LEI legal expenses car accidents scam

Aylesbury_Duck

Would like to close subject soon.

I don't think you're alone. On the topic of subjects, here's a little English tip:

stationery: (noun) writing and other office materials.

stationary: (adjective) not moving or not intended to be moved.

I'm not usually so pedantic but given the nature of this whole thread and your approach to it and other posters, I feel justified in being so. Unless your car or its mirrors really are made of paper, they are stationary, not stationery.

lluzers

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I'm not usually so pedantic but given the nature of this whole thread and your approach to it and other posters, I feel justified in being so. Unless your car or its mirrors really are made of paper, they are stationary, not stationery.

Grammar and English is my weakness .Thanks.

Sorry. I did not mean to be abrasive to posters.

lluzers

One more thing I experienced in this case .

Barristers start with good chance of winning , it is the barrister who make the least mistakes , usually win more cases .This is very similar to professional footballers .

My side made mistakes.

lluzers

lluzers wrote: »

I wish I had come here ,instead of going to my solicitors.

Here is one more for you.Maybe you should offer independent consultation on how to present a case.You done a good job .What would have been your decision as a judge , and where do you believe we went wrong?You have seen the damage and decisions in hindsight.

My Second accident in 10 years.I was stopped on the main road.

This april another car reversed from their driveway ,and hit the same spot on my car .Their insurance paid out i.e repaired my car.


imgur.com/a/Kun7Q

A scam is a product sold , that does not deliver results because it costs £3m a year per barrister to deliver the results , insured expects.Instead it offers you bananas and peanuts .

BeenThroughItAll

lluzers wrote: »

A scam is a product sold , that does not deliver results because it costs £3m a year per barrister to deliver the results , insured expects.Instead it offers you bananas and peanuts .

You what the who'd the !!!! you what now?

Manxman_in_exile

lluzers wrote: »

Sorry. I did not mean to be abrasive to posters.

Actually I think that's quite inventive use of the language.

patman99

Op, if you think the Judge was wrong, then you have the lgal right to appeal. This gives you the chance to flip the case to your favour.

Better hurry though as there is a time limit on the appeal.

debtdebt

The OP needs permission to appeal first. Which he won't get.

lluzers

patman99 wrote: »

Op, if you think the Judge was wrong, then you have the lgal right to appeal. This gives you the chance to flip the case to your favour.

Better hurry though as there is a time limit on the appeal.

In summary, IMHO the solicitor did a poor presentation (estimated cost of LEI cases must be £40 per case) , an effective presentation from accident assessors is lacking (they are non existent) , the barristers are employed at poor rates and on fixed time like 3 hours in court and a 5 hour preparation of file reading , judges who are old (no-one judges their decision making) and prone to mistakes .In fact all three are prone to mistakes.I suspect the level of single judges , is also similar to the other two.You can't present court cases ,with little information which is dangerous , try to rush court cases on time budgets.It is not effective legal representation.

Insanity is doing the same thing , over and over , expecting different results.I had never been to court before , so I was not experienced to do the job in court .I don't expect to fight this again .I wish I had gone to the zoo to watch monkeys and fed them peanuts , it would have given me pleasure.

The LEI system is a very basic legal representation scheme..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 accident was caused by a parked car pulling out ,without indications , and denting the mirror holder and side doors , leaving dents and fresh scuff marks The force from the rear ,sent the mirror flying 10 yards forward ,both sides agreed it went forward ,but the judge said the claimant clipped only the mirror and the rest of the damages was non existent and caused on another occasion. There were fresh and old rust marks on the defendant's wing and bumper.

As I have lost the case , I don't need to lie cause it does not gain anything.