LEI legal expenses car accidents scam

lluzers

The other photographs of her car were for my solicitor .She had been pranging many other cars There at least a dozen prangs on her car .Solicitor did not want to build a case on it.

AdrianC

lluzers wrote: »

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.

Yet you claim their mirror destroyed yours, hurling parts two car lengths in a different direction to the body of it was bent. Yet you were travelling so slowly that your car stopped in zero distance.

lluzers wrote: »

The other photographs of her car were for my solicitor .She had been pranging many other cars There at least a dozen prangs on her car .Solicitor did not want to build a case on it.

I'm not surprised. What relevance has that got to anything?

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

Yet you claim their mirror destroyed yours, hurling parts two car lengths in a different direction to the body of it was bent. Yet you were travelling so slowly that your car stopped in zero distance.
I'm not surprised. What relevance has that got to anything?

my car stopped 2 yards ahead of her ,I have been driving 40 years ,

The substantial impact came from the side of the mirrors , not the front or the back.

She even asked me at time of accident "did I not see her indicator?"

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

What relevance has that got to anything?

She is a clumsy driver and one can build a belief in the judge's mind

AdrianC

lluzers wrote: »

The substantial impact came from the side of the mirrors , not the front or the back.

So, even ignoring her mirror apparently being carved from solid titanium, all those other dents on your car are irrelevant?

lluzers wrote: »

She is a clumsy driver and one can build a belief in the judge's mind

Totally irrelevant. You don't even know she was driving when they happened.

lluzers

AdrianC wrote: »

So, even ignoring her mirror apparently being carved from solid titanium, all those other dents on your car are irrelevant?


.

There was one dent on the back boot lid , caused by my son .There were stone chips on bonnet and 2 mm scratches on drivers side .It is brand new 3 year old .We did not claim for any of this .

A touch up for some 2 mm scratch is existing damage on my car?

It is irrelevant IMHO , but my solicitor sent it to judge , with 25 magnified images of accidents.

Jackmydad

I've been following this since the start with interest.
I'm confused. As I'm sure the court was.
I can't see any conclusive proof of the particular collision in question. The shots don't seem to tie up.
What are the shots of the nearside damage on the other car about?
Whatever the case, the court obviously could not find reasonable proof of blame.
If I was the OP, I'd put it all down to experience, put it behind me and get on with my life.
Pursuing legal cases with little hope of winning in the hope of being proved "right" can be a disastrously expensive business.

Manxman_in_exile

AdrianC - I'd give up. I think you're debating with an AI machine on a test run preparing for the Turing test...

lluzers

Adrian gave very useful intelligent debate.

Thanks

AdrianC

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

AdrianC - I'd give up. I think you're debating with an AI machine on a test run preparing for the Turing test...

<grin> I hope it's a very early test-run...

Fun watching it tie itself in knots, though.