CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM - CONFUSED.COM? lol

jlg1

Hi,

Here's a link to CRASH services - this will shed some light on what they do:

http://www.crashservices.com/

Seems to be the same/similar to Injury Lawyers for You etc.. (from the TV ads).

Anyway as regards the medicals etc.... from the first report: "He has significant restriction of neck movement, particularly rotation to the left. This should gradually improve with time, the symptoms however, will take quite a while to resolve. They are likely to take in the order of eighteen months or more from the time of the accident to settle fully."

and from the Physchiatrist report: "XXXX i.e, myself - describes driving related phobic anxiety, diagnosed under specific phobias ICD 10 (Code F40.1) This fear occurs in situations that remind him of the impact.

XXXX fulfilled the criteria fr Post Traumatic Stress Order - The symptoms nightmares, intrusive recollection, insomnia and irritability are required to "graduate" from driving related phobic anxiety to PTSD.

So maybe I worded it wrong saying a "touch of PTSD" maybe the above clears this up?

What I see here is that our solicitor is basically "blackmailing" for want of a better word us in saying we should "take whatever is offered under serious consideration i.e, £50"? we were told clearly that whatever happened CRASH services would cover the legal costs - so the solicitor should not even be mentioning legal costs to us - he works for CRASH and as I understand it they pay him - that's what we were told.

My wife was off work for 3 weeks had to attend her doctor and physio and in total her pain lasted a total of 1 year 3 months - a bit of a co-incidence then that mine was 1 yr and 6 months? - so would this suggest we are "pulling a fast one"?

Sorry not directing this at anyone - just !!!!ed off at the way this is being handled and dealt with to be honest.....

We were hit - judge has said impact occurred and its clear we did not cause it so - why am I being offered (possibly) a laughable sum of money... Ive a friend who works in a solicitors and she told us here the least you should be offered is £2,500 - and my sol is talking in terms of £50 - its ridiculous to be honest.

What annoys me here as well is the impact itself - Policeman said there was a "crack on the lorry front grill - which would match our 3 marks on boot I presume....?" a simple tape measurement of the grill and height of our boot would have sorted out the fact that the lorry and ONLY this lorry could have caused that exact damage - yet no one had the brains to think of that? no one has really looked into and discussed the speed the lorry was traveling the fact that each car takes an impact differently - some bumpers etc.. absorb the impact - the issue that automatically the bumper would have been "crushed" is laughable - even he "the lorry driver" blew this up in court - Ive seen impacts and cars hit hard with little damage to bumpers etc.. as I said each car is different and I believe ours absorbed the impact like a sponge - we were "shunted" forward - he was not that far behind us and was not going at speed but the force was enough to jolt us backwards and forwards in our seats - and I have not mentioned this was on a hill/downward slope and not on the flat - so we were pushed "downhill".

Sorry for the rant - just the more I think of this the more annoying it is - we are out shopping minding our own business and hit in the rear, injured and now we have to take whatever little pennies they wish to hand out for our trouble?

James






James

Crazy_Jamie

The information given in this thread so far is convoluted, and to be honest it is very difficult to make any sense of what has actually gone on.

First question; the court hearing that you're referring to sounds like it was a trial. Or at least given that both yourself and the truck driver gave evidence in court, I'm not sure how it can be anything other than a trial on liability. So what was the actual judgment of the Court? Did you (as the Claimant) win on liability or not? Because whilst you suggest that the Judge found that the driver of the truck was at fault, you have said in your first post that he dismissed the case.

You see, the difficulty that I am having with this is that you appear to have had a trial on this issue, at which point both liability and quantum should be determined, yet your solicitor still seems to be talking about accepting offers. If a finding has been made on quantum then there is no need for further offers; the matter is finished. So what are these offers that the solicitor is referring to?

Taking an educated guess it sounds to me like you have succeeded on liability but in relation to quantum you have been found to have exaggerated your injuries. And given that you seem to have claim a whiplash injury lasting over a year and PTSD, there is certainly scope for the quantum claimed to be knocked down relatively significantly at trial. If that is what has happened, it is perhaps possible that you have either failed to beat a Part 36 offer from the other side, or perhaps you have been given interim payments that cover the eventual value of the claim. Both would potentially bring consequences in relation to costs.

But none of that explains where your solicitor is still talking to you about offers from the other side, and that is what concerns me most at the moment. So if you could answer the questions I have posed in this post (and in as concise a manner as possible if you don't mind) it would be appreciated.

