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!
LEI legal expenses car accidents scam
I had a car accident ,a person had pulled out from a parked position and collided with the side of my car ,I had to go to court , I lost the case because the solicitors did not present an effective case in court and the barrister came unprepared.My car had right of way , she pulled out and drove into the side doors.The defendant decided to lie , and claimed she was sitting in the car holding her keys in her hand ,that her car was stationery and parked.There was enough written evidence ,presented to my solicitor ,to prove that defandant was lying about 7 different issues like claiming to have witnesses ,spot of accident ,cctv evidence , provision of insurance details ,damage to her car bumper , damage to my car doors and how accident happened.There were clear lies in defence statements to the court , but I was not allowed to comment on them.The solicitor did not want to present these lies in detailed explanations in my witness statement.She said the barrister would do it.The barrister sat dumb in court and pointed out nothing.The barrister was hired for 3 hours , he wanted to present a very simple case .For your information , the defendant was from a family of solicitors , so they knew what they can get away with.
The solicitors did not verify , if my photographs would be suitable , and they did not advise how to present effective evidence in court.The photographs also lose clarity when printed , as opposed to watching them on large monitors.With a little bit of quality input , from the solicitors , the the presentation would be much more effective.In my view they should have presented the case a lot better.The defendant's car had more accidents on several parts of her car , but my solicitor did not want to present these as evidence of her driving.I don't really believe my solicitor knew how to prepare and present a winning case in court .She could present a weak case and in her inneffective way.I would have presented it differently , by proving the defendant was a liar , by raising doubts on her statements and incrminating her as a poor driver.I would provide the evidence in quality printed photographs , inplace of prints from colour printers.
The judge showed one photograph to barrister and asked him three times , he could see no dent to my car ,the barrister froze and remained dumb , he did not say anything.If there was no damage , imho the barrister conceded , then there is no case for damage .To anyone this is plain common sense , but solicitor says the rationale of the judge was I had conceded in court, but I only told the truth and had not conceded anything.She said the rationale was more important than the evidence on my car .Without the evidence of damage to my car , how can the other rationale be more important? .This sounds dumb.There was other photographs clearly showing dents on the car , but the barrister failed to point this out to the judge , I was not allowed to say anything.My barrister told me in court , the judge had decided on basis of other pre-existing damage on my car.The solicitor had provided the court ,without my consent , with a estimator's report , which presented little motorway chips as magnified images of dents to 25 other areas on the car.IMHO as a result the judge could see no difference between the 25 other areas and the actual accident area.It is normal for estimators to list every spot on a car , before they start work on it.The judge stated the minor evidence of accident damage to my car doors (scratch marks), may have happened elsewhere.
Are the solicitors taking on legal claims on fixed low prices and are barristers also on budget fees?If the insurers are paying peanuts to these solicitors and barristers , the solicitors on the case may be newly qualified ,less skilled and inexperienced.They may rely only on simple legal presentation skills , but not those of highly successful solicitors.
The judge's decision does not always give the true reasons for the decision.I have also been reading ,that judges are often influenced by empathy and biases in their decision making.The defendant was presenting a case , in a way with false statements in court , to win the judge's mind on emotions.She stated I was swearing at her ,and that I was hysterical , none of which is true.The judge was clearly looking at all the evidence negatively .I had pointed out to my barrister , the defendant was playing an emotional game on the judge , my barrister dismissed my statement .It seems to me that most legal people have very little understanding ,of the state of mind of the judge.
:The judge had a decision to make between two contrasting stories.There were doubts raised about the case by the defence and the defence barrister in court , the claimant barrister had conceded there was no damage , as a result of the accident , greater than the 25 other pieces of damage on the audatex report, that the judge could not longer be certain (beyond reasonable doubt) of the damage on car was caused by this accident .In the judge's mind there were 25 other pieces of magnified damage on the car , it appeared I was a reckless driver according to the audatex report(in his mind a picture had been formed of the character), the defence and the defendant raised doubts and made very negative statements about the claimant and inserted this negativity and doubts in the judge's mind.The decision of the judge was made based on his biases "innocent until proven guilty " and the judge's "state of mind " .The judge's state of mind was created on the day by a spineless case presentation and the negativity on the claimant created by his own solicitor's report , barrister and the defence.The judge saw everything within doubts and the judge's state of mind had negativity about the claimant.
What options do I have?Under the legal expenses they provided their own panel of discounted legal services , discounted solicitor , a poor presentation in court and a cheapest price barrister.What options do I have against the solicitor presenting a report without my permission?
This case also shows one can go to court , tell lies , create doubts on claimants , play an emotional hijack of the judge's mind and deny liability.The claimant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.People can win by lying and can avoid higher insurance premiums.
