We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
almost 3yr old injury claim
Comments
-
she is over 18, maybe 25 or so. I will contact my issurer at the time. I presume it will count as part of the original claim, I dont want to add a second claim that will effect my future renewals, although the value of the original claim will go up. The latter says they have already made a court claim as its almost 3 years and I have 21 days to approve her to see a specialist. Very stressed at having to deal with this now ontop many other things at the moment.0
-
Easier to say than do I'm sure but realistically you don't have to deal with this, just pass the letter & any others on to your old insurance company and they should deal with it all.
You might have to answer a couple of questions to help them process the claim but I'd have thought they would have most if not all of what they need from the previous claim0 -
Amazing how it's taken her 3 years to realise they had an injury and needed compensation. No doubt some blood sucking Injury claim "specialist" company convinced her she had a case.
No wonder premiums never stop going up.A smile costs nothing, but gives a lot.It enriches those who receive it without making poorer those who give it.A smile takes only a moment, but the memory of it can last forever.0 -
technoflare wrote: »Very stressed at having to deal with this now ontop many other things at the moment.
You are stressing unnecessarily. Your old insurer will deal with all this (including the business about you having to approve the specialist) as part of the original claim, so this won't have to be an additional disclosure for you to admit.
As far as stress goes, think about the years of stress your "victim" has had to put up with before her claim has eventually gone to court to try and get a settlement, not to mention her stress over the pain etc of the injury!0 -
You are stressing unnecessarily. Your old insurer will deal with all this (including the business about you having to approve the specialist) as part of the original claim, so this won't have to be an additional disclosure for you to admit.
As far as stress goes, think about the years of stress your "victim" has had to put up with before her claim has eventually gone to court to try and get a settlement, not to mention her stress over the pain etc of the injury!
Thanks for your advise. With reference to her, I feel sorry for any pain she might be in. Had she come to me at the time or a year or so later I would have no problem with it. This is nearly 3 years, so I can't help to be a little suspect about this. If it was so bad then why not seek help and compensation before? Anything could have happened since then. I do wonder the the solicitor would have suggested the specialist to use.
You are right though I will pass it on and leave it to them. We all end up paying more thanks to these people...0 -
technoflare wrote: »We all end up paying more thanks to these people...
Well....... shouldn't it be: we wouldn't have to pay more if all drivers drove in such a way they didn't cause "accidents"!0 -
Well....... shouldn't it be: we wouldn't have to pay more if all drivers drove in such a way they didn't cause "accidents"!
Surely though the clue is in the name.. "accident". As long as there are humans in control and making the decisions there will be accidents.
The fact the good drivers are being brought to book just as heavily as the poor ones is where the problems are though.
Sorry for derailing the thread.
Seems ridiculous that this lady can decide 3 years later that she should claim for whiplash and wrist injuries. The system is clearly flawed and it's what is helping the injury "specialists" bleed the system dry and encourage the compensation culture.
/rant
A smile costs nothing, but gives a lot.It enriches those who receive it without making poorer those who give it.A smile takes only a moment, but the memory of it can last forever.0 -
technoflare wrote: »Thanks for your advise. With reference to her, I feel sorry for any pain she might be in. Had she come to me at the time or a year or so later I would have no problem with it. This is nearly 3 years, so I can't help to be a little suspect about this. If it was so bad then why not seek help and compensation before? Anything could have happened since then. I do wonder the the solicitor would have suggested the specialist to use.
You are right though I will pass it on and leave it to them. We all end up paying more thanks to these people...
Given the pre trial protocols that try to ensure that cases are settled outside court wherever possible it’s likely that her solicitors have been in contact with your previous insurance company for a considerable amount of time already and, in the absence of an acceptable offer, have been forced to issue court proceedings just before the three year limit expires.
Maybe your ire would be better directed at your insurance company rather than “these people” (by which I assume you mean the innocent party injured by your negligent driving?)0 -
burnleymik wrote: »Surely though the clue is in the name.. "accident". As long as there are humans in control and making the decisions there will be accidents.
The fact the good drivers are being brought to book just as heavily as the poor ones is where the problems are though.
Sorry for derailing the thread.
Seems ridiculous that this lady can decide 3 years later that she should claim for whiplash and wrist injuries. The system is clearly flawed and it's what is helping the injury "specialists" bleed the system dry and encourage the compensation culture.
/rant
The inverted commas were intended to point out to the OP, that compensation is only paid in "accidents" were someone is found to be at fault. If no-one is to blame in an accident, then there is no-one to claim compensation off!
The OP derailed his own thread by his "these people" comment when he has admitted being responsible for the "accident" in which this innocent passenger has been hurt.
The lady is perfectly entitled to be compensated, and the law only allows her the 3 years to take this to court, which is why it has come up now (were it property that was damaged, the owner is given 6 years to claim) - Doesn't it seem ridiculous that you get twice as long to pursue a claim for damage done to your property by a negligent driver than for damage done to your person?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards