Dropped - by Solicitor!

mcvw

Hi,

Has anybody else here had an accident/injury claim discontinued literally days before it was due to go to court?

In summary. Last July (after I returned from completing Le Etape) I was clipped by a car that pulled out in front of me. The front offside of the car impacted with my left wrist and left side around the knee/left chain stay and pushed me across the other side of the road, up a grass verge and into a hedeg/fence (where I came to a halt). I managed to stay on my bike - which sustained damage to the rear wheel and additionally my garmin was knocked off and the screen was cracked (so it's no longer waterproof). I shouted all manner of abuse at the driver (a young male) as they didn't stop. They did pull over about 30m up the road, where the driver wound his window down, said "I'm sorry, I didn't see you" and then drove off. Luckily I got the registration and reported this to the police - who eventually decided not to do anything.

It was on the basis that had a car been coming the other way when the accident happened - I would most likely be dead, or have serious injuries - that I decided to pursue a claim (and also to claim for damages to my bike and garmin).

After literally a year of to-ing and fro-ing, the solicitor (cough!) who was representing me - who quote "100% NO WIN NO FEE - Our No Win No Fee Promise means you'll never be at financial risk." and "We Get It, We’re Cyclists Too. With our very own cycle team, you can have total confidence in us to understand road use from a cyclist’s point of view." - advised me to discontinue the claim as barristers on their behalf who had reviewed the case said there was not at least a 51% chance of success.

This is despite the fact that the other party had admitted liability to the accident and their solicitor had made two pre-court offers - which I was advised to reject and continue with the process.

Since the recommendation to discontinue the claim, the other party has since filed to reclaim their costs (upwards of £5000, of which they will accept £2500 before the hearing) and my solicitor is not interested in continuing on my behalf.

The reasons the solicitor has dropped me are based upon the term 'fundamental dishonesty'. They have effectively said that I have lied to them (which I haven't in any way) and therefore they can no longer represent me. Their case for 'causation' is from the result of a medical exam - which I never wanted, but went along with on their recommendation - where the doctor examining me observed issues concerning my neck, and left knee. At the time of the accident I only had pains/issue with my left wrist, but as the doctor said these injuries could be as a result of the accident I agreed with the examination and continued with the process.

As I only felt wrist pain when bearing load/weight I was easily able to complete a track session (at Herne Hill) just over a week after the accident. And also due to the training I had put in for the Etape I was in pretty good shape, and wasn't going to let a badly sprained wrist stop me from cycling - though I was somewhat nervous at cycling with traffic so only went out on quiet roads at less busy times.

Being a regular cyclist I log my rides on Strava, and this has proved to be an additional act against me. The third party hired an investigator who found my Strava account and used my activities to claim I was fraudulent. Not only that, they also identified a post from my Facebook account where in March 2017 (almost 9months after the accident) I had to cut a ride short due to knee pain (on my left knee, which I casually remarked as "possibly due to an old football injury ITB" (which occurred in 2012!!).

So, with the activities, and an injury from 5years ago they went to my solicitor and said "Your client is a fraud". As a result they shat their pants and came up the the BS that no barrister would take on my case and told me to discontinue.

Throughout the process there was never any mention that a barrister may have the final review/say as to whether my case would be successful, and neither was there any doubt that my claim was fraudulent.

I was advised of the "causation/fundamental dishonesty" possibility, but again - never was my solicitor in any doubt that this would happen.

So... I am now, totally shell-shocked, and sh1tting myself that I may be faced with a bill for £5000! I have contacted the solicitor and begun a formal complaint, but they've as good as told me "to go whistle".

I will be contacting Citizens Advice, and also The Law Society, but can anybody advise what I should do next?