On a side note, things are different in Northern Ireland compared to England and Wales, but as I understand it the differences are relatively minor compared to Scotland. So I suspect that my questions are still valid despite the different jurisdiction, though it is always possible that one or more of those differences answers my questions (in which case I may not be of much use to you).

jlg1

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The information given in this thread so far is convoluted, and to be honest it is very difficult to make any sense of what has actually gone on.

First question; the court hearing that you're referring to sounds like it was a trial. Or at least given that both yourself and the truck driver gave evidence in court, I'm not sure how it can be anything other than a trial on liability. So what was the actual judgment of the Court? Did you (as the Claimant) win on liability or not? Because whilst you suggest that the Judge found that the driver of the truck was at fault, you have said in your first post that he dismissed the case.

You see, the difficulty that I am having with this is that you appear to have had a trial on this issue, at which point both liability and quantum should be determined, yet your solicitor still seems to be talking about accepting offers. If a finding has been made on quantum then there is no need for further offers; the matter is finished. So what are these offers that the solicitor is referring to?

Taking an educated guess it sounds to me like you have succeeded on liability but in relation to quantum you have been found to have exaggerated your injuries. And given that you seem to have claim a whiplash injury lasting over a year and PTSD, there is certainly scope for the quantum claimed to be knocked down relatively significantly at trial. If that is what has happened, it is perhaps possible that you have either failed to beat a Part 36 offer from the other side, or perhaps you have been given interim payments that cover the eventual value of the claim. Both would potentially bring consequences in relation to costs.

But none of that explains where your solicitor is still talking to you about offers from the other side, and that is what concerns me most at the moment. So if you could answer the questions I have posed in this post (and in as concise a manner as possible if you don't mind) it would be appreciated.

On a side note, things are different in Northern Ireland compared to England and Wales, but as I understand it the differences are relatively minor compared to Scotland. So I suspect that my questions are still valid despite the different jurisdiction, though it is always possible that one or more of those differences answers my questions (in which case I may not be of much use to you).

Hi,

Thanks for the reply,

I'll try and keep it as clear as possible (to the best of my knowledge as I understand the situation).

Basically - after the hearing our barrister - took us into a room with our solicitors (representative i.e, another sol from his office - he "couldn't" make it as he was at high court that morning - which I am not happy about but that's another matter ....:-).

Anyway - the judge did "dismiss" the case after saying "I cannot see any reason to suspect that Mr XX and his wife have went out to fictitiously make a false insurance claim" "I also find it hard to rule on the injuries in this case as it can be very difficult to determine injury - in some cases the car is slightly damaged with significant injury and in others the car may be badly damaged with less injury" - so she would not rule either way. Why? I dont know.

She also said "I can see that impact did take place" - she did not say who had caused it but simply that impact took place. So it would appear (given the old thinking of rear end collisions - that automatically the other driver was at fault- given we were hit in the rear) though those actual words WERE NOT mentioned by the judge. She did not actually apportion BLAME to anyone?

My solicitor also told me that our barrister was ONLY there to see that it was ruled that impact had occurred. "To be honest (Jmes) you should count yourself lucky - he did that - thats all he had do do" something along those lines.

The judge even asked if the costs for damage (were an invoice or a receipt of work done on the car? - again when I asked my sol this he said "it was up to you to tell the judge that the work had been done and that it was a receipt" I mean - what? I wasn't even asked by ANYONE in court (while I was on the stand) the judge had asked our barrister and he said "Yes I THINK this work has been done - even he wasn't sure?". And he was supposed to be briefed by our solicitor?

To be honest I'm not happy with the service we have received from our solicitor - I am angry that legal costs are even being mentioned at this point - given these same costs should (and I was told by CRASH directly) be covered as far as we are told - also I have a long discussion with the sol. the week before court in which he clearly stated "we might not even be putting the policeman (attended the scene afterwards) on the stand as "I don't think he's gonna be much good" (he was put on the stand and testified that he thought it was a "very minor impact" his exact words). And also the fact my sol then said "those photos of the car are not gonna be any use in fact the might go against you - we wont be using them". The first thing that was pulled out by the other side were those same photo's to which I was asked a pile of questions and these made up their main defence.

