When to involve solicitors after a collision?

bails87

Having read the 'what to do after a collision' sticky, it says to get in touch with a solicitor straight away, but are there times when it's just not necessary? (with the obvious caveats of each case is different, 'IANAL' etc)

A bit of context: I was hit by a car on Friday night. I was well lit up, riding on a fairly quiet road, I watched the driver approach the junction and as far as I saw, he simply didn't look to his right, so when he pulled out he hit me.

He hit me with the front wing of the car, which did a bit of damage to it, then I went over the bonnet and onto the road. The bike was left behind on the driver's side of the car because I saw it coming and turned/braked as much as possible and then unclipped from my SPDs.

The driver admitted fault at the time and seemed genuinely sorry, offered to take me home. We exchanged details and he's since sent me text messages asking if I'm okay and apologising for the inconvenience caused when I told him I'd been to A&E. He's also sent some (crucially?) saying he'll replace everything damaged and agreeing to getting the bike checked by a shop.

In terms of damage to the bike, I think it's just a torn saddle (bought 2 hours before the crash!) and a scraped 105 STi lever. It was a kind of glancing blow and I was between the bike and the car. So the only damage I'm aware of so far is damage caused when it toppled onto the road. As I said, it's being checked out by the LBS, to make sure the frame alignment is alright and retrue the wheels if needed, so the list of damage may grow.

I think the only damage to me was a bruised hip, and an achey shoulder. I went to A&E the next morning, got the hip confirmed as just bruising.

So as it seems at the moment, I've got no apparent serious injuries that would stop me going to work. And, other than a couple of days of limping, no real disturbance to my life. In terms of the bike, if the damage is as little as it seems at the moment then it seems like it'll be a fairly simple job of replacing a couple of parts, truing the wheels if they need it and getting back on it (as long as the frame is 'signed off' as okay).

So....would other forumites get the solicitors involved? I don't like the 'compensation culture' but fully understand that if someone loses out because of your actions then compensation may be appropriate. It's just, well, have I 'lost out'? Do you get money for a minor injury that doesn't actually cost you anything?

dhope

bails87 wrote:

Having read the 'what to do after a collision' sticky, it says to get in touch with a solicitor straight away, but are there times when it's just not necessary? (with the obvious caveats of each case is different, 'IANAL' etc)

A bit of context: I was hit by a car on Friday night. I was well lit up, riding on a fairly quiet road, I watched the driver approach the junction and as far as I saw, he simply didn't look to his right, so when he pulled out he hit me.

He hit me with the front wing of the car, which did a bit of damage to it, then I went over the bonnet and onto the road. The bike was left behind on the driver's side of the car because I saw it coming and turned/braked as much as possible and then unclipped from my SPDs.

The driver admitted fault at the time and seemed genuinely sorry, offered to take me home. We exchanged details and he's since sent me text messages asking if I'm okay and apologising for the inconvenience caused when I told him I'd been to A&E. He's also sent some (crucially?) saying he'll replace everything damaged and agreeing to getting the bike checked by a shop.

In terms of damage to the bike, I think it's just a torn saddle (bought 2 hours before the crash!) and a scraped 105 STi lever. It was a kind of glancing blow and I was between the bike and the car. So the only damage I'm aware of so far is damage caused when it toppled onto the road. As I said, it's being checked out by the LBS, to make sure the frame alignment is alright and retrue the wheels if needed, so the list of damage may grow.

I think the only damage to me was a bruised hip, and an achey shoulder. I went to A&E the next morning, got the hip confirmed as just bruising.

So as it seems at the moment, I've got no apparent serious injuries that would stop me going to work. And, other than a couple of days of limping, no real disturbance to my life. In terms of the bike, if the damage is as little as it seems at the moment then it seems like it'll be a fairly simple job of replacing a couple of parts, truing the wheels if they need it and getting back on it (as long as the frame is 'signed off' as okay).

So....would other forumites get the solicitors involved? I don't like the 'compensation culture' but fully understand that if someone loses out because of your actions then compensation may be appropriate. It's just, well, have I 'lost out'? Do you get money for a minor injury that doesn't actually cost you anything?

