Dropped - by Solicitor!

mamba80

My cousin is a retired barrister, she thinks that as the case has been examined by council, you should settle and not pursue it further, its highly unlikely the Solicitor is lying about this and regardless, why would they drop the case if they thought they could win it? doesnt make sense.
she also said that in her opinion, a case can be made that you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes, by being able to cycle and by your FB comment, you clearly not suffering, the damages to your bike are very small.
She also said that you offer to pay a portion of the costs, which you can do without a Solicitor, them seeking costs is perfectly normal, you would if you d have won, they are not a charity.

Your mistake was to carry on cycling or rather record to Strava.

if you want a 2nd opinion, many solicitors will offer 30mins of free advice and a reduced fee for an hours advice but bear in mind even an associate solicitor could be 150 plus vat per hour, far more in london, possibly changed in 6min blocks, even for phone calls, it would be very easy to double your costs and still be no further forward.

so you moved house and could carry boxes etc? you better hope the opposing parties solicitors dont read BR lol!

bendertherobot

mcvw wrote:

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.

Discontinuance requires your consent, did you? By discontinuing you've also now effectively lost the opportunity to pursue your non PI damages.

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

mcvw wrote:

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.

Discontinuance requires your consent, did you? By discontinuing you've also now effectively lost the opportunity to pursue your non PI damages.

Yes, I agreed to discontinuation of the case - and again as per the solicitors recommendation.

I know I've been royally f*cked over by the solicitor. A solicitor who evidently doesn't have any backbone or morality - which is pure class considering their tag line is that, "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. We have over 12 years’ experience in recovering the maximum compensation for cyclists who may have been knocked off their bike or hit by a car. We understand what matters to you when you have an accident, because it would matter to us too."

They are complete c*nts - and I hate dropping the c-bomb - but feel that it's 100% apt in their case.

mcvw

mamba80 wrote:

My cousin is a retired barrister, she thinks that as the case has been examined by council, you should settle and not pursue it further, its highly unlikely the Solicitor is lying about this and regardless, why would they drop the case if they thought they could win it? doesnt make sense.
she also said that in her opinion, a case can be made that you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes, by being able to cycle and by your FB comment, you clearly not suffering, the damages to your bike are very small.
She also said that you offer to pay a portion of the costs, which you can do without a Solicitor, them seeking costs is perfectly normal, you would if you d have won, they are not a charity.

Your mistake was to carry on cycling or rather record to Strava.

if you want a 2nd opinion, many solicitors will offer 30mins of free advice and a reduced fee for an hours advice but bear in mind even an associate solicitor could be 150 plus vat per hour, far more in london, possibly changed in 6min blocks, even for phone calls, it would be very easy to double your costs and still be no further forward.

so you moved house and could carry boxes etc? you better hope the opposing parties solicitors dont read BR lol!

I cannot settle as the case was discontinued.
I was not pulling any wool over any ones eyes.
The FB comment was 9months AFTER the accident.
Agreed the damages were small, and the injuries weren't serious. But it would've been a very different story had a car been coming in the other direction at the time of the accident. This was my reason for pursuing the claim - as I have children who cycle, and the driver should be brought to bear for his actions.
I don't agree that I should pay any costs. The case was no-win-no-fee, and although there are caveats to this, I do not feel that my solicitor supported me, and as originally stated they ran for the hills at the first opportunity.

Thank you for you comments though.

Bobbinogs

mamba80 wrote:

...
Your mistake was to carry on cycling or rather record to Strava.
...

Not sure about that. The main problem appears to be that the OP cannot prove the accident caused specific injuries rather than the ongoing debilitating impact of the injuries themselves. Hence, if the OP has some objective evidence, such as A&E records or GP appointments then that would help the case. Photos of injuries with timestamps would also help the OP's claim. Without any of that, it is a case of trying to use a medical report, usually produced after a review 6-8 weeks later.

It is possible to win a claim despite being able to get out and ride the very same day but one needs to show that an accident clearly caused some injury or had some tangible impact to life (even in the short-term).

pblakeney

mcvw wrote:

Yes, I agreed to discontinuation of the case - and again as per the solicitors recommendation.