Thank you,


Mike

gethinceri

Are you a member of British Cycling? My own claim has thus far been handled impeccably.
If you are, contact them.

mcvw

Unfortunately I'm not a member of BC. I was planning to join late last year (and begin 4th cat racing) however life events took priority (family/job/house move) and I'm no longer in a position to race and didn't join/get licence etc...

cooldad

You should probably consult a real solicitor. One that actually charges fees.

kingrollo

Bad shit.
Seems they did fancy there chances and have opted out - possibly leaving you to foot the bill.
I would suggest you were promised no win - no fee - and there actions would suggest that they have back tracked on this - as you are potentially landed with a fee.
Hope it works out for you.

mcvw

Yep, not once did they say - or indicate to me - that the other party's "causation" claim was a worry to them. What they did say is that they believed the other party were effectively "trying it on" and attempting to exploit a legal loophole.

cougie

Surely you have a claim for the damage to kit and bike anyway. They seem keen to take away any long term damage compensation though. How much was the solicitor advising you to go for ?

bendertherobot

Timeline's a bit screwy but I'll try and do a fuller response tomorrow.

What did the original medical report say? What were your original injuries as a result of the accident?

mcvw

They wouldn't continue with kit claim without the injury claim.

The kit claim was for a replacement Garmin 800 and repairs to my bike (frame inspection + retrue wheel).

The initial injury from the accident was wrist pain - although I did feel some neck/elbow pain afterwards.

The medical report observed neck and knee (not full range of movement.

andyh01

I'm not a lawyer but work within insurance, from what op has said this be my understanding;

Assuming the previous offers weren't "Part 36 offers" where if the out of court settlement figure isn't accepted and goes to court, you as claimant have to successfully win substantially more then what was offered otherwise you lose (to save courts been clogged up over small monetary disputes) and as a No win, no fee - to you, personally as a claimant, this is because as part of the contract, you or the solicitor, would be covered by an "before the event" insurance policy, this is where you need the chance of success to be more than 51%, (as insurance has claims have to be fortuitous - happening by chance - you can, however, also have an "After the event policy" which, for obvious reasons, is more expensive, then BTE), that would cover the TP legal fees, if you lose your case and have to pay the defendants legal costs.

If a claim is fundamentally fraudulent/dishonest then the guilty party forfeits their entire claim (even if some valid parts would have been recoverable to act as a deterrent) and this could invalidate the BTE insurance policy (if you had one) hence why OP been threated with the TP legal bill, which should otherwise be covered under the BTE policy.
Maybe worth asking the question, who's name the BTE policy was in yours or your solicitors and if in OPs name, whether this has been voided due to fraud/dishonesty or misrepresentation? If in Solicitors name, and you gave them all relevant info but they didn't disclose or misrepresented the facts - then that's down to them.

Questions I can think of to ask as we don't have the full facts and therefore is difficult to make any worthwhile comment, for instance are off top of my head and I don't mean to be rude or questioning the OPs authenticity;

At the medical, part of questions would have been about health prior to the accident, how did you respond? Did you discuss your "pre existing" injury to the knee, or had you forgotten about it? - it sounds from your description they were aware and therefore you had given full disclosure.
Had you exaggerated about the extent of psychological impact, such as too afraid to ride a bike ever again?
Prior to any reports being submitted, you would have had a copy of the medical report, that you would have signed to effectively agree to the content, did you read them and agree that the facts were indeed true to the best of your understanding etc? If so, do you still stand by that given the allegations made by the TP?

You seem to suggest you only wanted to claim for injury to left wrist, which was sprained? Again did the report elude to the fact this would temporarily stop you from riding, were you advised not to ride for a period of time?
Does the Starve data back up your comments about riding at quieter time and on different quieter routes then previous?

The damage being claimed for rear wheel - is it for a repair or replacement, are you claiming that the bike isn't ride-able in it's current condition or have you already replaced/repaired the wheel or was you "riding" a different bike?