I was offered £900 for a £1k bike (which had a cracked carbon frame) and £1.7k for injuries from the drivers' insurance company. No mention of solicitors or anything and I accepted the first offer as, beyond some pain and impressive bruising, there's no lasting damage.
If you're okay (and you're certain you're okay, no niggling aches and pains, no need for any physio etc) and feel you've been adequately compensated for the pain and inconvenience then no need to get a personal injury claim going.

bails87

Thanks. He's going to have to get his insurance (comapny car) involved anyway to mend the car I'd imagine, so I might ask him to let his insurance know and to get them in touch with me.

dhope

bails87 wrote:

Thanks. He's going to have to get his insurance (comapny car) involved anyway to mend the car I'd imagine, so I might ask him to let his insurance know and to get them in touch with me.

If he's already using the insurance to pay for his car I guess he'll be willing to pay for your bike at the same time. Get the insurance details, phone them up, explain honestly the situation and they'll hopefully make a reasonable offer, then you can take it from there.

dilemna

bails87 wrote:

Having read the 'what to do after a collision' sticky, it says to get in touch with a solicitor straight away, but are there times when it's just not necessary? (with the obvious caveats of each case is different, 'IANAL' etc)

A bit of context: I was hit by a car on Friday night. I was well lit up, riding on a fairly quiet road, I watched the driver approach the junction and as far as I saw, he simply didn't look to his right, so when he pulled out he hit me.

He hit me with the front wing of the car, which did a bit of damage to it, then I went over the bonnet and onto the road. The bike was left behind on the driver's side of the car because I saw it coming and turned/braked as much as possible and then unclipped from my SPDs.

The driver admitted fault at the time and seemed genuinely sorry, offered to take me home. We exchanged details and he's since sent me text messages asking if I'm okay and apologising for the inconvenience caused when I told him I'd been to A&E. He's also sent some (crucially?) saying he'll replace everything damaged and agreeing to getting the bike checked by a shop.

In terms of damage to the bike, I think it's just a torn saddle (bought 2 hours before the crash!) and a scraped 105 STi lever. It was a kind of glancing blow and I was between the bike and the car. So the only damage I'm aware of so far is damage caused when it toppled onto the road. As I said, it's being checked out by the LBS, to make sure the frame alignment is alright and retrue the wheels if needed, so the list of damage may grow.

I think the only damage to me was a bruised hip, and an achey shoulder. I went to A&E the next morning, got the hip confirmed as just bruising.

So as it seems at the moment, I've got no apparent serious injuries that would stop me going to work. And, other than a couple of days of limping, no real disturbance to my life. In terms of the bike, if the damage is as little as it seems at the moment then it seems like it'll be a fairly simple job of replacing a couple of parts, truing the wheels if they need it and getting back on it (as long as the frame is 'signed off' as okay).

So....would other forumites get the solicitors involved? I don't like the 'compensation culture' but fully understand that if someone loses out because of your actions then compensation may be appropriate. It's just, well, have I 'lost out'? Do you get money for a minor injury that doesn't actually cost you anything?

A fundamental mis-understanding of the law which states that you are entitled to pursue compensation such that to put you back in the position you were immediately before the event which caused you injury, damage to property or other loss. Fine if you are not willing to pursue a claim using a personal injury solicitor, but unfortunately not everyone gets off as luckily as you. Don't belittle a system that pays out very little in real terms for injuries that can be be serious and irrevocably destroy the lives of those who have sustained them. If you have suffered loss or injury my advice is to claim for this. This is not a compensation culture attitude. By claiming from the driver's insurers, his premium will go UP to reflect that they are a greater risk on the road evidenced by the fact that they need to pay more attention having driven into you. By you not claiming their insurer will have a false impression of the risk their insured poses driving on the roads.

BC, LCC and CTC have agreements with firms of solicitors to represent their member cyclists who have been injured. I would suggest you give one of them a call. The sooner the better IMHO.

EKE_38BPM

Some people don't like to 'claim' if the damage and/or inconveinience was minor, but why should you have to put up with a torn saddle or scratched paintwork?

Personal injury is harder to put a price on, but I know that I had nine months of twice a week physio at £50/hour and even after that I know that I will never feel 'right' again.
The money I received was useful, but on the mornings I wake and can't turn my head, the money is useless. I have to say that having no money for the injury would be worse than useless though.