I know I've been royally f*cked over by the solicitor. A solicitor who evidently doesn't have any backbone or morality - which is pure class considering their tag line is that, "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. We have over 12 years’ experience in recovering the maximum compensation for cyclists who may have been knocked off their bike or hit by a car. We understand what matters to you when you have an accident, because it would matter to us too."

They are complete c*nts - and I hate dropping the c-bomb - but feel that it's 100% apt in their case.

In summary.
It is your opinion the Bott & Co are complete c*nts.

ugo.santalucia

mcvw wrote:

The FB comment was 9months AFTER the accident.
Agreed the damages were small, and the injuries weren't serious. But it would've been a very different story had a car been coming in the other direction at the time of the accident. This was my reason for pursuing the claim - as I have children who cycle, and the driver should be brought to bear for his actions..

You can't win a case based on conditionals... you were not seriously injured, as the doctor said... you were nonetheless offered a grand in compensation for small injuriy... I think it was very fair, considering the injury did not cost you 1000 pounds and you were still getting on with your life as normal.

You were led to believe you could get more, you believed it, then the solicitor realised actually you were not that hurt and maybe you had misled them and they dropped the case...

At any point you could have walked out with decent compensation, but you took a gamble, knowing it was "free money"... you lost the gamble, not sure how the blame is to be split between you and your solicitors to be honest

bendertherobot

mcvw wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My cousin is a retired barrister, she thinks that as the case has been examined by council, you should settle and not pursue it further, its highly unlikely the Solicitor is lying about this and regardless, why would they drop the case if they thought they could win it? doesnt make sense.
she also said that in her opinion, a case can be made that you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes, by being able to cycle and by your FB comment, you clearly not suffering, the damages to your bike are very small.
She also said that you offer to pay a portion of the costs, which you can do without a Solicitor, them seeking costs is perfectly normal, you would if you d have won, they are not a charity.

Your mistake was to carry on cycling or rather record to Strava.

if you want a 2nd opinion, many solicitors will offer 30mins of free advice and a reduced fee for an hours advice but bear in mind even an associate solicitor could be 150 plus vat per hour, far more in london, possibly changed in 6min blocks, even for phone calls, it would be very easy to double your costs and still be no further forward.

so you moved house and could carry boxes etc? you better hope the opposing parties solicitors dont read BR lol!

I cannot settle as the case was discontinued.
I was not pulling any wool over any ones eyes.
The FB comment was 9months AFTER the accident.
Agreed the damages were small, and the injuries weren't serious. But it would've been a very different story had a car been coming in the other direction at the time of the accident. This was my reason for pursuing the claim - as I have children who cycle, and the driver should be brought to bear for his actions.
I don't agree that I should pay any costs. The case was no-win-no-fee, and although there are caveats to this, I do not feel that my solicitor supported me, and as originally stated they ran for the hills at the first opportunity.

Thank you for you comments though.

Oh, that's not good. The advice to discontinue would have come with a very big health warning that, if you did, and without seeking agreement as to costs from the other side, that CPR 38.6 is operative and you become liable for the other side's costs. At this point, even if I'd had concerns about your case, I'd have been trying to get the other side to accept an offer (with your consent) that they would not pursue you for costs in the event that you discontinued. In addition, they've also discontinued your damage claim.

bendertherobot

ugo.santalucia wrote:

mcvw wrote:

The FB comment was 9months AFTER the accident.
Agreed the damages were small, and the injuries weren't serious. But it would've been a very different story had a car been coming in the other direction at the time of the accident. This was my reason for pursuing the claim - as I have children who cycle, and the driver should be brought to bear for his actions..

You can't win a case based on conditionals... you were not seriously injured, as the doctor said... you were nonetheless offered a grand in compensation for small injuriy... I think it was very fair, considering the injury did not cost you 1000 pounds and you were still getting on with your life as normal.

You were led to believe you could get more, you believed it, then the solicitor realised actually you were not that hurt and maybe you had misled them and they dropped the case...