When I challenged my sol on this the next day on the phone he said "the other side have the right to bring whatever they want to court" - I mean, so I am told one thing and on the day something completely different happens.

Our barrister did discuss the photos with us beforehand - yet we were thinking at that point they would still not be used....and then they were?

Sorry for throwing my opinions in - (I know what is important is what was ruled) but it was my understanding we were going to court to have this sorted one way or the other once and for all - and now we are sitting in limbo waiting to hear what the other side decide to hand out....

I have now been sitting a week waiting on my solicitor getting back to me to tell me "what they will offer as regards compensation" - which to me is annoying and a bit ridiculous - I mean why has NO ONE made a final decision as yet? - why should I be "grateful for whatever they hand out" - we are the victims here - made to feel like we are guilty...!:mad:

I don't have £14,0000 to hand out for an appeal and even then my sol told me "CRASH would want to know if we would win before they would think of even appealing it" so we are left as I say in limbo with nothing.

To answer your mention of interim payments - we are currently sitting without a penny in compensation and I (personally) am out £385 for the repairs to the car which I paid for on behalf of my wife - nevermind the lost earnings attending all those medicals etc....

I understand as she is the owner of the car that IF her case ever sees the light of day LOL she will be reimbursed for those repair costs.

She has not been seen medically or otherwise either as the solictor said as I was the passenger, I would be "dealt with first" as I could not be held responsible for the accident (given I was the passenger) and then my wife....yet in an accident we were both in very similar to this one in July 2009 (she driving, myself passenger) again hit in rear - this time at a green traffic light with the police actually watching the accident (they were out on patrol anyway) - we were both medically examined and a decision made 6 months later (the only reason I can think that this was sorted so quickly was that the driver then admitted liability). This accident was 9 months after the original 2008 accident.

It would near make you think because we were compensated for that one that we are not "entitled" to anything for the previous one - yet medical reports )(Mine) state otherwise.

To be honest - we are feeling that WE are not the priority here - that our solicitor wants to make sure HE gets paid regardless of what we are compensated - sorry but it appears that way - I mean why say to me "if you accept anything i.e, compensation - then your legal costs are covered" I mean what exactly is he talking about here?

I feel like I personally am backed into a corner expected to take ANYTHING that is handed out (£50 was discussed at one stage) I mean - is he serious?


One question I would like to ask - I have had 2 car accidents in the past where I have been compensated - both were not my fault (was hit head on by uninsured driver in 2005 - he had no licence - not even his car and he was drinking (night before) and he was was from Lithuania - not that that matters but I think that's partly why he had none of the above) I was compensated for that the time.

As I mentioned in July 2009 (passenger in car) was compensated for that - so are the other side looking at this and thinking - right he's been compensated in the past and now he's entitled to NOTHING ELSE? Yes I know it sounds crazy - so is this /is it not (2008 accident) now treated as a new accident in its own right or am I losing out because of previous car accident compensation?

It would all make you a bit paranoid you know......

To try and sum up the whole case - if the judge has ruled there was impact (say it is the other guys fault) but at the same time "dismisses" the case without confirming compensation to myself - saying to the barristers (I'll leave it with you) the judge's final words that I heard her say anyway - where does this leave us?

So the other side have the power to dismiss my medicals and all my injures and leave us in limbo? Is our solicitor perhaps holding off for 3 weeks knowing we cant appeal after that - (we were told clearly we have 3 weeks to appeal the decision by our barrister minutes after the hearing). Its 1 week and 1 day now already without any update on whats happened?

Some strange goings on - just thinking - immediately after the case the other driver came out of court full of smiles shaking hands with his barrister etc.. if he was to blame then why the happy faces....LOL That's puzzling me for sure....either he's extremely stupid or we are missing something here....

Sorry just thinking out loud.....

Where do we stand legally on this? - because I am well !!!!ed off with things at the minute....!

Could we get independent legal advice from someone else?

James

jlg1

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The information given in this thread so far is convoluted, and to be honest it is very difficult to make any sense of what has actually gone on.

First question; the court hearing that you're referring to sounds like it was a trial. Or at least given that both yourself and the truck driver gave evidence in court, I'm not sure how it can be anything other than a trial on liability. So what was the actual judgment of the Court? Did you (as the Claimant) win on liability or not? Because whilst you suggest that the Judge found that the driver of the truck was at fault, you have said in your first post that he dismissed the case.

