CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM CONFUSED.COM? Part - 2Reply to Thread

jlg1

To update on a previous post and also to get some more advice.

Basically to sum up had an accident in 2008 - hit from lorry from behind 3 times - guy denied liability - wife was driving - I was passenger in front.

I was turned and facing backwards looking out back window (sorting 13 month old out) when the lorry hit us. Both PI claims in - I had to get 9 medicals as organized with our solicitor.

Went to court - judge ruled liability - was other guys fault - but didnt rule either way on my injuries and "dismissed" the case.

Solicitor spoke to other side afterwards and they have agreed to pay out a "nusiance" fee as they call it of £500 to basically get rid of me/us. Though now out solicitor says to "cover him"? my wife still has to get a medical eventhough they have agreed to pay out £500 and pay out on the damage to the car. SOlicitor said he woudl not be happy appealing and if so - woudl coudl possibly £19,000 of a legal fee bill - which obviously I dont have.

Because of low impact to our car £385 of damage - judge couldn't see how I could be injured/sore for over a year. She thought I was "exaggerating" my injuries - despite medical evidence.

What I am asking is - what about the medical reports and all that evidence being basically "ignored" even THEIR medical guy who has a rep for being a "hatchett man" said I would have been sore for at the abs. minimum 3 months.

So £500 is 3 months compensation? Ive lost that alone in missed lessons work (self employed music teacher)

Is there not a minimum payment for injuries or can the insurance company pull a figure out of the air like this?

Our sol. is saying because the judge did not rule that I was injured then we won but without any financial reward at the end of it.

Said the offer was "the best we're gonna get I think" - his words.

He said he could not have said to me way before this about the consequences of this "dragging on" and how the low impact looks bad as regards compensation.

I had read that for whiplash the minimum was £1000 - I was hurt left side fo neck/left arm/left hand - guitar teacher so work was affected as well.

Cheers for any tips (especially from Crazy Jamie) who had given me some good advice recently.

Thanks for any help,

J

Quentin

If an appeal will cost £19k and your solicitor clearly feels "unhappy" about going for one (presumably because he doubts you will win), then maybe now is the time to draw the line and move on.

Strider590

Im confused.....

jlg1 wrote: »

Basically to sum up had an accident in 2008 - hit from lorry from behind 3 times - guy denied liability - wife was driving - I was passenger in front.

The lorry hit you from behind 3 times? what did he do, reverse and have another go?

Also it might be wise in future to stop at the side of the road to sort out the sprog, no matter who turns around it's still a major distraction for all.

As for the injuries, these people normally go for the throat so there's clearly something about this case which they think will cause a problem.

Lum

The injury situation definitely sounds odd as this is usually free money for solicitors.

However for the lessons you were unable to teach, that goes under "Loss of earnings" not "Personal Injury" and you would need to instruct your solicitor to claim for this separately, provide evidence of your previous income and so on.

Tread very carefully as that £500 will most like be a full and final settlement, meaning if you accept it you can't then go on to claim anything else.

dacouch

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3211458

Crazy_Jamie

Thanks to dacouch for linking through to this thread from the old one. I saw that link because it was in my subscribed treads. I may have missed this thread otherwise.

This case in now finally starting to making some sense from your opening post in this thread. The situation is essentially this. You had a trial on liability with a further issue over the veracity of your claim (i.e. the exaggeration aspect). You won on liability, but the Judge found that you had exaggerated your claim to the extent that she effectively dismissed the claim in not awarding you any damages. In other words, she punished you for exaggerating your injuries by not even giving you anything for the part of your claim that was genuine.

Legally that decision may be open to appeal on the basis that it was wrong in law or unjust. I am not going to go into the minutiae of detail with this (partly because I don't want to bore everyone, and partly because my post will start to resemble something that I should actually be paid for), but the argument would be that the Judge should have awarded compensation in line with the injuries that she found that you had actually suffered, rather than dismissing the claim in its entirety. She would potentially have scope to reflect her finding of exaggeration in the costs award that she made at the end of the hearing, but you would submit that she was wrong to have dismissed the entire claim following that finding. It's a point that is the subject of case law, and depending on what the Judge actually said in her judgment (and providing I have understood all of this correctly) it may be an avenue that has prospects. I cannot say whether or not there are solid prospects, though, because to advise on an appeal I would need to know a lot more information. Your solicitor is the one with that information, so it is your solicitor who needs to advise you (possibly with the input of the barrister at trial as well).

That said, if I was going to launch an appeal I would want a solicitor who was up for the fight, and your solicitor clearly is not. There also seems to be an element of the solicitor not being clear with you, as I suspected in the original thread. For the record, on my understanding of the case I certainly wouldn't say that you had won overall; you won on one aspect, but lost on an equally vital one that has resulted in you not being awarded any damages. In the circumstances I would struggle to call that a win. Your solicitor telling you otherwise sounds like an attempt to dissuade you from an appeal, and ultimately your solicitor will be better placed to advise you fully on that than I ever will be.