At any point you could have walked out with decent compensation, but you took a gamble, knowing it was "free money"... you lost the gamble, not sure how the blame is to be split between you and your solicitors to be honest

Injuries aren't based on cost. Cost determines past and future losses and expenses. Injury value is determined by reference to the JC Guidelines and case law. If he's been advised to reject the offer that will have been on the solicitors valuation of his injury by reference to those.

fenix

I don't see that the OP misled the solicitor.

In my experience the solicitors push you to get higher compensation so they get higher fees. He's just done what they advised.

The doctor examined him and found some injuries. I think its just that the opposition are a lot tougher than normal and investigating things pretty full on here. God knows what the answer is.

OP do you have household insurance or a bank account that offers free legal help ?

mcvw

Fenix wrote:

I don't see that the OP misled the solicitor.

In my experience the solicitors push you to get higher compensation so they get higher fees. He's just done what they advised.

The doctor examined him and found some injuries. I think its just that the opposition are a lot tougher than normal and investigating things pretty full on here. God knows what the answer is.

OP do you have household insurance or a bank account that offers free legal help ?

I don't believe any of my other insurances (car, household etc) would be applicable in this case

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

mcvw wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My cousin is a retired barrister, she thinks that as the case has been examined by council, you should settle and not pursue it further, its highly unlikely the Solicitor is lying about this and regardless, why would they drop the case if they thought they could win it? doesnt make sense.
she also said that in her opinion, a case can be made that you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes, by being able to cycle and by your FB comment, you clearly not suffering, the damages to your bike are very small.
She also said that you offer to pay a portion of the costs, which you can do without a Solicitor, them seeking costs is perfectly normal, you would if you d have won, they are not a charity.

Your mistake was to carry on cycling or rather record to Strava.

if you want a 2nd opinion, many solicitors will offer 30mins of free advice and a reduced fee for an hours advice but bear in mind even an associate solicitor could be 150 plus vat per hour, far more in london, possibly changed in 6min blocks, even for phone calls, it would be very easy to double your costs and still be no further forward.

so you moved house and could carry boxes etc? you better hope the opposing parties solicitors dont read BR lol!

I cannot settle as the case was discontinued.
I was not pulling any wool over any ones eyes.
The FB comment was 9months AFTER the accident.
Agreed the damages were small, and the injuries weren't serious. But it would've been a very different story had a car been coming in the other direction at the time of the accident. This was my reason for pursuing the claim - as I have children who cycle, and the driver should be brought to bear for his actions.
I don't agree that I should pay any costs. The case was no-win-no-fee, and although there are caveats to this, I do not feel that my solicitor supported me, and as originally stated they ran for the hills at the first opportunity.

Thank you for you comments though.

Oh, that's not good. The advice to discontinue would have come with a very big health warning that, if you did, and without seeking agreement as to costs from the other side, that CPR 38.6 is operative and you become liable for the other side's costs. At this point, even if I'd had concerns about your case, I'd have been trying to get the other side to accept an offer (with your consent) that they would not pursue you for costs in the event that you discontinued. In addition, they've also discontinued your damage claim.

When discontinuation was recommended as the course of action, the solicitor stated that their own costs would waived, and they alluded to the fact that it would be very rare should the TP would take any further action.

cougie

Did they mention you taking out insurances as part of your claim ? I know my wife was advised to take it out with her claim when her car was hit.

bendertherobot

Cougie, the ATE insurance policy is designed to cover that, but has been voided due to the alleged misconduct.

OP that discontinuance is poor. I'd have rung up and sought that assurance or made a Part 36 offer. Leaving you with that risk, while it might not be avoidable, is poorly thought out.

mamba80

Fenix wrote:

I don't see that the OP misled the solicitor.

In my experience the solicitors push you to get higher compensation so they get higher fees. He's just done what they advised.

The doctor examined him and found some injuries. I think its just that the opposition are a lot tougher than normal and investigating things pretty full on here. God knows what the answer is.