Being "fundamentally" dishonest/fraudulent in insurance has the affect of voidance ie so bad it goes to the root/heart of the contract, however, in your case as described, the TP has admitted liability that is to say at least, an incident has taken place, not as though you totally made it up or induced the accident yourself. It appears to be more a question of exaggerating the extent and impact of injury/damage. Some exaggeration may be acceptable particularly value of damaged property as expect to be negotiated down (say 10% tolerance) How much was the specified heads of claim for vs the settlement offer that was rejected? Was it miles away or close...?

I'd be interested to hear back to see if another solicitor will take the case and perhaps sue the previous ones for negligence, if they don't help sort out the TP claim, as surly they're joint tortfeasor, as they pursued the case on your behalf and if you were indeed upfront with them and they were aware of the possibility of the counter claim for dishonesty at the beginning when they took out the BTE insurance policy to cover the legal costs if they lost....

Only you will really know if you have been honest and upfront, in which case you should be able to contest the TP counter-claim, by challenging them on the impact - have you ever said you couldn't ride again short or long term, that the neck and leg COULD HAVE and not AS A DIRECT RESULT caused by this accident and that you never said the bike couldn't be ridden and that you have changed your behaviour as a result of the accident...

If the insurance policy to cover the legal costs was indeed a before the event, at the time of that policy being taken out the chance of success would have been over 51%, otherwise they wouldn't of represented you in the first instance, so even if went to court now and you lost and the insurance is valid and in place, it won't cost you or your solicitor anything should you lose.

FishFish

You are also in the sht because the information that you have made a fraudulent claim will be shared with insurance companies - car, house, giraffe. Your lawyer or representative has let you down badly because YOU have let them.

pblakeney

Anyone reading this and not joining or remaining at BC (or equivalent) is a mug.

bendertherobot

mcvw wrote:

They wouldn't continue with kit claim without the injury claim.

The kit claim was for a replacement Garmin 800 and repairs to my bike (frame inspection + retrue wheel).

The initial injury from the accident was wrist pain - although I did feel some neck/elbow pain afterwards.

The medical report observed neck and knee (not full range of movement.

Sorry, you injured your wrist as a result of the accident but the medical report doesn't deal with the wrist, but does deal with neck and knee? Which were not injured as a result of the accident?

cougie

Well the neck wasn't impacted but he was shoved across the other side of the road. Can you get whiplash on a bike ,?

mcvw

I'll have to re-read the medical report. But yes, the wrist was my initial pain at the time of the accident.

And as I said I continued my activities - though adjusted them. I did notice my knee/neck whilst playing football - after the accident.

The medical took place some weeks after the accident and it was the doctor who identified them. I told him where the collision impacted me I.e left side/wrist/leg etc.

I'll respond to the previous (long post) shortly.

ugo.santalucia

Minimal damage, minimal compensation... they probably thought it wasn't worth their time after all. They should have told you from the start, it was stupid of them to take the case in the first place.

If there is no injury, involving the justice system seems a total waste of time to be honest.

I am also not quite sure where the 5 grand figure comes in... you said you had a damaged wheel and a broken Garmin... does that amount to 5 grand?

mcvw

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Minimal damage, minimal compensation... they probably thought it wasn't worth their time after all. They should have told you from the start, it was stupid of them to take the case in the first place.

If there is no injury, involving the justice system seems a total waste of time to be honest.

I am also not quite sure where the 5 grand figure comes in... you said you had a damaged wheel and a broken Garmin... does that amount to 5 grand?

The £5000+ figure is what the third party have stated as their total costs - they detail their full costs in a long document sent to myself a week or so ago. In the same correspondence they have requested a pre-hearing settlement of £2500.

bendertherobot

mcvw wrote:

I'll have to re-read the medical report. But yes, the wrist was my initial pain at the time of the accident.

And as I said I continued my activities - though adjusted them. I did notice my knee/neck whilst playing football - after the accident.

The medical took place some weeks after the accident and it was the doctor who identified them. I told him where the collision impacted me I.e left side/wrist/leg etc.