You see, the difficulty that I am having with this is that you appear to have had a trial on this issue, at which point both liability and quantum should be determined, yet your solicitor still seems to be talking about accepting offers. If a finding has been made on quantum then there is no need for further offers; the matter is finished. So what are these offers that the solicitor is referring to?

Taking an educated guess it sounds to me like you have succeeded on liability but in relation to quantum you have been found to have exaggerated your injuries. And given that you seem to have claim a whiplash injury lasting over a year and PTSD, there is certainly scope for the quantum claimed to be knocked down relatively significantly at trial. If that is what has happened, it is perhaps possible that you have either failed to beat a Part 36 offer from the other side, or perhaps you have been given interim payments that cover the eventual value of the claim. Both would potentially bring consequences in relation to costs.

But none of that explains where your solicitor is still talking to you about offers from the other side, and that is what concerns me most at the moment. So if you could answer the questions I have posed in this post (and in as concise a manner as possible if you don't mind) it would be appreciated.

On a side note, things are different in Northern Ireland compared to England and Wales, but as I understand it the differences are relatively minor compared to Scotland. So I suspect that my questions are still valid despite the different jurisdiction, though it is always possible that one or more of those differences answers my questions (in which case I may not be of much use to you).

Hi again,

To be honest this has annoyed me so much - is there any chance you could email email me privately and we could discuss this further we are getting desperate :eek:and it seems we have no where to turn to get some outside help with this. I feel at the mercy of our solicitor who is XXXking useless to be honest.

It would really be appreciated - jlgtuition@hotmail.com

Many Thanks for your help,

James

Crazy_Jamie

Unfortunately this still isn't adding up I'm afraid. Which is no criticism of you; you are clearly relaying matters as best you can. To be honest this sounds like your solicitor not properly keeping you informed. The alternative is that the solicitor has relayed things to you accurately and you just haven't understood properly, but based on what you have actually said it just sounds like he isn't explaining things very well.

The thing that is causing me most concern here is the talk of a future offer from the other side. If you have had a trial and lost on liability, then that should be the end of the matter because you have lost. You technically become liable for the other side's costs, but depending on the funding arrangement I would hope that there would be ATE insurance in place to cover you for that. If you have lost the solicitor and/or barrister should also be able to explain to you very clearly why you have lost. If you have lost, there shouldn't be any further talk of compensation. Which is why this is confusing; you seem to think that you have lost, but there is still talk of a settlement figure.

I think you need to take steps to contact your solicitor again directly. Ask him in a calm manner what that hearing was meant to determine, what the outcome was, and what now needs to be determined going forwards. He should be able to provide you with that information over the phone and in a couple of sentences. Hopefully that will give you some straightforward answers.

There are more aspects of what you say that don't add up, but I'm keen to streamline things here.

As regards your request for me to contact you privately, unfortunately I'm not willing to do that. I provide advice on this forum informally and anonymously, and with very few exceptions I provide it within the public forum. I am keen to keep my advice on this site separate from my professional work, and I don't want to close the gap between the two even slightly by providing advice on a case like this in private.

jlg1

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Unfortunately this still isn't adding up I'm afraid. Which is no criticism of you; you are clearly relaying matters as best you can. To be honest this sounds like your solicitor not properly keeping you informed. The alternative is that the solicitor has relayed things to you accurately and you just haven't understood properly, but based on what you have actually said it just sounds like he isn't explaining things very well.

The thing that is causing me most concern here is the talk of a future offer from the other side. If you have had a trial and lost on liability, then that should be the end of the matter because you have lost. You technically become liable for the other side's costs, but depending on the funding arrangement I would hope that there would be ATE insurance in place to cover you for that. If you have lost the solicitor and/or barrister should also be able to explain to you very clearly why you have lost. If you have lost, there shouldn't be any further talk of compensation. Which is why this is confusing; you seem to think that you have lost, but there is still talk of a settlement figure.

I think you need to take steps to contact your solicitor again directly. Ask him in a calm manner what that hearing was meant to determine, what the outcome was, and what now needs to be determined going forwards. He should be able to provide you with that information over the phone and in a couple of sentences. Hopefully that will give you some straightforward answers.

There are more aspects of what you say that don't add up, but I'm keen to streamline things here.

As regards your request for me to contact you privately, unfortunately I'm not willing to do that. I provide advice on this forum informally and anonymously, and with very few exceptions I provide it within the public forum. I am keen to keep my advice on this site separate from my professional work, and I don't want to close the gap between the two even slightly by providing advice on a case like this in private.