OP do you have household insurance or a bank account that offers free legal help ?

that maybe but the fact is he hasnt really got much in the way of injuries and would have known this, i mean, if you go lumping boxes around and record to strava, exactly what is wrong with you?
Pursuing a claim on the grounds of what might have happened is just silly, it didnt.

in my cousins opinion, which he sounds like he is dismissing, so no surprise he is in the shitte, is he should cut his costs IF he has no means of funding a solicitor.

Council have given their opinion too, of course he could represent himself but as i was once heard, anyone who does so has a fool for a client.

bendertherobot

mamba80 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

I don't see that the OP misled the solicitor.

In my experience the solicitors push you to get higher compensation so they get higher fees. He's just done what they advised.

The doctor examined him and found some injuries. I think its just that the opposition are a lot tougher than normal and investigating things pretty full on here. God knows what the answer is.

OP do you have household insurance or a bank account that offers free legal help ?

that maybe but the fact is he hasnt really got much in the way of injuries and would have known this, i mean, if you go lumping boxes around and record to strava, exactly what is wrong with you?
Pursuing a claim on the grounds of what might have happened is just silly, it didnt.

in my cousins opinion, which he sounds like he is dismissing, so no surprise he is in the shitte, is he should cut his costs IF he has no means of funding a solicitor.

Council have given their opinion too, of course he could represent himself but as i was once heard, anyone who does so has a fool for a client.

The OP isn't a solicitor or a medical professional. He had an accident which was his fault and made a claim. He received advice throughout about the nature of that claim. He didn't mislead anyone. He took that advice. The value of his injuries is determined by that medical opinion. Could he have been more open about his activities? Well that depends on his knowledge and experience, what's he supposed to do other than show up for an exam and answer all the questions?

cld531c

As the OP knew he didnt really have any injuries I dont understand why he rejected the offers pre-medical.
Whilst I accept the solicitor advised the offers should be rejected, if the offer had been £100,000 would the OP have followed their advice to reject?
I would have been happy that any damage had been paid for and I was quids in.
The fact the driver stopped and his insurance had to deal with the claim would hopefully be enough to make him look out in future. The driver is not affected any more if the insurers pay out £1 or £1million so I cant see any reason for the OP not accepting the offer other than he was hoping for a bigger windfall.

bendertherobot

cld531c wrote:

As the OP knew he didnt really have any injuries I dont understand why he rejected the offers pre-medical.
Whilst I accept the solicitor advised the offers should be rejected, if the offer had been £100,000 would the OP have followed their advice to reject?
I would have been happy that any damage had been paid for and I was quids in.
The fact the driver stopped and his insurance had to deal with the claim would hopefully be enough to make him look out in future. The driver is not affected any more if the insurers pay out £1 or £1million so I cant see any reason for the OP not accepting the offer other than he was hoping for a bigger windfall.

The OP was advised to reject on the basis of the solicitor's valuation of the injury and damage.

if the offer had been £100k then they'd be writing and asking why the offer exceeded their valuation by such a massive amount and questioning why such an error had been made.

kingstongraham

cld531c wrote:

...The fact the driver stopped...

Read the OP again. The driver stopped, said "I didn't see you" and drove off.

fenix

cld531c wrote:

As the OP knew he didnt really have any injuries I dont understand why he rejected the offers pre-medical.
Whilst I accept the solicitor advised the offers should be rejected,

If you're in this situation you will be guided by the solicitor. They're the ones that do this day in, day out. Hopefully for the OP this is a once in a lifetime experience. The OP isnt a doctor - he doesn't know what long term damage there might have been - he's listening to the doctor and the solicitor.