I'll respond to the previous (long post) shortly.

Ok. The medical goes to the heart of the matter here. I assume, given how most initial contacts work, you contacted, or they contacted you, and said, I've had an accident. You described what happened and, it seems, that is not in dispute. Hence them admitting liability.

At some point, in those initial conversations, they asked how were you injured. You said something about what happened and described what your injury was. An instruction was then made to an orthapaedic surgeon to prepare a report. That's required for these cases whether you want it or not. That report will have been disclosed to the other side and, on the basis of that report, offers were made.

What did you say to the Doctor? Did he ask you what injuries you suffered? How you were affected? How did the subject of matters other than your wrist come up? Was he suggesting ways in which you may also have been injured? How did that conversation, when he suggested that the injuries might be attributable come up? Did you tell him that you'd had any injuries in that respect before?

Also, prior to disclosing that report, you'll have been asked to read it and consent to its disclosure, unless it's a joint medical report. What did you think when you read it? Did you raise any issues? Did you clarify anything?

As I said last night, the timeline seems a bit weird. You've got two offers, the latter of which, I assume, is made in relation to a counter offer from your solicitor. The latter is also rejected. All of those offers should be post medical report so, I assume, the investigative work into you happened after you rejected the last offers.

So, the big questions here are what did you think when you 'signed off' on the medical report? Did you raise any concerns with your solicitor?

Finally, if you don't mind me asking, what does your sol say this case is worth because, I have to say, I can't actually determine what your injuries are.

andyh01

Agreed bendertherobot.
Doh just wrote another long piece but lost it.
I don't believe it will affect main classes of insurance eg car/house as nbot on cue check database as no veh reg and as far as op concerned no policies have been cancelled or voided.

It may be worth obtaining another medical report/x-ray so they can be compared and hopefully the second x-ray/report will show some improvement to the areas that were affected, neck/knee which will demonstrate those areas were indeed temporary bruised/swollen/injured, regardless of any prior existing injuries as will give a baseline of your normal movement if you are now as fully recovered for you as you can be.

How far adrift were the offers and counter offers, as this can also be detrimental to you if close to your settlement pack but you rejected are we talking hundreds or thousands even if not a part 36 offer.

Some interesting reading on Financial ombudsman website albeit employee ;

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p ... cident.htm

"We will look at the circumstances of each individual case to decide how far we think the accident contributed to the death or bodily injury that is being claimed for. So we will consider whether the accident alone would have resulted in the death or bodily injury.

We are unlikely to decide that it is reasonable for a business to totally avoid liability for a claim just because there were contributory causes in addition to the accident. But we might not uphold a complaint if we do not think that the accident was a significant contributing factor."
"If we think it is more likely than not that the accident was a contributing factor to the death or bodily injury – even if it was one of many factors – we might tell the business to pay part of the claim"

mcvw

AndyH01 wrote:

I'm not a lawyer but work within insurance, from what op has said this be my understanding;

Assuming the previous offers weren't "Part 36 offers" where if the out of court settlement figure isn't accepted and goes to court, you as claimant have to successfully win substantially more then what was offered otherwise you lose (to save courts been clogged up over small monetary disputes) and as a No win, no fee - to you, personally as a claimant, this is because as part of the contract, you or the solicitor, would be covered by an "before the event" insurance policy, this is where you need the chance of success to be more than 51%, (as insurance has claims have to be fortuitous - happening by chance - you can, however, also have an "After the event policy" which, for obvious reasons, is more expensive, then BTE), that would cover the TP legal fees, if you lose your case and have to pay the defendants legal costs.

On 11th August 2016 my solicitor advised me of a pre-medical offer of £1450 - it doesn't say if it was a 'part 36'. My solicitor also states the following in his correspondance:
My best advice is that this offer is rejected. However you are entitle to accept this offer if you so wish. It is against my advice and that of Bott & Co to accept any offer before medical evidence is sought.

