LEI legal expenses car accidents scam

lluzers

People like to have emotional fulfillment , as opposed to doing a job correctly.

A barrister was appointed for a 3 hour job , instead of presenting the case to win , he wanted to do the least amount of work and have an easy session in court , he lost the case .He wanted to run with the money , do a easy job , get paid , and enjoy his time and spend the money!

lluzers

“If they do agree to let you use your own solicitor, they will often agree to pay him or her only half, say, of their usual earnings per hour,”.One reason for this was that many of the lawyers used by insurers were not qualified solicitors.“'Lawyer’ just means someone who has studied law, and a lot of the legal experts helping LEI policyholders are law graduates with no further qualifications,”

Your cases are dealt with by unskilled people, mine was she , she provided me with a dumb barrister.

Manxman_in_exile

lluzers wrote: »

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...

...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.

Like most of your posts this makes no sense. If she was behind you, were you reversing without checking properly behind you? (You never mentioned before that she was behind you).


If you "could not see defendant" how do you know that they were not indicating?


I don't think it's necessary to resort to psychobabble about how judges arrive at decisions to explain this...


(EDIT: But as I posted earlier, if you have clear evidence of damage that your barrister wrongly conceded did not exist, complain to the Bar Council or whatever the relevant regulatory body is. If I were in your position I would be doing that rather than posting here).

Manxman_in_exile

Perhaps I'm being stupid or ill-informed here, but, as the claimant, did you not give evidence yourself?

lluzers

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Perhaps I'm being stupid or ill-informed here, but, as the claimant, did you not give evidence yourself?

Yes only written in witness statement as follows, here it is

imgur.com/a/dFBxZ

lluzers

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Like most of your posts this makes no sense. If she was behind you, were you reversing without checking properly behind you? (You never mentioned before that she was behind you).


If you "could not see defendant" how do you know that they were not indicating?


I don't think it's necessary to resort to psychobabble about how judges arrive at decisions to explain this...


(EDIT: But as I posted earlier, if you have clear evidence of damage that your barrister wrongly conceded did not exist, complain to the Bar Council or whatever the relevant regulatory body is. If I were in your position I would be doing that rather than posting here).

See court witness statement

imgur.com/a/dFBxZ

How do you prove the barrister wrongly conceded?Where do you get the court transcript from ?It is written by him .

lluzers

lluzers wrote: »

I had a car accident ,a person had pulled out from a parked position and collided with the side of my car

And in the event that you do want to use it to pursue a claim that’s not straightforward God help you.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Like most of your posts this makes no sense. If she was behind you, were you reversing without checking properly behind you? (You never mentioned before that she was behind you).


If you "could not see defendant" how do you know that they were not indicating?


I don't think it's necessary to resort to psychobabble about how judges arrive at decisions to explain this...

.

Here is evidence why psychobabble is most important in courts.In courts there is a mental sport played between the two skilled/unskilled barristers , both trying to score a goal.

thescouselander

TL : DR but I'm not surprised you had trouble. The law makes no sense to me. I was knocked off my bike by a car while riding on a cycle path (separate from the road). Somehow the solicitor who was supposed to be representing me convinced themselves I wouldn't win in court.

Incidentally I was claiming through my household legal expenses and my insurer was also the car drivers insurer. Of course the insurer denied any conflict of interest.

AdrianC

The photos and the markings make no sense, especially when taken with the statement.

The photos ostensibly of the OP's car are datestamped last summer. They show a single, short deep dent in the front doorskin, a single, short deep dent in the rear doorskin, a mirror that is still attached (albeit minus casing) and bent back hard enough to tear the plastic mount on the door itself. The dents have no marking or scuffing on the paint.

The (non-datestamped) photos ostensibly of the other car show it parked in two different positions. The driver's side front arch has a scuff, but that is not highlighted in the photo. The passenger's side shows a fairly hard scuff on the lower front arch (clearly older, there's rust showing where the paint's off the wing), and a less hard scuff on the lower rear arch, together with a minor scuff on the door rubbing strip and on the upper door skin. These are all at totally different heights to the damage on the OP's car, except for the door skin scuff, which is set in far enough from the arch to be impossible to have made contact. Besides, surely if the other car was pulling out of a parking space, the impact would just be on the front corner (which is undamaged)?

The OP says he had no camera at the time, either. The photos of the two cars were clearly taken at different times and places, on different devices.

The OP's incident report says that he stopped IMMEDIATELY, quickly enough that the rear of his car didn't pass the point of impact, preventing rear wing damage, despite an accusation of being above the speed limit. Yet the mirror flew 10 yards AHEAD of the car? The OP's distance estimation is clearly suspect, as he reckons he reversed 2 yards - half a car length - to clear the road.

From that, it's no wonder it got thrown out. The damage from the two cars clearly doesn't tie up, and the OP's statement is as much gibberish as his posts in this thread.

Some of OP's car pics - (rest won't link)




Other car

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

The photos and the markings make no sense, especially when taken with the statement.

The photos ostensibly of the OP's car are datestamped last summer. They show a single, short deep dent in the front doorskin, a single, short deep dent in the rear doorskin, a mirror that is still attached (albeit minus casing) and bent back hard enough to tear the plastic mount on the door itself. The dents have no marking or scuffing on the paint.

The (non-datestamped) photos ostensibly of the other car show it parked in two different positions. The driver's side front arch has a scuff, but that is not highlighted in the photo. The passenger's side shows a fairly hard scuff on the lower front arch (clearly older, there's rust showing where the paint's off the wing), and a less hard scuff on the lower rear arch, together with a minor scuff on the door rubbing strip and on the upper door skin. These are all at totally different heights to the damage on the OP's car, except for the door skin scuff, which is set in far enough from the arch to be impossible to have made contact. Besides, surely if the other car was pulling out of a parking space, the impact would just be on the front corner (which is undamaged)?

The OP says he had no camera at the time, either. The photos of the two cars were clearly taken at different times and places, on different devices.

The OP's incident report says that he stopped IMMEDIATELY, quickly enough that the rear of his car didn't pass the point of impact, preventing rear wing damage, despite an accusation of being above the speed limit. Yet the mirror flew 10 yards AHEAD of the car? The OP's distance estimation is clearly suspect, as he reckons he reversed 2 yards - half a car length - to clear the road.

From that, it's no wonder it got thrown out. The damage from the two cars clearly doesn't tie up, and the OP's statement is as much gibberish as his posts in this thread.

Some of OP's car pics - (rest won't link)


Adrian

The third picture shows white lines ,lower than the actual dent area which is higher .This lower part is where the cars made contact.It is the contact at the bottom which caused the dent.

I attach picture for you.This damage was never there before the accident.

Thanks for your time

imgur.com/a/jHSWQ