Maybe if the OP can show that his strava performances were down in activity and intensity on what he was doing before he may be able to bolster his case ? Cyclists aren;t normal people. We carry on doing stuff as best we can. THe average joe takes no exercise - so any exercise taken after the accident will look odd to the solicitor. I know my wifes solicitor had a fit as she did a race a few weeks after her accident. A race abroad that she'd paid and trained months for. Didnt enter her head not to do it.

cld531c

"The OP was advised to reject on the basis of the solicitor's valuation of the injury and damage."QUOTE

"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)." QUOTE FROM OP

No serious injuries, minor damage to bike and Garmin, but most importantly the driver needed to be taught a lesson by the OP is what this says to me. You cant claim for what ifs. Society is litigious enough as it is without adding in what COULD have happened.
I have no doubt the solicitor thought the OP 'deserved' more than an offer of £1600+ but did the OP really think they did? I personally think the offer was fair.
However, I do feel for the OP that they are potentially lumbered with costs. I would go and see another solicitor ASAP if I was in that situation but expect to either 1. start the whole thing again from scratch or 2. pay the solicitor to (hopefully) reduce their exposure.

cld531c

KingstonGraham wrote:

cld531c wrote:

...The fact the driver stopped...

Read the OP again. The driver stopped,

said "I didn't see you" and drove off.

ie stopped

kingstongraham

cld531c wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

cld531c wrote:

...The fact the driver stopped...

Read the OP again. The driver stopped,

said "I didn't see you" and drove off.

ie stopped

I don't think we're either of us helping here.

cld531c

"The OP was advised to reject on the basis of the solicitor's valuation of the injury and damage. "

At this stage there had been no doctors report so what injuries was the lawyer valuing?

if the offer had been £100k then they'd be writing and asking why the offer exceeded their valuation by such a massive amount and questioning why such an error had been made.[/quote]

My point is that unfortunately in cases like this people get greedy. This whole claim cluture has led to laws being changed.
I have sympathies for the OP, but cannot comprehend why they rejected the offer, irrespective of the solicitors recommendation. In that situation I would have taken the cash and walked away.

thomasmorris

mcvw wrote:

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.

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

Not sure why you or other posters are saying your solicitor told to not accept these offers based on the valuation.

What your solicitor is saying, is that without a medical examination, he cannot recommend you accept any offer, as he doesn't know the extent of your injuries. He says this is standard advice for his practice. For all your solicitor knows you could have had medical examination and it said you had some major issue from which you would never fully recover etc..

However, you did know the extent of your injuries, and 1650 for a sprained wrist is pretty good.

You then had the medical examination and it showed you had some minor injuries and distress which would heal in time. So it seems the other parties 'blind' offer pre-medical examination was quite generous.

Unfortunately, the other side then did some digging on social media and have found some evidence which seems to suggest some of the injuries might be pre-existing and that your life hasn't been affected.

In the end, compensation isn't a punishment of the other party for their actions or what could have happened, its about putting you straight for any loss.

The only place I feel you may have been treated unfairly is in the dishonesty claim by your solicitor. It doesn't sound as you've deliberately gone out of your way to tell them lies. The social media posts don't look good though. The problem is, whilst you haven't told them any lies, you have failed to disclose information which seems to devalue your loss;
- I sprained my wrist and it hurt for a while (but I was back on my bike competing on the track within days).
- I have some other niggles with my knee and neck (but I also have a long standing knee injury which also cause me pain in my knee anyway).
You probably will have signed an agreement with the solicitor where you promise to divulge all information important to the claim. So, it's not just the doctor / solicitors responsibility to ask you, but you to tell them extra details.

ugo.santalucia

thomasmorris wrote:

mcvw wrote:

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.

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

Not sure why you or other posters are saying your solicitor told to not accept these offers based on the valuation.

What your solicitor is saying, is that without a medical examination, he cannot recommend you accept any offer, as he doesn't know the extent of your injuries. He says this is standard advice for his practice. For all your solicitor knows you could have had medical examination and it said you had some major issue from which you would never fully recover etc..

However, you did know the extent of your injuries, and 1650 for a sprained wrist is pretty good.

You then had the medical examination and it showed you had some minor injuries and distress which would heal in time. So it seems the other parties 'blind' offer pre-medical examination was quite generous.

Unfortunately, the other side then did some digging on social media and have found some evidence which seems to suggest some of the injuries might be pre-existing and that your life hasn't been affected.

In the end, compensation isn't a punishment of the other party for their actions or what could have happened, its about putting you straight for any loss.

