Cycle accident claim advice

pedgepuk

I was involved in an accident with a London bus nearly 3 years ago which I posted here not too long after it happened and have been dealing with one of the 'no win no fee' law firms since.

To briefly describe what happened, I was deliberately barged by a driver of a double decker bus on my commute home into another cyclist where the bike was then written off after the driver went over it. I sustained injuries, ended up in A&E, was off work for several days, and have had to commute by public transport ever since the accident in November 2014. This of course has incurred costs from my own pocket since I didn't have a bike to commute. It took just over 8 months for me to get back to normal health.

The solicitors have been very slow, and I have had six different people look at my claim due to people leaving or other reasons which I'm not happy with, since the new person has had to go through the file again and again.

Nonetheless, a new litigation exec is now onboard wanting to put closure to the case and resolve a settlement with the bus company as it's reaching 3 years.

The bus company admitted liability towards the end of 2015 after I attended court along with a witness who was on the bus at the time. The bus driver was fined and disqualified from driving although he failed to turn up, and no representation was made on his behalf. The bus company also fired him after receiving information from my witness.

The interim payment for the replacement of my bike was only received in April of this year, meaning that I'm aiming to provide commuting expenses until then, which amounts to a near £4,000. This does seem excessive although I had no alternative to get in to work to London.

The solicitor has now said that the bus company insurers will look at this figure and the likelihood of the commuting costs be paid out to be null. She has said that I should have kept my costs down to a minimum under the RTA protocol to which I disagree. She also stated that the insurers will ask why I never took a loan out or borrow from friends and family to purchase a bike any sooner. This I find ridiculous as I was in the middle of buying a house and would never request money from others.

I also incurred other costs which the solicitor has said I would not have a chance in receiving compensation for.

My opinion is that if I've incurred costs at no fault of my own, and the interim payment only arrived this year, why would my expenses to get to work not be paid or a substantial portion be paid.

I'd appreciate any advice on the above which would help replying back to the solicitor.

Many thanks. P

KeithP

This thread may be better placed on the insurance board.

lisyloo

This of course has incurred costs from my own pocket since I didn't have a bike to commute.

Boris bikes are available in London for £2 per 24 hours or £90 annually.

She has said that I should have kept my costs down to a minimum under the RTA protocol to which I disagree.

Well that's how the law works. Why do you think you should be able to spend more than you need to.

This I find ridiculous as I was in the middle of buying a house and would never request money from others.

So you're spending a 5 or 6 figure sum on a house but can't afford a few hundred on the mortgage or £90 for annual access to boris bikes? I don't think anyone will believe that. Presumably you had to fund the public transport so why couldn't you hire a bike for less?
Apologies if it sounds like I'm attacking you but we need to know why.

I also incurred other costs which the solicitor has said I would not have a chance in receiving compensation for.

We can't answer until you tell us what they are.

My opinion is that if I've incurred costs at no fault of my own, and the interim payment only arrived this year, why would my expenses to get to work not be paid or a substantial portion be paid.

Because so far it looks like you've spent more than you needed to.
Explanation??

Pennywise

The law states that the "victim" must do all they can to minimise their losses/costs - it's called mitigation. You can't run up unnecessary costs and expect the insurer to pay. You found several thousand pounds to pay for alternative transport - why didn't you pay a fraction of that to buy a new bike?

esuhl

lisyloo wrote: »

Boris bikes are available in London for £2 per 24 hours or £90 annually.

Depending on distance, they're probably not suitable for commuting -- they are much heavier than normal bikes. And they aren't available on the outskirts.

pedgepuk wrote: »

She has said that I should have kept my costs down to a minimum under the RTA protocol to which I disagree.

You are legally required to mitigate your costs.

However... I'm not sure you should have been expected to realise how long it was going to take to get a payout!

Also, I'd say it would be unreasonable to have expected you to get a loan. Firstly, you'd have no idea what term of loan you'd need, as you have no idea when you'll get your payout. Secondly, you'd presumably have to be making monthly payments, to your detriment. Thirdly, I'm not sure you can legally claim interest on a loan, even if you took it out to mitigate your costs.

However... three years is a long time to be without a bike if you (by choice) prefer to cycle to work every day. It's a little hard to believe you haven't felt the need to buy a bike sooner.

Although, having been run over by a bus, I can understand how you probably didn't want to cycle to work for some time -- something that the bus driver is at fault for. So... arguably, the cost you've incurred could be seen as reasonable.

But this is ENTIRELY my own opinion. I'm no expert in any of this.

It sounds like your solicitors should be giving you more help to get a resolution. Presumably they've let this drag on so that can keep increasing their own fees. Again, THEY should also be mitigating their costs.

I wonder if they're trying to deny all your claims, so they can get away with a hugely inflated charge for their services from the insurer.