As Dhope says, if his insurance are already involved, go for full recompence (paraphrasing).
Personally, if it was a single mum/pensioner/war hero who had only caused material damage e.g. torn saddle in a minor accident, I would settle for a replacement for the material thing, but once insurance are involved go for all you can get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bails87

Dilemna: I don't think I've misunderstood anything, as I said, it's often necessary, thanks for the input though.

Eke: thanks, I'm probably thinking in the way you describe. I've expect my bike to be repaired, but it's figuring the value, if any, of fairly minor injuries that's tricky. I suppose at the end of the day I suffered pain and inconvenience through absolutely no fault of my own.

beverick

So you were on a quiet road, you saw the other motorist from some distance, you noted that they weren't looking in your direction and you continued into their path.

Doesn't sound much of a basis for a claim does it?

In the absence of independent witnesses I'd expect a loss adjuster/insurance assessor reading that would go 50:50, i.e. "knock for knock", on a claim and i'd expect any 'fair' solicitor to come to the same conclusion.

Bob

W1

dilemna wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Having read the 'what to do after a collision' sticky, it says to get in touch with a solicitor straight away, but are there times when it's just not necessary? (with the obvious caveats of each case is different, 'IANAL' etc)

A bit of context: I was hit by a car on Friday night. I was well lit up, riding on a fairly quiet road, I watched the driver approach the junction and as far as I saw, he simply didn't look to his right, so when he pulled out he hit me.

He hit me with the front wing of the car, which did a bit of damage to it, then I went over the bonnet and onto the road. The bike was left behind on the driver's side of the car because I saw it coming and turned/braked as much as possible and then unclipped from my SPDs.

The driver admitted fault at the time and seemed genuinely sorry, offered to take me home. We exchanged details and he's since sent me text messages asking if I'm okay and apologising for the inconvenience caused when I told him I'd been to A&E. He's also sent some (crucially?) saying he'll replace everything damaged and agreeing to getting the bike checked by a shop.

In terms of damage to the bike, I think it's just a torn saddle (bought 2 hours before the crash!) and a scraped 105 STi lever. It was a kind of glancing blow and I was between the bike and the car. So the only damage I'm aware of so far is damage caused when it toppled onto the road. As I said, it's being checked out by the LBS, to make sure the frame alignment is alright and retrue the wheels if needed, so the list of damage may grow.

I think the only damage to me was a bruised hip, and an achey shoulder. I went to A&E the next morning, got the hip confirmed as just bruising.

So as it seems at the moment, I've got no apparent serious injuries that would stop me going to work. And, other than a couple of days of limping, no real disturbance to my life. In terms of the bike, if the damage is as little as it seems at the moment then it seems like it'll be a fairly simple job of replacing a couple of parts, truing the wheels if they need it and getting back on it (as long as the frame is 'signed off' as okay).

So....would other forumites get the solicitors involved? I don't like the 'compensation culture' but fully understand that if someone loses out because of your actions then compensation may be appropriate. It's just, well, have I 'lost out'? Do you get money for a minor injury that doesn't actually cost you anything?

A fundamental mis-understanding of the law which states that you are entitled to pursue compensation such that to put you back in the position you were immediately before the event which caused you injury, damage to property or other loss. Fine if you are not willing to pursue a claim using a personal injury solicitor, but unfortunately not everyone gets off as luckily as you. Don't belittle a system that pays out very little in real terms for injuries that can be be serious and irrevocably destroy the lives of those who have sustained them. If you have suffered loss or injury my advice is to claim for this. This is not a compensation culture attitude. By claiming from the driver's insurers, his premium will go UP to reflect that they are a greater risk on the road evidenced by the fact that they need to pay more attention having driven into you. By you not claiming their insurer will have a false impression of the risk their insured poses driving on the roads.

BC, LCC and CTC have agreements with firms of solicitors to represent their member cyclists who have been injured. I would suggest you give one of them a call. The sooner the better IMHO.

The claim inteslf will put up his premium - the cost of it is largely irrelevant to the driver's risk and premium (unless it is very substantial, and even then the premium won't rise proportionately to reflect this).