In the circumstances this may well be the end of the road. Clearly the other side don't particular want you to appeal because they have offered a settlement to prevent you from doing that, but I would be hesitant in seeing that as a sign of weakness. Your solicitor doesn't seem keen on running an appeal either, so reading between the lines it sounds like it could well be one of those 50/50 appeals that just ends up being a big risk for all involved. With the potential costs involved, that may be a risk that you would do well to stay away from, in which case that settlement, as unsatisfactory as it no doubt is, may be your only viable option.

dacouch

I must be in the wrong job as I suspected when I read the first couple of posts on the first thread that the judge had thrown the damages out due to he judge believing exaggeration.

Out of interest Jamie is this type of thing quite rare ?

I assume the OP's partner who has not yet made a PI claim will have no problem with their claim as a judge has ruled there was an impact so provided a standard claim goes in it should be settled, is this the case ?

Crazy_Jamie

dacouch wrote: »

I must be in the wrong job as I suspected when I read the first couple of posts on the first thread that the judge had thrown the damages out due to he judge believing exaggeration.

Well there you go, clearly you have better powers of interpretation than me

dacouch wrote:

Out of interest Jamie is this type of thing quite rare ?

Assuming you mean the Judge throwing a whole claim out due to exaggeration of the Claimant, then yes, then it is reasonably unusual. There is recent and developing case law on the point, but the general principle seems to be that if they suspect the Claimant is exaggerating, the Defendant should put forward an appropriate Part 36 offer, which would then protect them against costs in the final hearing. But then again that can depend on the extent on the exaggeration from the Claimant, which is why I hesitate to say anything stronger regarding the appeal without knowing the full facts and what was said in the judgment.

dacouch wrote:

I assume the OP's partner who has not yet made a PI claim will have no problem with their claim as a judge has ruled there was an impact so provided a standard claim goes in it should be settled, is this the case ?

Yes; providing there are no allegations of exaggeration in his wife's case, liability has effectively already been established, so that claim should settle.

jlg1

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Well there you go, clearly you have better powers of interpretation than me
Assuming you mean the Judge throwing a whole claim out due to exaggeration of the Claimant, then yes, then it is reasonably unusual. There is recent and developing case law on the point, but the general principle seems to be that if they suspect the Claimant is exaggerating, the Defendant should put forward an appropriate Part 36 offer, which would then protect them against costs in the final hearing. But then again that can depend on the extent on the exaggeration from the Claimant, which is why I hesitate to say anything stronger regarding the appeal without knowing the full facts and what was said in the judgment.
Yes; providing there are no allegations of exaggeration in his wife's case, liability has effectively already been established, so that claim should settle.

Thanks for the replies.

SO what I am hearing here is that the judge - if she thought I was exaggerating my injuries - this means then there was something to actually exaggerate? i.e, I should have been compensated to at least a reasonable figure (which I believe £500 is not) I mean I have never heard of anyone being compensated for so little in my life.....

What I mean is she clearly stated she had no reason to believe we were making a fictitious claim (her words) - so she thought there was no fraud involved. That leaves me to believe then that she believed I was injured but would not rule as to what extent? Why? Is that not her job?

My solicitor stated "the judge took one look at the pictures (which showed the dents on the boot) , she made her mind up there and then - thinking the little impact resulted in little damages BUT that means there were STILL injuries- right?".

As regards my wife - we have been told her's is a separate case (as I said I was dealt with first) so my wife in my eyes should be judged separately - there can't be exaggeration on her part as she has clearly stated how long she was sore for - attended physio for 3 weeks, her doctor etc....

It appears out solicitor is saying that even if my wife has a medical - the other side may still not increase their (already existing offer) of £500 to cover her injuries - to me this is unfair - she should be compensated as anyone else would be - I mean if its down in black and white for god's sake - surely she should?

The discrepancy came with me in that I did discuss my injuries it with my doctor just not when I said I did at one of my medicals (doctor surgery had no record of it - which the other side jumped all over in court.

What I find hard to take here is that all my medicals were ignored basically - even their medical guy who stated I was hurt (for min 3-6 months) - that was ignored too?.

I think the judge should have ruled one way or the other - either I was injured or I wasn't.

Crazy Jamie - you say its quite unusual that a judge dismisses injuries? To be honest that's exactly what we thought I have never heard of it being left undecided like this...

As I say I don't think my wife should suffer simply because they thought I was exaggerating - we wont have a judge to decide on this - so it seems the other side insurance are basically doing whatever they want now - I think its up to out solicitor to push for more compensation for my wife - is it not?

J

jlg1

Strider590 wrote: »

Im confused.....



The lorry hit you from behind 3 times? what did he do, reverse and have another go?

Also it might be wise in future to stop at the side of the road to sort out the sprog, no matter who turns around it's still a major distraction for all.
.

I wasnt driving my wife was - so there shoudlnt be any reason to stop at teh side of the road - I was looking back at him (as a passenger).

J

Quentin

jlg1 wrote: »

I wasnt driving my wife was - so there shoudlnt be any reason to stop at teh side of the road - I was looking back at him (as a passenger).

If you were injured as a passenger, then your wife's insurance will have cover for injury to passengers. (Irrespective of which driver is to blame)