I rejected the offer - as advised - and my solicitor contacted the third party saying that medical examination would take place.

On the 19th August my solicitor advised of a further offer (below):
I have received a response from the third party insurer in respect of your claim.

They have made an improved offer of £1650.00 in respect of your entire claim.

If this offer is accepted, then after deductions in respect of the success fee at 25% and the ATE at £164.25, you would receive £1073.25 in full and final settlement of your claim.

As previously explained in our recent phone calls, I cannot recommended acceptance of any offer without medical evidence. I do not know the extent of your injuries and cannot provide any advice on the same.

However, you are free to accept this offer, as long as you are aware it is against my best advice. We have previously discussed the consequences of accepting at this stage, in respect of ongoing symptoms that you will not be able to address at a later date once the claim has settled.

I do believe this is the best offer the third party insurer will make without medical evidence.

AndyH01 wrote:

If a claim is fundamentally fraudulent/dishonest then the guilty party forfeits their entire claim (even if some valid parts would have been recoverable to act as a deterrent) and this could invalidate the BTE insurance policy (if you had one) hence why OP been threated with the TP legal bill, which should otherwise be covered under the BTE policy.
Maybe worth asking the question, who's name the BTE policy was in yours or your solicitors and if in OPs name, whether this has been voided due to fraud/dishonesty or misrepresentation? If in Solicitors name, and you gave them all relevant info but they didn't disclose or misrepresented the facts - then that's down to them.

I didn't have BTE policy. I did have an ATE - see below

We are currently carrying out enquires as to the potential existence of Before the Event legal
expense insurance, but in the meantime, we have taken out After The Event legal expense
insurance on your behalf. Please find enclosed policy documents and may we refer you to the
terms of this policy also enclosed.
The cost of the insurance policy is £164.25 including IPT and unfortunately, due to recent
legislative changes, this premium is not something that can be recovered from the defendant and
will therefore be deducted from the final damages recovered on your behalf.
If your claim is unsuccessful the premium is self-insured and there will therefore be no liability to
you.

AndyH01 wrote:

Questions I can think of to ask as we don't have the full facts and therefore is difficult to make any worthwhile comment, for instance are off top of my head and I don't mean to be rude or questioning the OPs authenticity;

At the medical, part of questions would have been about health prior to the accident, how did you respond? Did you discuss your "pre existing" injury to the knee, or had you forgotten about it? - it sounds from your description they were aware and therefore you had given full disclosure.
Had you exaggerated about the extent of psychological impact, such as too afraid to ride a bike ever again?
Prior to any reports being submitted, you would have had a copy of the medical report, that you would have signed to effectively agree to the content, did you read them and agree that the facts were indeed true to the best of your understanding etc? If so, do you still stand by that given the allegations made by the TP?

I didn't mention my knee injury as to be perfectly honest it didn't even cross my mind. The knee injury was very mild and resulted in a couple of three physio sessions. Considering the nature of this injury - and when it occurred I wouldn't even class it as pre-existing condition. I only went to physio because I had company health cover at the time.

During the medical the doctor asked me about any 'mental' side affects i.e. loss of sleep, being afraid to ride etc. I said that I was initially wary riding in traffic - hence why I adjusted my riding pattern/locations.

AndyH01 wrote:

You seem to suggest you only wanted to claim for injury to left wrist, which was sprained? Again did the report elude to the fact this would temporarily stop you from riding, were you advised not to ride for a period of time?
Does the Starve data back up your comments about riding at quieter time and on different quieter routes then previous?

No, I wasn't advised not to ride. My susbequent Strava activities would show that I cycled at Herne Hill (closed track session), and then local routes (37k, 34k, 50k) one on saturday afternoon, others weekday evenings after 7:30pm. All these activities were not on borrowed bikes as my bike was away being inspected/repaired.