If you've only suffered minor injuries and don't feel that you need to be compensated there is nothing to force you to. It's the minor injuries that people are claiming for which are really raising insurance premiums accross the board, because now everyone wants £1500 for a bruise, which is absurd. That's what "compensation culture" is. That's not belittling genuine and serious claims, it's belittling those who always bleat about "their rights" and "knowing what they're entitled to". I bet you'd claim for a broken nail wouldn't you dilema?

I would wait and see how you feel in a couple of days. If you have suffered a more serious injury it might not show itself yet, and if you accept an offer from the driver/his insurer, it wil be full and final. Then it's up to you to consider what your loss is and how you'd be satisifed in terms of repayment.

bails87

No, he rolled up the junction while looking to his left, got to the junction itself, slowed down almost to a stop. At that pace I would have got past no problem, but as I got next to the back of the car (the side road joined this one at 45 degrees) he floored it and accelerated straight into me. It looked to me as if he was slowing /stopping to check over to his right, but he never did.

Pufftmw

In a situation where the other party has admited liability and is bending over to help you, then there is no need to instruct solicitors. To do so would likely put his back up and end up taking much longer to sort out. Plus, due to the extra cost/complexity, he would have to get his insurers to deal with it.

Legally, he has to inform his insurance if there was an accident and legally, inform the police within 24 hrs if someone was hurt, though in this instance, its fortunately minor.

He's offering to pay to put your bike right and to do it promptly plus any other (genuine) quantifiable losses you have had. Technically, you may be entitled to put in a claim for injury/pain & suffering but we are talking about very minor soft tisue injuries here that will/should heal with no future impairment or disfigurement. If you got £50 /£100 for those, I would be surprised.

Personally, I would say that the prompt rectification of the damage to your bike/clothing would suffice and it'll cost you more in aggravation and time to chase any PI aspect than you might hope to win . He's c*cked up, made a mistake and is genuinely repentant & hoping to make amends & put you right, don't over-egg it and accept the goodwill.

sketchley

Have you considered the possibility of the driver not being insured? Admitting liability and paying up is cheaper than 6 points on a license, a fine and a crushed car. Of course if they are not insured then taking the money might be your best option.

hmbadger

I was knocked off bike recently. Clearly driver's fault. An independent witness at the scene gave me his mobile no.

I got the bike checked for damage at LBS - remarkably, no damage. This cost £30 (inc service, which tbh I was quite happy to have done for me rather than do it myself). Sunglasses broken (£30) and helmet will need replacing, as took quite a bash. All told will cost me about £130. A few bruises which turned out to be not much with a bit or RICE treatment. Neck was sore for about a week but seems to have settled down.

Reality is that I'm not pursuing him for anything. Partly because of the hassle of doing so, and partly because, to be frank, I have it in my mind that he is a poorly off bloke with a young baby to support (accident happened just outside his gf's mother's house and gf came out with baby), and that I can afford it more than he can. It was an accident, and he behaved perfectly decently at the scene, very concerned, etc.

Not saying that everyone should do this of course, and I wouldn't criticise anyone who wanted money back for expense occurred. Though I think I would criticise anyone who pursued for a few bruises.

bails87

He is insured, he was driving a company car at the time. He's happy to sort everything out through the insurers, as am I. So he's in contact with his insurers now. I only asked about solicitors because it was in the sticky as a kind of ' must do', and I didn't feel that the situation really warranted it . He seems like a genuinely decent guy, and I've got no desire for retribution, just to get back to the position I was in before the crash.

As others have said, I'll just be honest about the damage and my (pretty minor) injuries, and we'll see what happens.

sketchley

In which case you could just deal with his insurer direct. I suspect there are letter templates on internet, simply send letter to his insurers stating losses, costs, expenses and any compensation you require. If the facts are not disputed hopefully they will simply settle as it's much more expensive for his insurers if you involve a law firm as cost etc will be added. Should be quicker too.

Only engage a solicitor if facts are in dispute or you are injured and are unsure of the 'value' of your injury or you want to extract maximum amount possible.

The fact that it's company car is interesting as it will not cost driver anything as company car insurance will pay. So the fact that he was nice shouldn't influence your decision.

navt

Just glad you're OK. For now. The thing is, you don't know about tomorrow.

