CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM - CONFUSED.COM? lol

jlg1

alistair.long wrote: »

It is understandabe if the judge cannot make a decisoin, it will go back and forth through courts. sometimes the evedence may differ or sway the judge more towards one side.

This happened in a case I saw, it was undecideeable, then in went to court of apeal, and once again undecideable, then it came back round, and the judge decided that it was 1's fault for not making sure his way was clear. And liability was set 75, and I think the judge made a good enough decision.

in the next hearing you must let your Barister pressurise the judge to make a decision or you will be in limbo, maybe to the fact that it is split 50/50 so that the argument is settled. Personally i think it will be settled 60/40 in your favour as you were hit from the back.

Hi thanks fo rthe reply,

I dont even think at this stage its gonna go to appeal - given the costs £14,000 possibly sol told me) and given the fact my sol said he will be asked by CRASH (mentioned above who would be paying his costs as far as I know) whether he thinks we will win - I don't think he does to be honest - though at the same time is very clear "don't worry its not over yet"

We are already in limbo! LOL at the minute - as we just dont know what is going on....?

I am not a "money grabber" as the other barrister tried to make out (i.e, I had an accident in 2009 - was not hurt - hit a traffic island - - dark night - not lit up - roadworks ongoing on road etc.. no markings to show this - no one else involved) BUT barrister commented "so you didn't claim then BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE TO CLAIM OFF!) . I just want this done fairly and squarely as we are not at fault here - is very frustrating at present - but thanks for the reply :-)

James

alistair.long

As its at £14k costs, I assuem you have legal expense insurance. If you appeal the legal expense does not cover that and its all down to you, or a further after the event insurance (it will be very expensive).

How much are you claiming for?
is it worth more headache?

jlg1

alistair.long wrote: »

As its at £14k costs, I assuem you have legal expense insurance. If you appeal the legal expense does not cover that and its all down to you, or a further after the event insurance (it will be very expensive).

How much are you claiming for?
is it worth more headache?

Hi again,

This is the thing - CRASH the independent company were covering the court etc.. and costs this time - but if we appeal - we will be out the costs and we don't have legal insurance so I know, its nuts and not really an option at all.

We are claiming for the damage to the car of £385 and our personal injuries which my solicitor is to sort - dealing with me first as the passenger and my wife was also hurt - to be dealt with later as the driver. I dont even know what sort of figure in the other side's eyes is realistic for my injures yet - it looks like vrey little - from what I can see - regardless of my medical evidence and statement/s etc....

That's it - £14 is just not an option especially as we'll be lucky to get a couple of £k back - extremely lucky by the looks of it.


As you say - is it worth the headache - no not that kind of headache.....

James

gordikin

alistair.long wrote: »

It is a little unfair that you have not got anything. It is rare for a person the be fraudulant/exajurating and to not get anything. If the judge has identified the accident has happened, this part of the transcript would be useful, and therefore it is the medical evidence to back up your case. The Judge is not a medical expert and therefore cannot make a decision on the extent of the injuries.

I see from what you have said, is that the barrister has not said to the judge "as you have identified a impact, you must therefore award either the 1 year recovery or 18 months, or if you believe it was less then be it."
You should get something and the barrister will be happy and get paid.

It may be that the judge holds your driver (your wife) responsible so therefore you have a claim against the driver but not against the truck driver.
To claim against the driver you simply tell your Solicitor to go after your drivers insurance, the other side will not be happy (owing £8k) and your legal expense insurance which your Solicitor had may cover it.

This is not a horrible reply but the facts as I see them. Hope this helps.

...it's reply that makes little sense!

Hey_Dude

jlg1 wrote: »

As regards the 9 medicals - I put it to my sol on Wednesday why he had not said to me - right this is dragging on a bit etc.. he said he took what I said on face value - if he gave me a "cut off" point - then he would be negligent if something flared up later that was missed.

Must admit I'm still interested in this one....

I'm still tring to get my head around why an insurer would defend a rear end shunt.

For those who do not know if an insurer settles an injury claim outside of court their costs are limited to a 'predictable' (i.e. known) scale - so for instance in this case I reckon if the claim is genuine the inury is worth between £4000-£8000 so costs if settled would be limited to about £3500.

However if the solicitors issues a summons against the defendant (asking for a court hearing) and then the insurer settles then the solicitor is entitled to 'standard' costs - this means they can claim for every hour spent on the claim - £3500 suddenly becomes about £8000.