AndyH01 wrote:

The damage being claimed for rear wheel - is it for a repair or replacement, are you claiming that the bike isn't ride-able in it's current condition or have you already replaced/repaired the wheel or was you "riding" a different bike?

The rear wheel was repairable (and done so), and the frame was inspected (at Surrey Carbon). I have ridden the bike twice at most since the accident.

AndyH01 wrote:

Being "fundamentally" dishonest/fraudulent in insurance has the affect of voidance ie so bad it goes to the root/heart of the contract, however, in your case as described, the TP has admitted liability that is to say at least, an incident has taken place, not as though you totally made it up or induced the accident yourself. It appears to be more a question of exaggerating the extent and impact of injury/damage. Some exaggeration may be acceptable particularly value of damaged property as expect to be negotiated down (say 10% tolerance) How much was the specified heads of claim for vs the settlement offer that was rejected? Was it miles away or close...?

The values of the claims are above.

AndyH01 wrote:

I'd be interested to hear back to see if another solicitor will take the case and perhaps sue the previous ones for negligence, if they don't help sort out the TP claim, as surly they're joint tortfeasor, as they pursued the case on your behalf and if you were indeed upfront with them and they were aware of the possibility of the counter claim for dishonesty at the beginning when they took out the BTE insurance policy to cover the legal costs if they lost....

No idea...

AndyH01 wrote:

Only you will really know if you have been honest and upfront, in which case you should be able to contest the TP counter-claim, by challenging them on the impact - have you ever said you couldn't ride again short or long term, that the neck and leg COULD HAVE and not AS A DIRECT RESULT caused by this accident and that you never said the bike couldn't be ridden and that you have changed your behaviour as a result of the accident...

From the medical examination...
8.3 Musculoskeletal Examination
8.3.1 Neck
Left rotation and left lateral flexion of the neck were 90% of normal and
appeared to cause discomfort.
Forward flexion, extension, right rotation and right lateral flexion of the neck
were normal but appeared to cause discomfort.
There was soft tissue tenderness.
There was trapezius muscle tenderness on the left side.
There was no clinical evidence of any neurovascular deficit.
8.3.2 Upper Limbs
Left wrist movement was 90% of normal and appeared to cause discomfort. Left wrist examination revealed no swelling or deformity. There was tenderness
over the ulna border. There was pain upon putting weight through wrist
Mr Michael Walden Medical Report - August 2016 Page 5 of 10
extension.
There was no evidence of ligamentous instability.
8.3.3 Lower Limbs
Left knee movement was 90% of normal and appeared to cause discomfort. Left knee examination revealed no swelling or deformity. There was tenderness.
There was no clinical evidence of any neurovascular deficit

9.0 CAUSATION AND REASONABLENESS
My report is a true reflection of history as narrated to me by Mr Walden. Mr Walden's injuries and re

10.0 OPINION AND PROGNOSIS
Taking into account, the circumstances of the incident, the injuries sustained
and their progress, the claimant’s reported injuries and my examination
findings, the claimant’s age and past medical history, treatment received and to
be received, I summarise the injuries and prognosis as follows:
Fear of travel
The fear of travel problem is solely attributable to the index accident. For this
symptom no additional treatment is required. In my opinion this symptom is due
to psychological trauma. I anticipate this symptom will fully resolve 5 months
from the date of the accident. Perseverance of travelling will improve self
confidence in travelling and hence will also help him with his psychological
recovery.
In my opinion, he does not need psychotherapy and should improve with
perseverance and encouragement.
Pain to the left knee
Mr Michael Walden Medical Report - August 2016 Page 6 of 10
The left knee pain is solely attributable to the index accident. I recommend
referral to a physiotherapist. In my opinion 10 sessions are appropriate. This
symptom is due to soft tissue injury. I anticipate this symptom will fully resolve 4
months from the date of the accident.
Pain and stiffness to the left wrist
The left wrist pain and stiffness is solely attributable to the index accident. I
recommend referral to a physiotherapist. In my opinion 10 sessions are
appropriate. This symptom is due to soft tissue injury. I anticipate this symptom
will fully resolve 3 months from the date of the accident.
Pain and stiffness to the neck
The neck pain and stiffness is solely attributable to the index accident. I
recommend referral to a physiotherapist. In my opinion 10 sessions are
appropriate. This symptom is due to soft tissue injury. I anticipate this symptom
will fully resolve 7 months from the date of the accident.
Should the treating physiotherapist feel his injuries are not improving despite
treatment then an orthopaedic opinion should be sought sooner prior to the
prognostic periods expiring.
If the claimant does not recover within the anticipated time scale then I
recommend referral to an orthopaedic surgeon/clinical psychologist for a further
examination and to determine the prognosis.
In my opinion, the claimant will have no long term deformity or problem due to
this accident.

