Dropped - by Solicitor!

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

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?

Yes, that info is missing, along with whether ADR was attempted and what triggered the decision to issue (which is a last resort).

thomasmorris

I don't think a S36 offer was ever made, as it seems the 3rd party did their homework and found evidence that contradicted the doctors assessment (that he was back on his bike competing within days and had pre-existing injuries elsewhere). The before it went to court issued this evidence to the OPs solicitor. The OPs solicitor then got a barrister to review and dropped it as the social media evidence seems to suggest OP was dishonest in his doctors assessment.

It seems that the OP didn't set out to mislead to the doctor, but if the the OP had fully told the doctor that he had an existing injury in his knee, and the wrist gave him pain, but he was back on the bike in days, would the doctor have come to the same conclusions?

It would have been better for the OP to get the doctor to note his historic knee injury, and make specific reference to how the symptoms to his injury as a result of the crash were not related (if that were the case).

I do feel for the OP here though. I can imagine myself forgetting to mention every previous injury I've had and if they re-occur, and what symptoms they have. Equally, I have ridden through injuries also, which didn't make them any less painful or disruptive to my life. But, the fact he didn't disclose this information and then the 3rd party drags them up from social media doesn't look good.

wolfsbane2k

Wow, this is quite the worrying thread. It's also reminded me that I'm at 2 years and 1 month from my collision, and that I've not heard anything for over 6 months, and I need to chase it now before I hit the 3 year mark! I caused a stink around the medical exam and report due to pre-existing conditions, and this reminds me why I needed to.

I really hope you get this sorted, sounds like you've been guided by your solicitor to trust them, and then they've pulled away from you and left you in the muck because of they advice they gave you to cover their own backside on the dismissal of the case, your now in the muck.

bendertherobot

thomasmorris wrote:

I don't think a S36 offer was ever made, as it seems the 3rd party did their homework and found evidence that contradicted the doctors assessment (that he was back on his bike competing within days and had pre-existing injuries elsewhere). The before it went to court issued this evidence to the OPs solicitor. The OPs solicitor then got a barrister to review and dropped it as the social media evidence seems to suggest OP was dishonest in his doctors assessment.

It seems that the OP didn't set out to mislead to the doctor, but if the the OP had fully told the doctor that he had an existing injury in his knee, and the wrist gave him pain, but he was back on the bike in days, would the doctor have come to the same conclusions?

It would have been better for the OP to get the doctor to note his historic knee injury, and make specific reference to how the symptoms to his injury as a result of the crash were not related (if that were the case).

I do feel for the OP here though. I can imagine myself forgetting to mention every previous injury I've had and if they re-occur, and what symptoms they have. Equally, I have ridden through injuries also, which didn't make them any less painful or disruptive to my life. But, the fact he didn't disclose this information and then the 3rd party drags them up from social media doesn't look good.

That doesn't quite add up though. Given the costs risk, it would be sensible to ensure that the case was good before issuing. The report would have been disclosed before proceedings and, given the value, should be a joint instruction. So it's odd that proceedings were issued given a benchmark against which to judge the defendant's position. At the least I'd have gone back and said, would you be amenable to re making the previous offer or, at least, putting that offer as your own P36 offer.

But, I concur, even as a lawyer, with those injuries, I'd be out there, getting on with it.

Also, OP, is your existing knee injury in any medical records, anywhere?

apreading

I also dont get that the OP says they were only doing this to tech the driver a lesson. Thing is they wont be involved after the initial admission surely? All they stand to lose is their excess so they will suffer no more from a big payout than they would from the initial offer. Its the insurance company being punished for any larger claim.

And surely the court would take a dim view of such a low value claim being brought to them without attempt to settle first? Surely the court papers would have to document attempts to reach resolution had failed, hence the court filing. There seems to be a piece of the jigsaw missing here, which should have happened before barristers even looked at it?

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

I also dont get that the OP says they were only doing this to tech the driver a lesson. Thing is they wont be involved after the initial admission surely? All they stand to lose is their excess so they will suffer no more from a big payout than they would from the initial offer. Its the insurance company being punished for any larger claim.

And surely the court would take a dim view of such a low value claim being brought to them without attempt to settle first? Surely the court papers would have to document attempts to reach resolution had failed, hence the court filing. There seems to be a piece of the jigsaw missing here, which should have happened before barristers even looked at it?

Barristers shouldn't look at it at all really, I took that to be in relation to the allegations of fraud. For a low value case this would never get near Counsel otherwise.

apreading

By the way BTR - you gave me some cracking advice with my own case and whilst this didnt affect how my solicitor acted or the final outcome, it gave me a better understanding of what was going on and what to hope for. Much appreciated. I am hopefully, literally a day or two from the whole thing being finished now. Just waiting on the cheque before I can put it behind me and get on with life. A life that is forever slightly changed but now doesnt impact too much on the every day...

bendertherobot

Tidy! It's a bit of a minefield to be honest, no lawyers act entirely alike.

