promotion letter, payroll update, or commencement email should show exactly when the change took effect.
• Permanence rather than speculation: The stronger cases show a settled role, pay rate, or hours pattern rather than a hoped-for future increase.
• Post-change payslips: Even a short run of payslips can matter if they confirm the new rate was already being paid before the accident.
• Employer confirmation: A focused employer letter can help explain new duties, ordinary hours, and whether the change was temporary, probationary, or permanent.
• Chronology against the insurer notice: The promotion or new-job timeline should be mapped directly against the insurer reasoning so the review body can see why the older averaging period is misleading.

When the evidence is clear, the argument is usually not complex. The task is to stop the insurer defaulting to a lower historic average that no longer reflected your real earning position.

These disputes often fail because the changed work position is described too loosely.

• Relying on verbal promises: A hoped-for promotion or informal discussion about future hours is weaker than signed or payroll-backed evidence.
• Ignoring whether the change had already started: Insurers often focus on whether the higher rate was actually in effect before the accident date.
• Overlooking probation or temporary wording: If the new role was expressed as short-term, acting, or trial-only, that issue needs to be answered directly.
• Sending the new contract without context: It helps to explain why the old 52-week average is now unrepresentative, not just attach the document and hope the insurer fixes the number.
• Mixing PAWE, capacity, and treatment arguments together: A recent-change earnings issue is usually stronger when the review request stays focused on the earnings rule first.

The most persuasive files show one clean story: what changed, when it changed, how it was paid, and why the insurer used the wrong period.

Before challenging a recent-change PAWE decision, it helps to prepare one bundle that answers the insurer’s likely objections in advance.

• The insurer decision and PAWE worksheet.
• The contract, promotion letter, variation letter, or new-employment documents.
• Post-change payslips, timesheets, rosters, or payroll records.
• An employer letter confirming whether the new position, hours, or salary was permanent.
• A short chronology linking the change date to the accident date and identifying why Schedule 1 clause 4 should apply.

That makes it easier to move into internal review or the appropriate PIC pathway without losing the core earnings issue in a broader dispute file.