Some solicitors will simply issue a summons just to get standard costs.

And if the case goes to court - the judge will give an uplift on costs even if the claimant's solicitor gets just a partial liability decision. So if the judge rules 100% or even say 50-50 the claimant solicitor in either case would get about £16000 for their costs.

Some solicitors will mud wrestle their grandma to get a case to a disposal hearing.

So if this claim is straight-forward why would an insurer risk court and risk paying £16000 to a solicitor when they could settle, walk away and pay them £3500 at the start??

The answer, of course, is that they would not - even the most incompetent, over-burdened insurance outfit would not allow this claim to go to a hearing.

The only reasons I can think to defend this case, based on the information above, are liability and fraud.

However the judge seems to indicate that liability is not an issue and like I said, an insurer simply would not defend a straight-forward rear end shunt.

That's how I see it...something is missing...pure speculation but I wonder if the insurer produced evidence of massive exagerration of injury such as surveillance...

Duder

alistair.long

Hey_Dude wrote: »

Must admit I'm still interested in this one....

I'm still tring to get my head around why an insurer would defend a rear end shunt.

For those who do not know if an insurer settles an injury claim outside of court their costs are limited to a 'predictable' (i.e. known) scale - so for instance in this case I reckon if the claim is genuine the inury is worth between £4000-£8000 so costs if settled would be limited to about £3500.

However if the solicitors issues a summons against the defendant (asking for a court hearing) and then the insurer settles then the solicitor is entitled to 'standard' costs - this means they can claim for every hour spent on the claim - £3500 suddenly becomes about £8000.

Some solicitors will simply issue a summons just to get standard costs.

And if the case goes to court - the judge will give an uplift on costs even if the claimant's solicitor gets just a partial liability decision. So if the judge rules 100% or even say 50-50 the claimant solicitor in either case would get about £16000 for their costs.

Some solicitors will mud wrestle their grandma to get a case to a disposal hearing.

So if this claim is straight-forward why would an insurer risk court and risk paying £16000 to a solicitor when they could settle, walk away and pay them £3500 at the start??

The answer, of course, is that they would not - even the most incompetent, over-burdened insurance outfit would not allow this claim to go to a hearing.

The only reasons I can think to defend this case, based on the information above, are liability and fraud.

However the judge seems to indicate that liability is not an issue and like I said, an insurer simply would not defend a straight-forward rear end shunt.

That's how I see it...something is missing...pure speculation but I wonder if the insurer produced evidence of massive exagerration of injury such as surveillance...

Duder

A few things to add,
If the lorry driver is adiment that he is not at fault, his insurance have a duty to listern to him.
This happened to me when I had CCTV and a my car was parked. The other side took it all the way to court, and they gave in 17 days before trial.

Just for people who dont know, the costs have changed for new cases using the preaction protocol.

I do also agree with the above that the insurance could have settled with £3500 or even less.

jlg1

alistair.long wrote: »

A few things to add,
If the lorry driver is adiment that he is not at fault, his insurance have a duty to listern to him.
This happened to me when I had CCTV and a my car was parked. The other side took it all the way to court, and they gave in 17 days before trial.

Just for people who dont know, the costs have changed for new cases using the preaction protocol.

I do also agree with the above that the insurance could have settled with £3500 or even less.

Hi,

I'll try and reply to the previous posts separately. But as regards fault - the lorry driver was in the stand (according to the wife my wife remembers it - to be honest there was that much info its getting a bit of a blur now) but the lorry driver DID NOT argue we drove out in front of him/he simply was arguing there was NO IMPACT at all - that we APPEARED FROM NOWHERE (he wasnt even saying we were in front of him - he wasnt actually saying where we were to be honest?) - He did say that he was "crossing the lanes from right to left" why I dont know as this was 2 lanes and left hand lane was as usual the inside with the right being the overtaking lane and leading away out of the town - He said he let someone away who was in the left lane I might add - and his lorry ended up at an angle - which was a complete lie and it was debated about the position of the lorry - when police arrived lorry was perfectly straight in the road directly behind us - so if he didnt move it at all - which he said he didnt how come he wasnt sitting across 2 lanes of traffic when the police arrived? Doesnt add up?


