car crash legal query

ukjoel

Was involved in a low impact crash about a year or so ago.

Was stationary in traffic waiting to enter a roundabout (probably 10 cars back from the roundabout) and someone went in the back of me. Wasnt hard and no damage to car but was shunted forward (I guess a foot or two) and had some minor whiplash and also some ankle pain as my foot go jarred.

Anyway went to doc got some painkillers, and had some physio and chiropractor work and whiplash/ backpain sorted within a few months but ankle improving but not healed yet.

Other side are claiming that injuries couldnt have been caused by a low impact shunt so looks like we will be going to court.

I wondered if this is a standard tactic that is used.
They seemed ok to settle at 6 months but I was reluctant to as wasnt 100% yet.

I did have a legal medical a few months ago and that report said all injuries were consistent with accident as described. This is backed by medicals notes from GP, physio, and chiropractor.

They have inspected both cars but there was no damage to either and as my foot wasnt on brake I just shunted forward.

Anyone had any experience of this.

Thanks

cyclonebri1

You are about to be accused of trying to benefit from a simple low speed accident.

Gene_Hunt_2

No damage to your car.:eek:

What did the police/their report say about the collision?

Wig

Someone claimed off me for injuries on a simple side to side impact both going in the same direction 10mph (lane creep is all it was) that caused the slightest of scuff mark to her door, the sort of scratch that would wipe off with a bit of thinners and a hard rub. My insurer paid out on whiplash despite me sending them a letter of objection that they would not fight it on principle, that injuries were impossible to have occured. I didn't really care about my claims history as it was a business policy and I was leaving the business that year.

I just wished that insurers would be more willing to fight than to roll over.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

ukjoel wrote: »

Was involved in a low impact crash about a year or so ago.

Was stationary in traffic waiting to enter a roundabout (probably 10 cars back from the roundabout) and someone went in the back of me. Wasnt hard and no damage to car but was shunted forward (I guess a foot or two) and had some minor whiplash and also some ankle pain as my foot go jarred.

Anyway went to doc got some painkillers, and had some physio and chiropractor work and whiplash/ backpain sorted within a few months but ankle improving but not healed yet.

Other side are claiming that injuries couldnt have been caused by a low impact shunt so looks like we will be going to court.

I wondered if this is a standard tactic that is used.
They seemed ok to settle at 6 months but I was reluctant to as wasnt 100% yet.

I did have a legal medical a few months ago and that report said all injuries were consistent with accident as described. This is backed by medicals notes from GP, physio, and chiropractor.

They have inspected both cars but there was no damage to either and as my foot wasnt on brake I just shunted forward.

Anyone had any experience of this.

Thanks

this is what legal cover is for, if you have it.

does your legal adviser have your bundle and all evidence?

as far as it goes you have enough evidence, i.e in medical reports.

as for the otherside claims inconsistancy to injuries caused, this probably will come down to a court's decision but usually they will settle a few weeks before their due to go in after assessing the evidence against them i.e your medical reports.

their tactic will be to delay for as long as possible. this being one of them.

ukjoel

No damage to car - was pretty surprised when i got out to look but as I said it was low speed and I wasnt on the breaks.

Didnt call police as there wasnt any vehicle damage and other driver seemed genuine, ie had road tax and didnt smell of booze so got back in car and drove off.

Am happy to fight (and so is my insurance company) but just seemed surprised at their approach considering all the medical evidence.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

ukjoel wrote: »

No damage to car - was pretty surprised when i got out to look but as I said it was low speed and I wasnt on the breaks.

Didnt call police as there wasnt any vehicle damage and other driver seemed genuine, ie had road tax and didnt smell of booze so got back in car and drove off.

Am happy to fight (and so is my insurance company) but just seemed surprised at their approach considering all the medical evidence.

if the shoe was on the other foot (no pun intended) what "tactic" would you do to prolong the enevetable!

would you believe the injuries?

and would you defend yourself.

its just a delay tactic, and your insurers legal team should be unfaised by this as it wont come as a suprise.

just instruct them you recieved the letter and if it has to go to court then so be it!

ukjoel

Thanks - thats pretty much what I thought but wanted confirmation. Have only had one previous claim and that was completely uncontested so this was a bit of a surprise.

If its all part of the process will just follow the process.

Cheers

Gene_Hunt_2

ukjoel wrote: »

Didnt call police as there wasnt any vehicle damage and other driver seemed genuine, ie had road tax and didnt smell of booze so got back in car and drove off.

Injury collision and therefore reportable.

vaio

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Injury collision and therefore reportable.

nonsense.......

Gloomendoom

I think I must be made of rubber. I had more than my fair share of crashes. Cars upside down. Cars rolling down embankments. Cars with the body ripped off the chassis. Head ons with foreign drivers on the wrong side of the road. Rear ended half a dozen times.

Never felt the need to claim compensation. Perhaps I'm missing out.