No win no fee

The_Deep

While my wife was buying breakfast kippers in Tesco, someone hit her car in the car park. We claimed against the other car and the claim was settled

I am still getting about one call a month from ambulance chasing claim handlers attempting to induce me to claim for whiplash.

I do not blame the other parties insurance company from trying to get their money back for what they may see as insurance fraud.

tilly4597

It was not intended as fraud, perhaps the law should change so these leeches cannot cold call. They are as bad as PPI claims. I had a serious horse accident 30 years and have been told I could still make a claim, what a farce!

bod1467

I had a motorbike accident in August 2008 (mainly my fault, but was exacerbated by my bike hitting a mound of road resurfacing cast-off - if that hadn't been there I'd probably been OK with no or little damage to me or the bike; in the end I did a bad impersonation of superman, ended up being helicoptered to the hospital and the bike was a write-off).

I still get these claims scummers calling from time-to-time.

George_Michael

tilly4597 wrote: »

It was not intended as fraud

But fraud is precisely what it will look like to the solicitors and insurance companies.

Someone was involved in an accident which was not their fault, and shorly afterwards they told the insurers that they were not injured.
Then 18 months after the accident, a claim was attempted for injuries sustained in the accident.

There are an awful lot of fraudulent insurance claims made every day, (I'm not implying that the case in hand is fraudulent, simply that it may well appear to be that way to others) and I can see why the companies concerned in this now think that there is little chance of the person concerned winning the case.

Crazy_Jamie

tilly4597 wrote: »

Sorry I have boobed a bit. It's not HH who are billing her for costs. Its the other sides solicitor who is claiming their costs back.
And just to verify he had sore neck and headache 1 - 2 days after the accident which lasted 2 - 3 weeks. When the other side sols phoned him because he was not going to persue a claim he said he was not inujred. Then he gets the phone call to say he would have a claim, he explained to them that he had already stated to other side he was not injured due to reasons given, but someone from CMC/HH said tell them you were injured for a longer period!

sorry for the confusement! ps the doctors report did confirm the injuries.

This changes things.

Your friend's solicitor should have taken out an ATE policy when the Conditional Fee Agreement was signed. Usually when a claim is not successful the Claimant will become liable for the other side's costs, which is what they are claiming here, but the ATE is there precisely for that reason.

However, ATE insurers can and will refuse to indemnify individuals where there is a finding of fraud. However, what you've described here is a situation where a barrister has advised that there are not reasonable prospects of success, and I therefore assume that the claim was discontinued on that basis. In those circumstances I would still expect the ATE to cover your friend; has he enquired with his solicitors about the ATE covering these costs?

I suspect your wires have been crossed further in relation to various aspects of your post. You mention that part of the costs include doctor's appointments, but a Defendant would not be charging for that unless your friend was examined by the Defendant's expert, which it appears didn't happen. You also mention success fees being charged. Again, Defendants do sometimes enter into Conditional Fee Agreements, but it is far more unusual compared to Claimants. Though details of the fees that have been charged are largely superfluous until the issue of who is going to pay them is resolved.

ValHaller

The_Deep wrote: »

While my wife was buying breakfast kippers in Tesco, someone hit her car in the car park. We claimed against the other car and the claim was settled

I am still getting about one call a month from ambulance chasing claim handlers attempting to induce me to claim for whiplash.

I do not blame the other parties insurance company from trying to get their money back for what they may see as insurance fraud.

What happened to the kippers?

halibut2209

They slept with the fishes

The_Deep

The kippers swam to a part of the fridge reserved for disabled kippers, they were also smoking. I've haddock nough of it and am taking them to court, will let you know the date of the herring.

BethanyD

Excellent response

However, some ATE providers will deny claims irrespective of their apparent merit.

If you click here you will get the idea though I very much doubt that a reputable firm like HH would be involved in such a transaction.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

This changes things.

Your friend's solicitor should have taken out an ATE policy when the Conditional Fee Agreement was signed. Usually when a claim is not successful the Claimant will become liable for the other side's costs, which is what they are claiming here, but the ATE is there precisely for that reason.

However, ATE insurers can and will refuse to indemnify individuals where there is a finding of fraud. However, what you've described here is a situation where a barrister has advised that there are not reasonable prospects of success, and I therefore assume that the claim was discontinued on that basis. In those circumstances I would still expect the ATE to cover your friend; has he enquired with his solicitors about the ATE covering these costs?

I suspect your wires have been crossed further in relation to various aspects of your post. You mention that part of the costs include doctor's appointments, but a Defendant would not be charging for that unless your friend was examined by the Defendant's expert, which it appears didn't happen. You also mention success fees being charged. Again, Defendants do sometimes enter into Conditional Fee Agreements, but it is far more unusual compared to Claimants. Though details of the fees that have been charged are largely superfluous until the issue of who is going to pay them is resolved.