OP, another thought crossed my mind, is this a case being conducted in line with the pre action protocol for low value PI claims in road traffic accidents?

apreading

bendertherobot wrote:

Barristers shouldn't look at it at all really, I took that to be in relation to the allegations of fraud. For a low value case this would never get near Counsel otherwise.

Ah - I think I get it now. The OP's solicitors hadnt filed court papers - they sent the medical report to the other party and THEY filed court papers about fraud? Or they responded with allegations about fraud and the OP's solicitor took them to a barrister for advice?

Makes a little more sense now - I was really confused for a while!

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Barristers shouldn't look at it at all really, I took that to be in relation to the allegations of fraud. For a low value case this would never get near Counsel otherwise.

Ah - I think I get it now. The OP's solicitors hadnt filed court papers - they sent the medical report to the other party and THEY filed court papers about fraud? Or they responded with allegations about fraud and the OP's solicitor took them to a barrister for advice?

Makes a little more sense now - I was really confused for a while!

No, what appears to have happened, and it is unclear is:

Accident
Instructs
Initial correspondence
2 x offers from other side
Can't advise
Obtains medical report
Sends medical report
Issues proceedings
Other side investigate, bring up allegation, Counsel advises on that
Bad news
Discontinuance

Because he discontinued the other side is entitled to costs as if he has lost.

apreading

OK - that was my initial thought. If thats the case though, how do you file for court proceedings without saying you have tried to resolve first? Especially for such a low value claim. Surely the court would throw it out as its wasting their time and tell the parties to go settle?

bendertherobot

apreading wrote:

OK - that was my initial thought. If thats the case though, how do you file for court proceedings without saying you have tried to resolve first? Especially for such a low value claim. Surely the court would throw it out as its wasting their time and tell the parties to go settle?

You need to try alternative dispute resolution, but it's not specified what type or how hard, so picking up the phone and having a conversation is enough. It also only comes back to bite you if you unreasonably refused to consider/use it.

What concerns me a bit is that this is likely to be an RTA low value claim, so there should be a claimant's offer and a defendant's counter offer. That either lapsed or was withdrawn and it's not clear whether the claim continued under the protocol or exited. There are different rules accordingly. There are also provisions where a claim which was initially thought to be over £1k can be changed to be under £1k with less costs going to the Claimant.

Because, we have to remember, even if we take his recovery to be swift, they are still liable, there was still damage, there was still injury.

cld531c

I suspect the barristers opinion was for the insurers purposes. Presumably they had given a say 70% chance of success which then dropped dramatically with the social media evidence presented.

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

I don't think a S36 offer was ever made, as it seems the 3rd party did their homework and found evidence that contradicted the doctors assessment (that he was back on his bike competing within days and had pre-existing injuries elsewhere). The before it went to court issued this evidence to the OPs solicitor. The OPs solicitor then got a barrister to review and dropped it as the social media evidence seems to suggest OP was dishonest in his doctors assessment.

It seems that the OP didn't set out to mislead to the doctor, but if the the OP had fully told the doctor that he had an existing injury in his knee, and the wrist gave him pain, but he was back on the bike in days, would the doctor have come to the same conclusions?

It would have been better for the OP to get the doctor to note his historic knee injury, and make specific reference to how the symptoms to his injury as a result of the crash were not related (if that were the case).

I do feel for the OP here though. I can imagine myself forgetting to mention every previous injury I've had and if they re-occur, and what symptoms they have. Equally, I have ridden through injuries also, which didn't make them any less painful or disruptive to my life. But, the fact he didn't disclose this information and then the 3rd party drags them up from social media doesn't look good.

That doesn't quite add up though. Given the costs risk, it would be sensible to ensure that the case was good before issuing. The report would have been disclosed before proceedings and, given the value, should be a joint instruction. So it's odd that proceedings were issued given a benchmark against which to judge the defendant's position. At the least I'd have gone back and said, would you be amenable to re making the previous offer or, at least, putting that offer as your own P36 offer.

But, I concur, even as a lawyer, with those injuries, I'd be out there, getting on with it.

Also, OP, is your existing knee injury in any medical records, anywhere?

Hi, sorry for delay in responses. Been a long, busy day at work (after a very quiet morning).

The knee injury is very likely to be in my medical records as I would have seen my GP in order to be referred to physio (standard practice).

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

apreading wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Barristers shouldn't look at it at all really, I took that to be in relation to the allegations of fraud. For a low value case this would never get near Counsel otherwise.

Ah - I think I get it now. The OP's solicitors hadnt filed court papers - they sent the medical report to the other party and THEY filed court papers about fraud? Or they responded with allegations about fraud and the OP's solicitor took them to a barrister for advice?

Makes a little more sense now - I was really confused for a while!

