Taxi crashed into me, Claim for Injury?

dunroving

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Standard practice for any neck or back complaint and gives no indication of the severity of an injury.

And what about the rest of the information? Obviously not a minor shunt - or do you prefer to focus on the one aspect that you feel you can pick holes in, and ignore the rest?

I am surprised at the ease with which some people on this forum manage to dismiss the effects of a high-speed collision. It seems some people just thrive on negativity.

Spicy_McHaggis

dunroving wrote: »

And what about the rest of the information? Obviously not a minor shunt - or do you prefer to focus on the one aspect that you feel you can pick holes in, and ignore the rest?

I am surprised at the ease with which some people on this forum manage to dismiss the effects of a high-speed collision. It seems some people just thrive on negativity.

Well we're you seriously injured or just suffering lack on enjoyment?

Astronaughtwannabe

dunroving wrote: »

And what about the rest of the information? Obviously not a minor shunt - or do you prefer to focus on the one aspect that you feel you can pick holes in, and ignore the rest?

I am surprised at the ease with which some people on this forum manage to dismiss the effects of a high-speed collision. It seems some people just thrive on negativity.

Perhaps it's your missive about your own accident that is leading other posters away fro the original point?

straighttalker

single_lonely wrote: »

have been getting text and a missed call from his insurance company.
They want to repair car and provide a courtesy car.
Whats the advantage of going through them direct? and not a claim company?

If you go to a claims company, you'll be accepting a hire car on credit. This is a lot more expensive than spot hire rates. Once you accept the credit hire vehicle, you'll be asked to sign a hire agreement. This will make you liable for the hire charges if the company don't make a full recovery from the third party. The third party may dispute the cost of the credit hire vehicle. This will mean you may have to attend court to say why you went to a credit hire provider. You could also be asked to disclose your bank, savings, credit and wage documents to prove the need for credit hire.

Going directly to the third party insurer will keep costs down. They will bend over backwards to keep you happy. A comparative hire vehicle will be provided by them at no cost to yourself and there will be no risk of them questioning the size of the bill.

dunroving

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Well we're you seriously injured or just suffering lack on enjoyment?

I already said I was injured.

Spicy_McHaggis

dunroving wrote: »

I already said I was injured.

So a slight injury in collision recording terms.

dunroving

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

So a slight injury in collision recording terms.

No, not a slight injury. Multiple injuries, most of them substantially more than slight.

Spicy_McHaggis

dunroving wrote: »

No, not a slight injury. Multiple injuries, most of them substantially more than slight.

You were unfortunate to suffer multiple fractures and internal injuries then. It's a shame you trivialised such serious injuries by claiming for lack of enjoyment of your holiday.

dunroving

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

You were unfortunate to suffer multiple fractures and internal injuries then. It's a shame you trivialised such serious injuries by claiming for lack of enjoyment of your holiday.

I haven't claimed for anything.

desthemoaner

My wife had an incident with a taxi many years ago (I have to say here and now that there are of course many good taxi drivers as there are some bad ones, just as with the general driving population).


She was sat at a set of traffic lights intending to turn right, and a taxi was waiting on the opposite side of the junction. She swears to this day that when the lights went to green he flashed his headlights for her to go ( I DO know that flashing headlights is not legally recognised as an invitation to take right of way, but only one of those habits that folks get into), so she began the turn, whereupon he took off like a rocket and bashed into her rear wing. To cut a long story short he claimed for damage, courtesy car and all the other malarkey, but the extent of the damage to his car compared to the slight dent on my wife's vehicle indicated to me that he was looking to contrive an accident in order to pay for pre-existing damage.


Despite his claiming for a courtesy car we saw him plying his trade in the same, still-front-end damaged car just days later, but by then we had given the matter to our insurers and I felt that I would prefer to leave any investigations to them. If such a thing happened nowadays, I might well ring the insurers and tell them of my concerns.


Another thing that concerned me at the time was the aggressive tone of the letter that arrived from his solicitors in the days after the accident. "You will provide us with the following information or else", type of thing. Totally unnecessary, IMO.