The only place I feel you may have been treated unfairly is in the dishonesty claim by your solicitor. It doesn't sound as you've deliberately gone out of your way to tell them lies. The social media posts don't look good though. The problem is, whilst you haven't told them any lies, you have failed to disclose information which seems to devalue your loss;
- I sprained my wrist and it hurt for a while (but I was back on my bike competing on the track within days).
- I have some other niggles with my knee and neck (but I also have a long standing knee injury which also cause me pain in my knee anyway).
You probably will have signed an agreement with the solicitor where you promise to divulge all information important to the claim. So, it's not just the doctor / solicitors responsibility to ask you, but you to tell them extra details.

Great post, finally some clarity!

bendertherobot

thomasmorris wrote:

mcvw wrote:

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.

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

Not sure why you or other posters are saying your solicitor told to not accept these offers based on the valuation.

What your solicitor is saying, is that without a medical examination, he cannot recommend you accept any offer, as he doesn't know the extent of your injuries. He says this is standard advice for his practice. For all your solicitor knows you could have had medical examination and it said you had some major issue from which you would never fully recover etc..

However, you did know the extent of your injuries, and 1650 for a sprained wrist is pretty good.

You then had the medical examination and it showed you had some minor injuries and distress which would heal in time. So it seems the other parties 'blind' offer pre-medical examination was quite generous.

Unfortunately, the other side then did some digging on social media and have found some evidence which seems to suggest some of the injuries might be pre-existing and that your life hasn't been affected.

In the end, compensation isn't a punishment of the other party for their actions or what could have happened, its about putting you straight for any loss.

The only place I feel you may have been treated unfairly is in the dishonesty claim by your solicitor. It doesn't sound as you've deliberately gone out of your way to tell them lies. The social media posts don't look good though. The problem is, whilst you haven't told them any lies, you have failed to disclose information which seems to devalue your loss;
- I sprained my wrist and it hurt for a while (but I was back on my bike competing on the track within days).
- I have some other niggles with my knee and neck (but I also have a long standing knee injury which also cause me pain in my knee anyway).
You probably will have signed an agreement with the solicitor where you promise to divulge all information important to the claim. So, it's not just the doctor / solicitors responsibility to ask you, but you to tell them extra details.

There's a bit missing there and, if I trawl through the above, it's probably there somewhere. The offer(s) were withdrawn on issue (as I recall, without reading back through the thread). Issue cannot take place without a medical report, so at that point the solicitors had seemingly determined that it was worth more than the offer made. In addition, it appears the offer is not £1650. It's almost certainly more than £1k for PSLA and some more for losses. But, yes, it's still quite generous for the injuries described.

OP, timeline again, two offers, one of X one of Y, when your solicitor issued proceedings, at what stage did the second increased offer get withdrawn? I didn't spot that earlier, these are pre medical report offers. Not uncommon, views on whether to accept them can differ.

thomasmorris

^ I may have missed that. But from the quoted text it looks like the solicitor receives two offers from the insurer, both before medical, which the solicitor passes on the OP. The solicitor says he can't recommend the OP takes any offer until he has seen a medical report, because he cannot know the true extent of the injuries.

The OP then instructs the solicitor to reject both offers.

bendertherobot

thomasmorris wrote:

^ I may have missed that. But from the quoted text it looks like the solicitor receives two offers from the insurer, both before medical, which the solicitor passes on the OP. The solicitor says he can't recommend the OP takes any offer until he has seen a medical report, because he cannot know the true extent of the injuries.

The OP then instructs the solicitor to reject both offers.

It's not clear, hopefully the OP will clarify. It's not unusual to see such offers. They're designed to stop a claim. Some sols will be cautious, others not so. It is, of course, entirely possible in theory for sols to value such claims. Indeed, the RTA protocol for low value claims says as much. What's unclear is what they valued it at once they got a medical and whether, as they should have done, any P36 offers were made.

apreading

The bit I dont get is where the OP's solicitor made a settlement offer to the other party after the medical report but before court proceedings? Did that happen and the other party declined the offer and refused to make a counter-offer? How much did your solicitor offer to settle for? It shouldnt have gone straight to court without this part of the process surely?