PAWE and Recent Employment Changes: Ensuring an Accurate Average

The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 recognises that using a 52-week average may be inappropriate if your earnings changed shortly before the accident. Where there was a relevant change in circumstances, the calculation may need to use only the period after that change occurred, rather than older earnings that no longer reflected your work position.

That does not mean every hoped-for promotion or informal pay discussion changes PAWE. The stronger issue is usually whether the new role, pay rate, hours, or employment arrangement had already started and can be proved with records.

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 may default to a 52-week average, ask whether the change was permanent, or say there is not enough evidence of the new rate. Sometimes the problem is not bad faith, but that payroll records, contract documents, and the chronology have not been presented in a way that answers Schedule 1 clause 4 directly.

If the insurer decision does not explain why the recent change was rejected, compare the decision with the PAWE worksheet and request reasons before the review period becomes tight.

If you recently changed jobs or received a raise, do not leave the issue as a general complaint that weekly payments feel too low. Provide the insurer with the new contract, promotion letter, payroll records or employer confirmation, then explain why the older average is no longer representative.

If the insurer refuses to adjust the calculation, use the internal review guide to preserve the dispute pathway and contact us if you need help framing a focused Schedule 1 clause 4 review.

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.