NO IMPACT at all - was their whole case and the fact that they believed I was exaggerating injuries (which to me means there was indeed injuries on my part to be exaggerated in the first place - so they were accepting there was or should I say "could " have been injuries - which 6 medicals have shown and a Psychologist report which stated I also had a touch of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) - this was their argument - that we basically made this all up - and their barrister put that to me straight "I put it to you Mr ..... that there was indeed no impact at all on the day in question" so we were shopping up the town decided to "pick" on this guy and tried to attempt fraud by getting him to hit us in the rear? I mean come on - To be honest I am not smart enough, shrewd enough or lucky enough to get away with that even if I did try it. LOL

Its ludicrous - though I know it goes on....

Sorry bit of a rant just trying to shed yet more light on this and hope that it makes a bit more sense.....

J

jlg1

Hey_Dude wrote: »

Must admit I'm still interested in this one....

The only reasons I can think to defend this case, based on the information above, are liability and fraud.

However the judge seems to indicate that liability is not an issue and like I said, an insurer simply would not defend a straight-forward rear end shunt.

That's how I see it...something is missing...pure speculation but I wonder if the insurer produced evidence of massive exagerration of injury such as surveillance...

Duder

To try and answer your reply:

Liability - we were told at least a year or more ago that this guy was initially saying he had damage to his vehicle - then he changed his story to say that there was no impact at all. Mt sol told me that the other side are not obliged to tell us what they would be arguing in court and indeed that was their right (N Ireland case - don't know is England etc.. is different).

So basically we went to court not knowing what was to be put before us - it turned out to be a claim that there was no impact at all - so liability was to be decided.

The judge has stated that she believed there was impact - and with the lorry driver not arguing we drove out in front of him but "appeared from nowhere" and he was "dumfounded" then what is he saying! LOL

As regards CCTV if that's what you mean - on the day of the accident the police told us "the CCTV will tell all" turned out we found out from the insurance company who came to take photos of damage to our car - (basically at that stage we had 2 options - could claim for the damage and go through our insurance (which we didnt want to do obviously because of the premiums going up probably) or go with CRASH services (independent company) who at the time told us it would not cost us a penny and we would get the damages back as part of compensation - sort of No Win No fee basis - we were told anyway.

Tuned out the CCTV cameras were TURNED OFF on the day in question - well so the police said.

Hope that shed's a bit of light?

James

alistair.long

Firstly Ireland may be diffrent to England, as in England the defence is what is argued and they cannot differ from the defence which was filed, unless they have a good enough reason e.g new evidence that just got into light.

In england this will be a case of "Low Velocity Impact" and therefore it has to be proved by you that damage and injury was caused and not the other person.

This can be done by showing when damage of the vehicle, a engineers report- you say the insurance came round, when you visited your own GP/hospital, pictures of bruises, damage to the truck even if it was minor.
There is also another simpler way, to check if the reinforcement bar is bent under the rear bumper, if you went to a back street garage they may have not replaced it, but if the car was previously hit from the back it cannot be used.

I wont beable to advise as Ireland rules may be diffrent then England and Wales.

Hey_Dude

jlg1 wrote: »

NO IMPACT at all - was their whole case and the fact that they believed I was exaggerating injuries (which to me means there was indeed injuries on my part to be exaggerated in the first place - so they were accepting there was or should I say "could " have been injuries - which 6 medicals have shown and a Psychologist report which stated I also had a touch of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)

PTSD is a clinically diagnosed conidition and is very different from an allegation of psychological symptoms such as fear of travel.

You cannot have 'a touch' of PTSD.

Anyhow Op, I have no issues with you and obviously don't know you from Adam, but to repeat myself something doesn't add up here - my instinct tells me that the insurance company had a real problem with the legitimacy of your claim.

6 medicals in itself is very unusual, I do wonder if the early reports stated that you were not injured and your solicitor kept going until they got the report they wanted?

CRASH is not familiar to me but as a rule of thumb most agents on the periphery of the industy with sexy names are usually involved in suspect or exagerrated claims.

alistair.long wrote: »

If the lorry driver is adiment that he is not at fault, his insurance have a duty to listern to him.

Just for people who dont know, the costs have changed for new cases using the preaction protocol.

You are right about the duty but injury claims = fast or multi track and insurers will simply deal without prejudice if they think they will lose in court for a low value (less than £10,000) claim.

The new MOJ costs are for England & Wales only - NI injury claims settle for an awful lot more than claims in England & Wales but I've never gone the trouble of finding out why....

Duder