AndyH01 wrote:

If the insurance policy to cover the legal costs was indeed a before the event, at the time of that policy being taken out the chance of success would have been over 51%, otherwise they wouldn't of represented you in the first instance, so even if went to court now and you lost and the insurance is valid and in place, it won't cost you or your solicitor anything should you lose.

No idea...

ugo.santalucia

Not quite sure why you wanted to go to court when the medical report clearly states

"the claimant will have no long term deformity or problem due to
this accident."

I would have taken the offer and put a lid on it... doesn't seem to be worth the bother

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Not quite sure why you wanted to go to court when the medical report clearly states

"the claimant will have no long term deformity or problem due to
this accident."

I would have taken the offer and put a lid on it... doesn't seem to be worth the bother

If someone drives into you, disappears from the scene and leaves you with 7 months of discomfort, it's worth pursuing them for compensation, I reckon.

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

If someone drives into you, disappears from the scene and leaves you with 7 months of discomfort, it's worth pursuing them for compensation, I reckon.

These things are never hassle free, as the OP is experiencing. It's a balancing act to see if what you get is worth the hassle. When we sold a flat, we should have sued the freeholder for a couple of thousand pounds they pocketed unlawfully, but when you look at the hassle involved and the fct that you are actually not 100% sure you will ever see the money, it worked out to be not worth bothering.

bendertherobot

OP, what's the breakdown of their offer? I assume some is damage to bike etc and some PSLA (pain, suffering and loss of amenity). Are your injuries valued at less than £1000?

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

OP, what's the breakdown of their offer? I assume some is damage to bike etc and some PSLA (pain, suffering and loss of amenity). Are your injuries valued at less than £1000?

Both offers from the TP were withdrawn once the court proceedings began.

The only detail I had from my solicitor regarding the offer was as follows:

We wish to offer your client the global sum of £1650.00. This is for all heads of claim excluding vehicle damage, hire and excess. We trust you will take your client's instructions on our offer, which will remain open for 21 days from the date of this letter after which time it will be withdrawn. Should this be accepted we agree to pay Stage 1 and Stage 2 costs as outlined in the recent MOJ reforms.

My claim for equipment/repair costs were: bike/frame inspection (£80), wheel repairs (£80) and replacement Garmin (£300?) so in all less than £500

bendertherobot

Issuing proceedings requires a medical report. So, before issuing those proceedings what final meetings did you have with your solicitor?

I have to say, I don't think, in the absence of any breaks, the other side's offers were too far out. How long did you suffer for?

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

Issuing proceedings requires a medical report. So, before issuing those proceedings what final meetings did you have with your solicitor?

I have to say, I don't think, in the absence of any breaks, the other side's offers were too far out. How long did you suffer for?

I discussed the offer with my solicitor and they recommended that I shouldn't accept any offer prior to a medical report - which I underwent on their advice.

At the time of the accident I was in the middle of packing and moving house - and the wrist injury actually did hamper my ability to carry large heavy boxes/furniture etc. So the wrist pain probably lasted longer than if it had been totally rested.