W1

Sketchley wrote:

The fact that it's company car is interesting as it will not cost driver anything as company car insurance will pay. So the fact that he was nice shouldn't influence your decision.

It will cost him personally if he has a private car too.

DonDaddyD

+1!

mybreakfastconsisted

"Don't belittle a system that pays out very little in real terms for injuries that can be be serious"

"By claiming from the driver's insurers, his premium will go UP"

There is nothing wrong about either of those statements, nothing that is "crap" and nothing that deserves abuse.

Calm down, take a break from your computer, you're getting hysterical.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Nobody said either of those things, you made them up.

And it's "Proportionately"

I think spelling criticism from someone evidently incapable of reading is rather laughable.

Try reading again - he is accusing the OP of criticising "compensation culture" because it in fact serves a benefit to those seriously injured (no-one has said that it doesn't).

He also says "If you have suffered loss or injury my advice is to claim for this" and then "By you not claiming their insurer will have a false impression of the risk their insured poses driving on the roads". No-one has suggested not claiming for the bike. The question is over injuries. My point is - not claiming for the injury will make little if any difference to the driver or their insurer in terms of their risk and premium calculation.

mybreakfastconsisted

dilemna wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Having read the 'what to do after a collision' sticky, it says to get in touch with a solicitor straight away, but are there times when it's just not necessary? (with the obvious caveats of each case is different, 'IANAL' etc)

A bit of context: I was hit by a car on Friday night. I was well lit up, riding on a fairly quiet road, I watched the driver approach the junction and as far as I saw, he simply didn't look to his right, so when he pulled out he hit me.

He hit me with the front wing of the car, which did a bit of damage to it, then I went over the bonnet and onto the road. The bike was left behind on the driver's side of the car because I saw it coming and turned/braked as much as possible and then unclipped from my SPDs.

The driver admitted fault at the time and seemed genuinely sorry, offered to take me home. We exchanged details and he's since sent me text messages asking if I'm okay and apologising for the inconvenience caused when I told him I'd been to A&E. He's also sent some (crucially?) saying he'll replace everything damaged and agreeing to getting the bike checked by a shop.

In terms of damage to the bike, I think it's just a torn saddle (bought 2 hours before the crash!) and a scraped 105 STi lever. It was a kind of glancing blow and I was between the bike and the car. So the only damage I'm aware of so far is damage caused when it toppled onto the road. As I said, it's being checked out by the LBS, to make sure the frame alignment is alright and retrue the wheels if needed, so the list of damage may grow.

I think the only damage to me was a bruised hip, and an achey shoulder. I went to A&E the next morning, got the hip confirmed as just bruising.

So as it seems at the moment, I've got no apparent serious injuries that would stop me going to work. And, other than a couple of days of limping, no real disturbance to my life. In terms of the bike, if the damage is as little as it seems at the moment then it seems like it'll be a fairly simple job of replacing a couple of parts, truing the wheels if they need it and getting back on it (as long as the frame is 'signed off' as okay).

So....would other forumites get the solicitors involved? I don't like the 'compensation culture' but fully understand that if someone loses out because of your actions then compensation may be appropriate. It's just, well, have I 'lost out'? Do you get money for a minor injury that doesn't actually cost you anything?

A fundamental mis-understanding of the law which states that you are entitled to pursue compensation such that to put you back in the position you were immediately before the event which caused you injury, damage to property or other loss. Fine if you are not willing to pursue a claim using a personal injury solicitor, but unfortunately not everyone gets off as luckily as you. Don't belittle a system that pays out very little in real terms for injuries that can be be serious and irrevocably destroy the lives of those who have sustained them. If you have suffered loss or injury my advice is to claim for this. This is not a compensation culture attitude. By claiming from the driver's insurers, his premium will go UP to reflect that they are a greater risk on the road evidenced by the fact that they need to pay more attention having driven into you. By you not claiming their insurer will have a false impression of the risk their insured poses driving on the roads.

BC, LCC and CTC have agreements with firms of solicitors to represent their member cyclists who have been injured. I would suggest you give one of them a call. The sooner the better IMHO.

