Ambulance Chaser?

Carpetman

My daughter ran in to the back of another car, and everything has now been sorted out between the insurers for both sides.

However:
She is being pestered by a company called Action for(4) Justice who are telling her that she will be entitled to between £1,000 and £3,000 compensation for her injuries. (She wasn't injured, she was pregnant at the time and we had a para-medic check her over to be sure, She's since given birth to a beautiful baby boy.)

She passed the phone to me and the lady from Action for(4) Justice told me that insurers always had to lodge an amount to cover compensation. Do they?

She also said that she could pass me straight through to Clinch Solicitors who would process the claim.

When I said we were going out and that I'd ring Clinch Solicitors, myself, in the morning she told me that wasn't how they system worked. So I asked her for her phone number, not unreasonable as she had my daughters, but she said they didn't have any incoming lines. I then asked for an email address, but again she didn't have one.

When she realised she was losing the call she got quite shirty and asked "hadn't I got time to ensure my daughter got what was rightfully hers?", then threatened that she'd be inundated with calls because she hadn't claimed.

Anyone know of either of these companies? I can find Clinch Solicitors via Google, but Action for(4) Justice isn't coming up at all.

nodiscount

Just ignore em. They want you her to lie and they want a cut of the proceeds but at what cost? Morals are better than money and karma always gets these lying @#&%£s in the end. Sounds like a dodgy outfit anyway.
Be thankful nobody was injured and don't get tarnished by lying money grabbers

oscarward

My son had something similar. Some one ran in to the back of him(another saga!) but he had no injuries.

5 months after the event he's been chased by someone who says there is a pot of £2000 with his name on it for the asking.

I fielded the call first time and told the guy the he wasn't injured and he wasn't about to perjure himself but he said they were experts and could tell him if he was injured. Eventually put the phone down on him.

They managed to catch him and he eventually agreed to meet someone after they told him it was a govt fund and wouldn't come from the insurance companies. I put him right on a few things so when the guy rolled up he just told him he had changed his mind and wouldn't be claiming.

dacouch

Two things.

If your daughter was the faulty party in the accident she cannot claim from the other party.

Clinch Solicitors should not be paying a cold calling company for drumming up business for them.

Thanks for asking the relevant questions and posting as I've reported them to the SRA.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/sra-plans-referral-checks-on-pi-sector/5037511.article

P.S Someone at the cold calling company is going to get a major telling off for telling you the name of the solicitors they are working for.

pb3

dacouch wrote: »

Two things.

If your daughter was the faulty party in the accident she cannot claim from the other party.

I was always under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that anyone running into the back of another car was always at fault, unless perhaps if the other card had faulty brake lights

Am I incorrect in my impression ?

Carpetman

Many thanks for your replies.

Funnily enough she had a call last night from : Access for Justice, sounds very much like Action for Justice doesn't it? Again no website as far as I can see.

pb3 afaik you are correct, I was involved in an accident on the M6 many years ago. We were coming up to an accident on the opposite carriageway when I noticed all the brake lights coming on in front, as I had left a gap between me and the car in front it didn't pose a threat. However, a van behind me was more interested on rubbernecking and hit me from behind pushing me in to the central barrier. 22 other vehicles were involved in the accident and the police had to send for help to book everyone, because I hadn't hit the car in front I wasn't booked. All the booked drivers were done for driving without due care and attention.

InsideInsurance

pb3 wrote: »

I was always under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that anyone running into the back of another car was always at fault, unless perhaps if the other card had faulty brake lights

Am I incorrect in my impression ?

Defective brake lights are generally not enough to get out of responsibility for running into the back of someone, you should still see your gap reducing and break appropriately.

Typically the only times you arent at fault for going into the back of someone is when that person was reversing, has cut you up (but thats hard to prove), they've rolled back into you etc. In this day and age you'd also have the fraudulent claims where someone stages the accident to make you at fault but that is due to intent more than the circumstances

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Typically the only times you arent at fault for going into the back of someone is when that person was reversing, has cut you up (but thats hard to prove), they've rolled back into you etc......

You are also not at fault if you hit the car in front "innocently" as a result of being shunted forward by another car hitting you in the rear with such force that although you left a gap you were pushed into the car in front.

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

You are also not at fault if you hit the car in front "innocently" as a result of being shunted forward by another car hitting you in the rear with such force that although you left a gap you were pushed into the car in front.

And there are probably a few other weird and wonderful circumstances someone could come up with

Quentin

This isn't weird (or wonderful), but a regular occurrence!

You are also not at fault if you hit the car in front "innocently" as a result of being shunted forward by another car hitting you in the rear with such force that although you left a gap you were pushed into the car in front

nodiscount

Does it matter whose fault it was? The bottom line is that she wasn't injured so claiming for an injury that didn't happen in fraud pure and simple. The more they crack down on these people the better.