Bizarrely I do have a degree of elbow pain (left side) which may have been caused by the accident - I've not had any accident/fall/injury to this area before or after - so I cannot attribute as to what this pain is attributable to.

Bobbinogs

bendertherobot wrote:

...

I have to say, I don't think, in the absence of any breaks, the other side's offers were too far out...

I would agree with this, about £1,200 for the injury (including compensation for impact) is probably about right but on the low side. Standard practice would be to reject the first offer and then think very carefully about the second. There is always a good chance that offers will be withdrawn after the second attempt at settlement only for both sides to then go into a "Who blinks first" game with court proceedings as the final stage.

The problem with "No win, no fee" assistance is that it will never be in the claimant's interests, instead always skewed to the solicitors since they are the ones with the risk.

OP, as above, either spend £500 getting a decent solicitor to have a quick review of the case or just let it go and settle. You gambled by not accepting the offers, I think that, at the moment, you have lost. Bear in mind if you continue to fight you may need to stick more money in and take on more risk. It sucks.

ugo.santalucia

Bobbinogs wrote:

Bear in mind if you continue to fight you may need to stick more money in and take on more risk. It sucks.

THIS!

Also, I don't think the level of risk is worth taking... if you were in for a 5 figure compensation, then maybe, but you are not, so pointless to waste your precious time on this planet arguing on breadcrumbs

bendertherobot

Ok, there's no getting away from what is, is what is.

There are potentially two or three routes.

The first is to attempt to progress your claim, that will defeat theirs. The second is to attempt to progress your claim in the hope of discontinuing it to get them to discontinue their claim for costs. The third, IF they go for it, is to protest your innocence and ask them to forego their costs claim (with your foregoing your claim). That's risky as well, if they smell blood. Remember that part of your claim is true (the damage to property).

Both will require you convincing your solicitor that you've done nothing wrong. TBH, on the basis of what you've posted, it's just the standard story of going along with what a Doctor tells you. Why should you know any different.

There are issues. Your explanation about load bearing is fair enough. If you have core strength, you don't really need wrists. But that was probably unwise and, if not fraudulent, does tend to mean the claim is less valuable. The cycling comment 9 months later is problematic and much will depend on what you said to the Dr.

My view would be to use their complaints procedure to point out a) the reasons for your comments and your track session and b) the fact that the Dr failed to properly question you at all. Indeed, should they accept this, your Dr should be asked to provide a full report based on that new information. Though, it seems, he may well decide to ascribe other events to your injuries rather than the index event.

It's difficult to comment about the conduct of the case, from their perspective, but, if you're not glossing over anything, then it doesn't sound particularly well explained.

Another thing to enquire is what has been pleaded on the particulars of claim. IF the value of the claim for PSLA is pleaded as being LESS than £1000 then small claims costs apply and, that's good for you, bad for your solicitor. I have a bad feeling that this will have been pleaded at more than £1000 for PSLA putting it into the fast track and making you liable for costs. In addition, do you know whether a defence has been filed and if they admitted liability with damages to be assessed?

mcvw

There is no claim. It was discontinued by my solicitor after the TP challenged the injuries using evidence from both my strava and social media accounts.

The TP has applied to the court for a hearing where they seek reimbursement of their costs.

My solicitor has said they won't continue to represent me on the grounds that they say the strava and social media evidence is 'new' and therefore voids my claim.

As such no defense - to my knowledge - has been filed. I do not even know if a date has been set for the requested hearing, and considering the position taken by my solicitor I do not know how I would be notified of any hearing.

I have begun a formal complaint with the solicitor but I do not know whether that will cover the issue regarding the TP seeking costs.

I do feel I was somewhat led by the doctor during the examination, and if there's any blame then I accept responsibility for not fully understanding the nature of the wording in the medical report.

I appreciate opinions saying that I've lost, and should pay up - but I'm not in a position to covet those costs - nor do I think I should pay them when i was acting upon my solicitors recommendations.