LEI legal expenses car accidents scam

lluzers

So I'll ask again: if you're such an expert in psychology, why did you not choose to represent yourself and pursue the claim?

You only know after experience.

I thought the solicitors appointed would do a decent job.I did not know , that these solicitors would be this level .Insurance co appointed them and I was not aware of the requirements for highly skilled professional level barristers .I was expecting them to do their job.

This was my first car accident in 10 years .How can I dispute or even criticize the skills of regular performers of insurers?I would have to experience first , my first ever visit to court , then experience the solicitors/barristers , then complain.

AdrianC

lluzers wrote: »

I thought the solicitors appointed would do a decent job.I did not know , that these solicitors would be this level .Insurance co appointed them and I was not aware of the requirements for highly skilled professional level barristers .I was expecting them to do their job.

So your side were far less competent than the other side, despite being similarly funded.

Or maybe they just didn't have as much to work with as you believed they did?

lluzers

The task of my side was much more difficult .

The other side had to come and say "they did not do anything ".Then they just raised doubts vocally about everything.She lied about about many things ,hid some evidence , that made our our task harder.The more lies she told ,the more inconfident was my barrister.

My side had to process a lot of information and present it , and humans are not efficient information processors.My barrister was unprepared to win , he had a negative mindset to start with and an ineffective simple presentation plan.My solicitor made it harder , by not presenting everything in my witness statement , it would have made the barrister's job easier.

She had to say "she did not do anything".
We had to prove she was negligent , damage was caused and I suffered .

Barrister conceded "no damage " was done when he remained dumb to the judge's question.

case dismissed cause there is no negligence.

Manxman_in_exile

AdrianC wrote: »

No, much simpler than that.

If your barrister doesn't tell the judge your position, then the judge cannot be expected to be psychic.

If you were able to present clear evidence of damage to your car, but your barrister "conceded" that there was in fact no damage, then I would have thought you would have good cause for complaining about their conduct of the case. (Possibly your solicitor too.)


Are you able to appeal as Lynzzer suggests? (Not sure if you would be able to as I thought appeals had to be based on questions of law, not fact. I presume whether your car was damaged is a question of fact.)

AdrianC

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

If you were able to present clear evidence of damage to your car, but your barrister "conceded" that there was in fact no damage, then I would have thought you would have good cause for complaining about their conduct of the case.

If you were able to present such clear evidence, why didn't you?

lluzers

I spoke to insurance company , they told me they do succeed with some cases .How many who knows 10% 20 % ?.

If you were able to present such clear evidence, why didn't you?

The barrister had it , but was not on the ball in highlighting/presenting it to the judge .This is why I say "he came unprepared".It was his job to present it.He came unprepared and did not even do a serious cross examination.

Solicitors have closed the case , the insurers have done their duty to provide legal expenses insurance.They have tried to shift the blame on me , stating I conceded in court because I did not see her ,hear her car and see her indicator.


I was asked ,if I saw her .I could not see defendant from my car , due to my position on the road , I was looking ahead and she was behind me.So this was a trick question.I was never asked "did I see defendant's car ?".This question was already answered in my witness statement.

I was asked ,if I heard any noise of her car .The answer is "A passenger in a car can not hear a car parked along a road , if the engine is running." .This is because modern cars are well insulated , the noise from the travelling car is greater than the car on the side of the road.So i said no.

She never indicated , so how can I see her indicator?


As I was travelling she pulled out from parked position and damaged front passenger door and rear door.

lluzers

The barrister never told the solicitors ,of his concession in court ,he just told them the rationale (outcome of judge's decision).

The judge put my accident photograph in the air, he asked 3 times to MR Barrister , to see any evidence of dent .He looked at barrister and stated "I do not see any dents " and stared at him for a minute or two , barrister stayed silent , as a result this was a concession "there was no dents".He failed to point out the dents that garage confirmed , in their collection note and audatex photos showing dents .This was a spineless case presentation in court.barrister asked the judge meekly "Is there not a probability of a car bumper making a pull out ?".I was witnessing this concession of no dent , but maybe she may have clipped her wing out.

lluzers

This is what I got from the solicitor.

Barrister has already advised that the issue relating to the Audatex images was secondary to the rationale of the Judge in finding against you on the day. The case was determined by inconsistencies in your account and admissions which were conceded in your evidence. The points regarding the images of damage were a secondary point which the Judge simply used to highlight that there was pre-existing damage to your car.

After the court hearing , the barrister confirmed the conclusion to me as follows " the pre existing damage on the car was the reason why the judge decided against the claimant "

debtdebt

What did you claim for? Personal injury or vehicle damage or both?

lluzers

Just vehicle damage .There was no personal injury.