Don't agree to anything until the full extent of your injuries are known.

Hips, backs and knees can be buggers.

spen666

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

.....
A fundamental mis-understanding of the law which states that you are entitled to pursue compensation such that to put you back in the position you were immediately before the event which caused you injury, damage to property or other loss. Fine if you are not willing to pursue a claim using a personal injury solicitor, but unfortunately not everyone gets off as luckily as you. Don't belittle a system that pays out very little in real terms for injuries that can be be serious and irrevocably destroy the lives of those who have sustained them. If you have suffered loss or injury my advice is to claim for this. This is not a compensation culture attitude. By claiming from the driver's insurers, his premium will go UP to reflect that they are a greater risk on the road evidenced by the fact that they need to pay more attention having driven into you. By you not claiming their insurer will have a false impression of the risk their insured poses driving on the roads.

BC, LCC and CTC have agreements with firms of solicitors to represent their member cyclists who have been injured. I would suggest you give one of them a call. The sooner the better IMHO.

Predictably from you, what a load of crap. The claim inteslf will put up his premium - the cost of it is largely irrelevant to the driver's risk and premium (unless it is very substantial, and even then the premium won't rise proportionately to reflect this).

If you've only suffered minor injuries and don't feel that you need to be compensated there is nothing to force you to. It's the minor injuries that people are claiming for which are really raising insurance premiums accross the board, because now everyone wants £1500 for a bruise, which is absurd. That's what "compensation culture" is. That's not belittling genuine and serious claims, it's belittling those who always bleat about "their rights" and "knowing what they're entitled to". I bet you'd claim for a broken nail wouldn't you dilema?

I would wait and see how you feel in a couple of days. If you have suffered a more serious injury it might not show itself yet, and if you accept an offer from the driver/his insurer, it wil be full and final. Then it's up to you to consider what your loss is and how you'd be satisifed in terms of repayment.

Sorry W1, but I have to say that I agree with Dilemna

Firstly - you are only claiming what you are entitled to by law

Secondly - the cause of the increasing premium is the poor driving responsible for accidents.

If people are not entitled to compensation, then it is up to the courts not to award it, IF the defendants fight the case

W1

spen666 wrote:

Sorry W1, but I have to say that I agree with Dilemna

Firstly - you are only claiming what you are entitled to by law

Secondly - the cause of the increasing premium is the poor driving responsible for accidents.

If people are not entitled to compensation, then it is up to the courts not to award it, IF the defendants fight the case

As you are entitled to, of course.

But the key point is that which you highlight - the defendants don't fight small claims because the legal costs are too high to bother with. And therefore the claimants know they can make a claim (however spurious) and get a payout. And therefore they do. In fact there have been a few cases of "staged" accidents simply in order to get payouts. That's nothing to do with poor driving.

It would be most interesting what the position would be if all claims had to go to court at the claimant's risk (i.e. stop no-win no-fee cowboys). I would suggest that the number and value of claims would plummet, with no reduction in the number of accidents....

But that's pure speculation.

What particularly riled me about Dilema's post was attempt to tie-in a criticism of the OP not wanting to be part of "compensation culture" with a reference to those who are seriously injured and require substantial payouts. They are obviously completely different. We do have a "blame/claim" culture here and it has numerous negative effects (i.e. everyone becoming terrified of litigation and insurance premiums for everything rocketing). That's got nothing to do with people who have been seriously injured (who have always been - and should always - be assisted).

spen666

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Sorry W1, but I have to say that I agree with Dilemna

Firstly - you are only claiming what you are entitled to by law

Secondly - the cause of the increasing premium is the poor driving responsible for accidents.

If people are not entitled to compensation, then it is up to the courts not to award it, IF the defendants fight the case

As you are entitled to, of course.

But the key point is that which you highlight - the defendants don't fight small claims because the legal costs are too high to bother with. And therefore the claimants know they can make a claim (however spurious) and get a payout. And therefore they do

The remedy is in the hands of the defendants - namely fight such claims. If they won't defend themselves why should the innocent victim of a RTA defend them by not claiming?

The victim's duty is to himself. The defendant's responsible for defending or otherwise the claim

. In fact there have been a few cases of "staged" accidents simply in order to get payouts. That's nothing to do with poor driving.

