LEI legal expenses car accidents scam

AdrianC

lluzers wrote: »

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.

imgur.com/a/jHSWQ

This still makes zero sense.

Can you draw a diagram of the relative positions of the vehicles?

lluzers

Here Adrian

It is easy for us after the event , but you imagine how and without hindsight , it is difficult for legal staff.

imgur.com/a/YMjt6

This is just a good thread to learn , about claims and LEI

lluzers

btw the discussion we had here is non existent with solicitors , they just want to file papers in court .In the old days , we used to have loss assessors and accident assessors/engineers.

AdrianC

lluzers wrote: »

Here Adrian

It is easy for us after the event , but you imagine how and without hindsight , it is difficult for legal staff.

imgur.com/a/YMjt6

So the two photos of the nearside of the Passat are completely irrelevant?
And what was the guff in your statement about double yellows?




Which means the big rear door dent and the mirror are completely impossible to have come from this...?

This is just a good thread to learn , about claims and LEI

I'm starting to feel a lot of sympathy for your solicitors, and think the judge got it bob-on.

lluzers

And what was the guff in your statement about double yellows?

She said "it happened outside the first house in the corner ,in defense statement.

I only saw that rear door dent after the accident .

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

Which means the big rear door dent and the mirror are completely impossible to have come from this...?

I'm starting to feel a lot of sympathy for your solicitors, and think the judge got it bob-on.

The defense agreed "mirrors touched but no other respective parts of the car made contact".

AdrianC

You've not shown a single photo of her mirror. Yet you've shown two photos of the other side of her car, which is completely irrelevant.
The scuff to that front wing looks old - again, there seems to be rust visible on the bare metal. You've flagged dents that you now seem to say didn't come from this incident.
You've broken several fundamental laws of physics, and the location photo isn't of the location it happened.

And you can't see why your legal reps just shrugged and kept you schtum?

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

You've not shown a single photo of her mirror. Yet you've shown two photos of the other side of her car, which is completely irrelevant.
The scuff to that front wing looks old - again, there seems to be rust visible on the bare metal. You've flagged dents that you now seem to say didn't come from this incident.
You've broken several fundamental laws of physics, and the location photo isn't of the location it happened.

And you can't see why your legal reps just shrugged and kept you schtum?

I did not have one single photo of her mirror ,they said nothing happened to it.

The rest of her car is showing rusty damage , but front has fresh clearer marks over the rusty marks , where there may have been previous rust.

AdrianC

lluzers wrote: »

I did not have one single photo of her mirror ,they said nothing happened to it.

You can't even be consistent in your replies here for ten minutes.

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

You can't even be consistent in your replies here for ten minutes.

They said nothing happened to it , there was no damage to it.

They agreed there was a collision between the mirrors only , they claim nothing happened to their mirror.