No, what appears to have happened, and it is unclear is:

Accident
Instructs
Initial correspondence
2 x offers from other side
Can't advise
Obtains medical report
Sends medical report
Issues proceedings
Other side investigate, bring up allegation, Counsel advises on that
Bad news
Discontinuance

Because he discontinued the other side is entitled to costs as if he has lost.

That is pretty much bang on - add in multiple conversations with solicitor regarding clarification, answering questions, providing witness statement, providing follow up to witness statement, requesting confirmation of FD/causation/no-win-no-fee, run-down of court proceedings (on the day) etc etc

mcvw

bendertherobot wrote:

Tidy! It's a bit of a minefield to be honest, no lawyers act entirely alike.

OP, another thought crossed my mind, is this a case being conducted in line with the pre action protocol for low value PI claims in road traffic accidents?

I think it was under the low value PI - as I was told (at the time of discontinuation) that without the PI they would not have taken the claim on.

mcvw

To provide a very brief update on proceedings...

I was contacted mid afternoon today by a senior representative from the firm of solicitors - during which a discovery was made, facts were confirmed, grievances aired and suggestions offered.

I am awaiting a follow up response tomorrow - as today was actually the final day that my solicitor (who I discovered was still on record for myself, despite me being told they would no longer represent me further) had the opportunity to respond to the TP's hearing/cost requests.

Once I know more information I will post an update.

Thank you for all your comments and words - they have (all) helped immensely.

wolfsbane2k

Well, that's good to hear, I feel. I wonder if someone found the name of the company being mentioned in this forum!
Hope you get a decent response tomorrow.

bendertherobot

mcvw wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Tidy! It's a bit of a minefield to be honest, no lawyers act entirely alike.

OP, another thought crossed my mind, is this a case being conducted in line with the pre action protocol for low value PI claims in road traffic accidents?

I think it was under the low value PI - as I was told (at the time of discontinuation) that without the PI they would not have taken the claim on.

Good to see there's some progress. There should be an offer/valuation in the stage 2 settlement pack. Did they ever send a copy to you?

vpnikolov

Now that I am reading this I am glad I disclosed a previous injury in the location that I got injured when a car pulled out in front of me last month.

But I am not chasing for personal injury as it was a bruise on the inside of my knee. Although it went through every colour of the rainbow, it did not affect my ability to cycle. I just hope I will be able to get money for the damaged equipment - destroyed front wheel, ripped bar tape and damaged saddle.

Good luck with all this, OP. I hope you will be able to sort it out.

kingrollo

I trained as a union rep many years ago. One piece of advice I have always adhered to is never to underrate the offer on the table - and settle out of court if you can. The courts are very hit and miss.
Some years later I was being maneuvered out of my job - I did all the legwork myself - I told my employer I was resigning and would pursue the case in court. Pretty quickly I was offered £20k to keep quiet - every legal bod advised I could treble that in court - But i pretty swiftly accepted the offer - and had found another job within a couple of weeks .


When I hear tales like the above - in which the op was encouraged to rejected offers - and his now being shafted for costs - I often think of that manta - 'don't overlook whats on the table'

Feel sure if the OP stands he ground - and argues sensibly - he can get out of those costs

thomasmorris

To be fair to the solicitors, from the text the OP has copied in to this thread, it doesn't look as if they were advising not to settle because he could get more in court, but just that they couldn't advise him to settle before he had had a medical. Which seems far enough, as without a medical report, how would the solicitor know if it was fair offer or not?

dinyull

thomasmorris wrote:

To be fair to the solicitors, from the text the OP has copied in to this thread, it doesn't look as if they were advising not to settle because he could get more in court, but just that they couldn't advise him to settle before he had had a medical. Which seems far enough, as without a medical report, how would the solicitor know if it was fair offer or not?

Agree with this. All well and good accepting the offer, but if the medical threw up something that is going to affect/restrict the OP for the rest of his life then £1500 isn't going to cover it.

I know the chances of this are very small, but you just never know.

bendertherobot

That said, I'd still be interested to say what the OP's sols did value it at come receipt of the report and what they indicated in the settlement pack.

andcp

Apologies for old thread resurrection, but did this get resolved?

shimanobottombracket

Andcp wrote:

Apologies for old thread resurrection, but did this get resolved?

Well considering OP is now in prison (unrelated to this), then no.

fat daddy

ShimanoBottomBracket wrote:

Andcp wrote:

Apologies for old thread resurrection, but did this get resolved?

Well considering OP is now in prison (unrelated to this), then no.

eh ??? .... I missed that page :?

bendertherobot

This simply cannot be left like that

cougie

What you talking about Willis ?

tlw1

ShimanoBottomBracket wrote:

Andcp wrote:

Apologies for old thread resurrection, but did this get resolved?

Well considering OP is now in prison (unrelated to this), then no.