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

I suppose you would advise anyone who has been burgled not to claim on their insurance as some people have "staged" burglaries and made false claims.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

It would be most interesting what the position would be if all claims had to go to court at the claimant's risk (i.e. stop no-win no-fee cowboys).

Erm we do have that system, if the claimant loses, other than in the small claims court, they are liable to pay the other party's costs. A no win no fee case refers to your own legal costs, not the opponents.

As for no win no fee lawyers being cowboys- its actually the opposite, solicitors are not going to take on cases where they think they won't win. The incentive is not to take on spurious claims as you wont get paid

I would suggest that the number and value of claims would plummet, with no reduction in the number of accidents....

But that's pure speculation.

What particularly riled me about Dilema's post was attempt to tie-in a criticism of the OP not wanting to be part of "compensation culture" with a reference to those who are seriously injured and require substantial payouts. They are obviously completely different. We do have a "blame/claim" culture here and it has numerous negative effects (i.e. everyone becoming terrified of litigation and insurance premiums for everything rocketing). That's got nothing to do with people who have been seriously injured (who have always been - and should always - be assisted).

Seriously injured or not, victims are entitled to be put in the position as if the accident had not happened. Why should careless road users be protected from compensating victims for their losses

dilemna

bails87 wrote:

Dilemna: I don't think I've misunderstood anything, as I said, it's often necessary, thanks for the input though.

Eke: thanks, I'm probably thinking in the way you describe. I've expect my bike to be repaired, but it's figuring the value, if any, of fairly minor injuries that's tricky. I suppose at the end of the day I suffered pain and inconvenience through absolutely no fault of my own.

It's obviously your call. But if it were me I would claim for my injuries. I don't see damage to property as being any different to damage to your body really, except that obviously it can be extremely painful and of course on occasion serious and ruin your life or sadly be fatal.

All claims, of what ever value, should be truthful. Whether they are actually pursued is up to claimants which is what you as the OP are deciding. To the other posters in particular W1 who seems to think there a large numbers of vexatious claims creating a where there is blame there is claim culture, is I believe wrong. Sure there must be vexatious claims, but it should be up to claimants' solicitors and the defendants to see that claims do not progress or fail. But where claimants have genuinely been injured or suffered loss on the roads they should be entitled to pursue their LEGAL RIGHT for compensation. It is a court that will decide who is liable or not to pay compensation.

Can one can still pervert the course of justice in a civil action by lying or may be this only applies to criminal law? It must have a civil equivalent. Broadly your claim would be fraudulent and you would be in contempt of court. Spen666 will know.

But what you should be aware of Bails is that if your injuries are judged to be worth less than £1000 in compensation then your claim would be heard in the Small Claims Court. Solicitors will generally not take your case on if this is so, as their costs are not recoverable at Small Claims, well only a very small amount, which nowhere near covers their costs to represent you. Likewise the otherside can't usually claim for legal costs but can for expenses if they win. Though if you win, you will be able to claim travel expenses etc. but again no or a paltry amount for any legal repesentation.

If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then go for one of the firms that regularly deal with cycling cases such as the CTC solicitors RJW, or LCC Levenes or BC but don't know who they use or BikeLine - Alyson France Solicitors.

HTH.

W1

spen666 wrote:

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

Read it again spen.

I never even implied that the OP has staged the accident, so how is what I said possibly offensive to anyone other than the scammers who DO stage accidents? I'm certainly not equating the OP with a fraudster. Only you have done that. I was discussing why insurance premiums have gone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8597452.stm
http://tvnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/08 ... -rise.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation. There were up to 30,000 staged accidents in 2009. So it's a real and serious problem, as are the number of vexatious litigants.

And as many PI claims are for minor injuries, the defendant doesn't get it's costs back (small claims track), and therefore it's usually easier to pay than to fight. Ditto the costs of fully investigating the claim. So insurance companies never really know how many fraudulent claims there are, and many of the injuries claimed will have little or no outward signs.That's not to mention the ambulance chasers and cowboys, who know full well that that is the case and often text or call those who have been incolved in accidents to persuade them to cliam. Some of these practices are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.

spen666

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

Read it again spen.