Hi again,

To try and clear a few things up - its not that I think we have lost - its that fact that:

1. We )(according to my solicitor) went to court to first of all "determine liability" (they were climing NO IMPACT at all) which is exactly what their barrister put to me - that the accident never happened at all - insinuating we were "attempting fraud" as I see it...

2. Then things would be taken further after this once liability was determined - which in this case means my injuries (how much they are worth) and then next my wife's case (she to date has not had any medicals etc.. as I previously said the solicitor was taking me first as the passenger who could not be held responsible for the accident) making it easier to determine liability.

My solicitor has clearly said not to think we have lost - we have not - we have "got over the first hurdle" i.e, liability and he also said "the barrister was there to prove impact - he has done that - that's all he had to do" that practically was the exact words he used.

What I do not understand is that the judge definitely said there was impact but DID NOT actually state who was at fault? - this seems very confusing - if she was to rule on liability why then did she not make a decision either way - to say that impact occurred could mean either side was at fault (though they were also not saying we drove out in front or caused the accident - his statement read that he was "dumbfounded" when he saw us in front of him? which he was questioned on in court. But my solicitor has clearly said "we have won but just without any financial reward - AT THIS STAGE" he has said don't worry "its not over yet" and my wife's case is on the "back burner" these are his words - I don't need to speak to him to assure you this is what he has said.

I have to be honest I am that angry that I do not want to to speak to him at present and I also feel he may be holding off knowing that we have 3 weeks to appeal - if he holds out long enough we are forced to take whatever comes (the chance to appeal will end on Tuesday 24th May I presume) maybe that sounds a bit paranoid but that is what seems to be happening - he said they would get back "sharpish" we are now sitting 1 week and 2 days later without a word from anyone about the outcome.

Considering I consider us to be a customer of CRASH - I think maybe we should be speaking to them as well considering they are to pay the legal costs as they told me that same afternoon after the court hearing on 3rd May.

I can understand you not wanting to talk privately about this case but I have to ask from what "profession" you come (if that is okay? :-)- as you know we are very vulnerable at the minute and I do want to know I can trust the advice I am given here (not that I am questioning your abilities etc..:-) but I hope you can understand at least if I know I am talking to someone with legal experience that that is peace of mind on our part).

I have also tried contacting Citizens Advice but have not got hold of anyone yet - and don't know to be honest if they will be able to help us at all anyway...

I am wondering what our rights are in this - are we "backed into a corner" and have to take anything that is thrown our way? - what if I decline the offer? These are things I personally need to know at this stage before I speak to the solicitor.

Without knowing the legal implications of accepting/not accepting whatever is suggested I am wary of speaking with him again :eek:- which is an awful position to be in - after all he should be working FOR us should he not?

It does feel like a "deal is being sorted" with the other insurance company holding all the cards at present"...maybe that is the way this works anyway?

Sorry not trying to go off on one again - just so many unanswered questions we need answering.

I do hope you can help us with this - and the above has answered some more of this complicated story.....

James

Quentin

Don't leave your email address on show.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

Don't leave your email address on show.

x2 or if you want an email address for forums then set up one that doesn't identify you

vaio

jlg1 wrote: »

........ but I have to ask from what "profession" you come (if that is okay? :-)- as you know we are very vulnerable at the minute and I do want to know I can trust the advice I am given here (not that I am questioning your abilities etc..:-) but I hope you can understand at least if I know I am talking to someone with legal experience that that is peace of mind on our part)..........

it is the web (so he could be a lorry driver or a rent boy) but based on the quality of the advice & comments I've read of his I'd say he's a practising legal professional.

Further, and for what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with him that your case has many aspects that on the face of it don't make sense so I'd echo his advice

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

........I think you need to take steps to contact your solicitor again directly. Ask him in a calm manner what that hearing was meant to determine, what the outcome was, and what now needs to be determined going forwards. He should be able to provide you with that information over the phone and in a couple of sentences. Hopefully that will give you some straightforward answers........

and when you've done it, post those few sentences here which will enable better advice to be given

Hey_Dude

Things still do not add up.

I have some subjective thoughts, but nothing concrete.

How about you sanitise the Court Order of Judgment and upload this document - then we can see exactly what the court determined and offer you guidance?

Duder