Who is to blame for the case to be dismissed ?Myself , my solicitor or my barrister.I also think there is conflict of interest between insurers and insured , using insurer's own solicitors.Everything is done to please the client , the insurer , to keep costs low with legal expenses.The solicitor was not working for me , but the insurer.I also read that solicitors quote cheap on costs , hoping to land an injury claim worth £1,000 +.
I was reading an a internet forum on "lei " i.e legal assistance insurance , on mootley fool and another site , it stated LEI is a scam.
Many of the solicitors firms that do pay to be on insurer panels give appalling service.This in turn means that they can't employ qualified staff to handle claims, as they are too expensive, and that they are desperate to do as little work as possible to get their £600 in for the underquote in legal costs..And in the event that you do want to use it to pursue a claim that’s not straightforward God help you. LEI policies are often wolves in sheep’s clothing
The solicitors did not verify , if my photographs would be suitable , and they did not advise how to present effective evidence in court.The photographs also lose clarity when printed , as opposed to watching them on large monitors.With a little bit of quality input , from the solicitors , the the presentation would be much more effective.In my view they should have presented the case a lot better.The defendant's car had more accidents on several parts of her car , but my solicitor did not want to present these as evidence of her driving.I don't really believe my solicitor knew how to prepare and present a winning case in court .She could present a weak case and in her inneffective way.I would have presented it differently , by proving the defendant was a liar , by raising doubts on her statements and incrminating her as a poor driver.I would provide the evidence in quality printed photographs , inplace of prints from colour printers.
The judge showed one photograph to barrister and asked him three times , he could see no dent to my car ,the barrister froze and remained dumb , he did not say anything.If there was no damage , imho the barrister conceded , then there is no case for damage .To anyone this is plain common sense , but solicitor says the rationale of the judge was I had conceded in court, but I only told the truth and had not conceded anything.She said the rationale was more important than the evidence on my car .Without the evidence of damage to my car , how can the other rationale be more important? .This sounds dumb.There was other photographs clearly showing dents on the car , but the barrister failed to point this out to the judge , I was not allowed to say anything.My barrister told me in court , the judge had decided on basis of other pre-existing damage on my car.The solicitor had provided the court ,without my consent , with a estimator's report , which presented little motorway chips as magnified images of dents to 25 other areas on the car.IMHO as a result the judge could see no difference between the 25 other areas and the actual accident area.It is normal for estimators to list every spot on a car , before they start work on it.The judge stated the minor evidence of accident damage to my car doors (scratch marks), may have happened elsewhere.
Are the solicitors taking on legal claims on fixed low prices and are barristers also on budget fees?If the insurers are paying peanuts to these solicitors and barristers , the solicitors on the case may be newly qualified ,less skilled and inexperienced.They may rely only on simple legal presentation skills , but not those of highly successful solicitors.
The judge's decision does not always give the true reasons for the decision.I have also been reading ,that judges are often influenced by empathy and biases in their decision making.The defendant was presenting a case , in a way with false statements in court , to win the judge's mind on emotions.She stated I was swearing at her ,and that I was hysterical , none of which is true.The judge was clearly looking at all the evidence negatively .I had pointed out to my barrister , the defendant was playing an emotional game on the judge , my barrister dismissed my statement .It seems to me that most legal people have very little understanding ,of the state of mind of the judge.
:The judge had a decision to make between two contrasting stories.There were doubts raised about the case by the defence and the defence barrister in court , the claimant barrister had conceded there was no damage , as a result of the accident , greater than the 25 other pieces of damage on the audatex report, that the judge could not longer be certain (beyond reasonable doubt) of the damage on car was caused by this accident .In the judge's mind there were 25 other pieces of magnified damage on the car , it appeared I was a reckless driver according to the audatex report(in his mind a picture had been formed of the character), the defence and the defendant raised doubts and made very negative statements about the claimant and inserted this negativity and doubts in the judge's mind.The decision of the judge was made based on his biases "innocent until proven guilty " and the judge's "state of mind " .The judge's state of mind was created on the day by a spineless case presentation and the negativity on the claimant created by his own solicitor's report , barrister and the defence.The judge saw everything within doubts and the judge's state of mind had negativity about the claimant.
What options do I have?Under the legal expenses they provided their own panel of discounted legal services , discounted solicitor , a poor presentation in court and a cheapest price barrister.What options do I have against the solicitor presenting a report without my permission?
This case also shows one can go to court , tell lies , create doubts on claimants , play an emotional hijack of the judge's mind and deny liability.The claimant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.People can win by lying and can avoid higher insurance premiums.