As I never even implied that the OP has staged the accident, how is what I said possibly offensive to anyone other than the scammers who DO stage accidents? I'm certainly not equating the OP with a fraudster. Only you have done that. I was discussing why insurance premiums have gone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8597452.stm

I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation.

And as most PI claims are for minor injuries, the defendant doesn't get it's costs back (small claims track), and therefore it's usually easier to pay than to fight.

I stand by what I posted.

It is offensive to equate by including it in a thread by an accident victim to include the allegations re fraudulent claims. That is a completely different issue and can only be included here to prejudice people's views

It is wholly irrelevant to whether a genuine victim of an accident should make a claim or not

W1

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

Read it again spen.

As I never even implied that the OP has staged the accident, how is what I said possibly offensive to anyone other than the scammers who DO stage accidents? I'm certainly not equating the OP with a fraudster. Only you have done that. I was discussing why insurance premiums have gone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8597452.stm

I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation.

And as most PI claims are for minor injuries, the defendant doesn't get it's costs back (small claims track), and therefore it's usually easier to pay than to fight.

I stand by what I posted.

It is offensive to equate by including it in a thread by an accident victim to include the allegations re fraudulent claims. That is a completely different issue and can only be included here to prejudice people's views

It is wholly irrelevant to whether a genuine victim of an accident should make a claim or not

I've added some mre detail to my post.

We were discussing why premiums have risen so of course it's not offensive in that context, and is completely relevant. it's not relevant to the OP, but at that stage we were discussing the topic more generally, as often happens. You say it's down to bad driving, I say it's down to an increase in PI claims. In fact the accident rate is going DOWN, but the cost of claims is going UP.

spen666

W1 wrote:

.... You say it's down to bad driving, I say it's down to an increase in PI claims. In fact the accident rate is going DOWN, but the cost of claims is going UP.

you are missing the obvious fact that without the bad driving, there would not be an accident and hence no claim and no payout.


Also cost of claims will go up because of inflation

W1

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

.... You say it's down to bad driving, I say it's down to an increase in PI claims. In fact the accident rate is going DOWN, but the cost of claims is going UP.

you are missing the obvious fact that without the bad driving, there would not be an accident and hence no claim and no payout.


Also cost of claims will go up because of inflation

Of course, but the COST of claims are increasing, not the number - and at a far higher rate than inflation.

Last year insurers paid out £1.22 for every £1 they received in car insurance premiums. It's a loss maker at the moment.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Very offensive comments

There is nothing to suggest the OP or anyone else on here advising re making a claim has staged an accident.

Those remarks by you are beneath contempt in trying to equate a genuine accident victim claiming what they are entitled to with someone committing fraud

Read it again spen.

I never even implied that the OP has staged the accident, so how is what I said possibly offensive to anyone other than the scammers who DO stage accidents? I'm certainly not equating the OP with a fraudster. Only you have done that. I was discussing why insurance premiums have gone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8597452.stm
http://tvnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/08 ... -rise.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation. There were up to 30,000 staged accidents in 2009. So it's a real and serious problem, as are the number of vexatious litigants.

And as many PI claims are for minor injuries, the defendant doesn't get it's costs back (small claims track), and therefore it's usually easier to pay than to fight. Ditto the costs of fully investigating the claim. So insurance companies never really know how many fraudulent claims there are, and many of the injuries claimed will have little or no outward signs.That's not to mention the ambulance chasers and cowboys, who know full well that that is the case and often text or call those who have been incolved in accidents to persuade them to cliam. Some of these practices are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.

I'm not sure that involving a solicitor in this case is necessary or not however somehow seeking to tar claims for conmpensation as false and a reason why "no win no fee" should be stopped is completely spurious.

After my accident which was completely the drivers fault (and he admitted fault early on) I didn't know where to turn to get cash for my written off bike and medication. The driver sais that he "could only afford a couple of hundred quid". I turned to RJW and they were brilliant.

As someone pointed out earlier, if I had been driving, the bill to his insurer would have been far higher as there would have been quantifiable costs and bills to pass on. Just because my body rather than a metal vehicle casing, why should I be compensated for someone's idiocy?