Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Nick Finnigan on 3 Jul 2008 16:16 Tom Crispin wrote: > Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my > bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on > the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow > moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out > into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic. > The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I > had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road > to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me > from behind. > > I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to > the head. > > I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - > meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame > for the accident. I have rejected that offer. > > My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter > offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive > �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. > > Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? Just say no. With that as an initial offer, if you start to bargain they (WVM's insurers?) won't agree to more than 50%.
From: Señor Chris on 3 Jul 2008 16:10 Tom Crispin wrote: > > I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - > meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame > for the accident. I have rejected that offer. Quite right - what grounds do they give for accusing you of 80% liability ? > > My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter > offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive > �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. > > Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? They will just offer to meet you halfway. Stick with 100%.
From: Tom Crispin on 3 Jul 2008 16:35 On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:10:30 +0100, Se�or Chris <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> >> I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >> meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >> for the accident. I have rejected that offer. > >Quite right - what grounds do they give for accusing you of 80% liability ? Powell v Moody (1966) The Court of Appeal held 80% 20% in favour of the party pulling out and stated that "any vehicle jumping a queue of stationary vehicles was undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard and which should be carried out with great care". >> My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >> offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >> �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. >> >> Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? > >They will just offer to meet you halfway. Stick with 100%. I think that the defendant's insurers will see 05% v 95% as a technical offer to save hassle in the belief of a 100% win in court. They may go for it to save costs.
From: Alex Heney on 3 Jul 2008 16:42 On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:28:49 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my >bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on >the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow >moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out >into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic. >The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I >had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road >to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me >from behind. > >I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to >the head. > >I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >for the accident. I have rejected that offer. > >My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >�4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. > >Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? I don't think there is any realistic chance of you getting a 5% offer accepted, never mind 0%. While 80% does seem a bit high, I would be a little surprised if you finally get less than 50% of the liability. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager An oyster is a fish built like a nut. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Marc on 3 Jul 2008 16:45
Tom Crispin wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:10:30 +0100, Se�or Chris <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> > wrote: > >> Tom Crispin wrote: >>> I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >>> meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >>> for the accident. I have rejected that offer. >> Quite right - what grounds do they give for accusing you of 80% liability ? > > Powell v Moody (1966) > > The Court of Appeal held 80% 20% in favour of the party pulling out > and stated that "any vehicle jumping a queue of stationary vehicles > was undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard and which > should be carried out with great care". > >>> My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >>> offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >>> �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. >>> >>> Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? >> They will just offer to meet you halfway. Stick with 100%. > > I think that the defendant's insurers will see 05% v 95% as a > technical offer to save hassle in the belief of a 100% win in court. > They may go for it to save costs. Ask for 95% and then Take the money and run. The other side will never admit to themselves or beleive that they were in the wrong, so you holding out for 100% won't make any difference to them. The driver won't pay , so holding out won't punish him any more. The insurance company won't be bothered either way. If you take the money now it will be settled sooner and you can get on with your life. |