Who is to blame for the case to be dismissed ?Myself , my solicitor or my barrister.I also think there is conflict of interest between insurers and insured , using insurer's own solicitors.Everything is done to please the client , the insurer , to keep costs low with legal expenses.The solicitor was not working for me , but the insurer.I also read that solicitors quote cheap on costs , hoping to land an injury claim worth £1,000 +.
I was reading an a internet forum on "lei " i.e legal assistance insurance , on mootley fool and another site , it stated LEI is a scam.
Many of the solicitors firms that do pay to be on insurer panels give appalling service.This in turn means that they can't employ qualified staff to handle claims, as they are too expensive, and that they are desperate to do as little work as possible to get their £600 in for the underquote in legal costs..And in the event that you do want to use it to pursue a claim that’s not straightforward God help you. LEI policies are often wolves in sheep’s clothing
0
Comments
-
This case also shows one can go to court , tell lies , create doubts on claimants , play an emotional hijack of the judge's mind and deny liability.The claimant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.People can win by lying and can avoid higher insurance premiums.
Well that's not true, because any accident regardless of fault, will ramp up premiums, because once a driver has an accident they are statistically likely to have more.
I had an accident where the 3rd party claimed I was pulling out from parked, when in fact the silly old cow was totally oblivious to the fact she was overtaking a queue for a junction in rush hour traffic.“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”
<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/0 -
The reason you have legal representation is so your arguements and case are put across to the court in an appropriate way.
You can't just go in all guns blazing calling everyone a liar and refusing to show any documents that don't support your case.
I appreciate your post may be a bit of a rant and letting off steam but inevitably in any case where two parties disagree on what happened one is going to be disappointed.
If you feel let down by an inept solicitor or barrister you can complain to the relevant regulatory body. Google how to complain for contact details and the process.0 -
I was pointing out the experience I had with the legal claims , they are there to provide simple basic legal services.All the work of effective case winning evidence etc , has to be done by the claimant .Maybe in disputed liability (true or falsely) , it may not be worth going to court , despite having all the necessary evidence.Your case result relies on three other people and their presentation and beliefs i.e your solicitor , barrister , judge , defense barrister and the negligent party.
.And in the event that you do want to use it to pursue a claim that’s not straightforward God help you.
I would even post a report from the estimators or images , that the collision was from the side (but I don't believe attachments or images are allowed here , maybe they are) .There was other photographs clearly showing dents on the car , but the barrister failed to point this out to the judge ,The judge dismissed the case and believed the defendant's story of no damage to my car doors , because the barrister conceded no damage .0 -
In a civil case, judgement is not made on the basis of without reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities. As Judge Rinder says, the judge has to be more certain than not.0
-
Your case result relies on three other people and their presentation and beliefs i.e your solicitor , barrister , judge , defense barrister and the negligent party.
I make that 5 people.
However.... If your barrister was unable to show the judge there was damage to your car despite photographic evidence and your testimony they have clearly not represented you to a sufficient standard.
If what they said was they cannot be sure the damage was new and down to this collision rather than from previous mishaps as evidenced by your own report that would be different.0 -
You're blaming the insurer for poor quality legal representation. Who provided the other party's legal representation?0
-
Has this story been posted previously under a different forum member name? It sounds familiar.0
-
You're blaming the insurer for poor quality legal representation. Who provided the other party's legal representation?
The other party's legal representation provided by her insurer Tesco insurance , who are partly re-insured by my own insurance company.The defense barrister was far better in working for the defense , and if he was working for me , he would won my case.I have no doubts about this.Barrister's costs vary , depending on seniority , from £75 per hour to over £1,000 per hour .The other factor is the defendant , possibly had their case prepared /advised by the defendant's own family of solicitors (I know them personally ,they used to own a solicitors ).This is possibly the difference between personalized quality solicitors and the insurance company's own panel of cheap solicitors.
Take an example :Insurance hires 50 solicitors full time on their claims , cost is £2m , they handle 1,000 cases a week , That is £40 per case cost on average. £40 per case is not going to produce great input from solicitors.
Has this story been posted previously under a different forum member name? It sounds familiar?
NO ! It is probably happening more often.0 -
You're blaming the insurer for poor quality legal representation. Who provided the other party's legal representation?
The other party's legal representation provided by her insurer...
The defense barrister was far better in working for the defense , and if he was working for me , he would won my case.I have no doubts about this.
There y'go, then. The problem was not the funding of your legal representation.
The problem may have been that your representatives were useless, or it may simply have been that - no matter how wishful your thinking - your evidence was weak.0 -
For those of you who want to have a laugh at my expense .There is a video on youtube called Andrea Espada Tv La Serie Capitulo 5
Enjoy the new wave of crime :rotfl: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
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards