Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Novice on 3 Jul 2008 16:52 Whatever you decide on liability/apportionment, the full liability offer seems very low, these injuries are notoriously problematic. Your evidence may be that you have had a very good outcome but unless you are fully recovered, reconsider the evidence. Have you had a proper expert report? The GP experts commonly involved in small injury claims are well out of their depth with this injury. If not fully recovered what is the long term prognosis? I would be very troubled that your no win no fee solicitors want to argue about liability but not quantum. With a legitimate claim like this you may need to go to a forum like David Swarbrick's http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/.
From: Phil Armstrong on 3 Jul 2008 16:44 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > 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%. Quite. Basic bargaining: anything you come in with first they're going to try to bargain you down from on the grounds that it's your initial position & not your final one. In general, never start the bargaining process with your final position, unless you're not intending to bargain. In which case make a single, final offer, with 'see in you court' on the back if they don't take it. But you have to be prepared to follow through. I bet you'll get a much better offer from them on the court steps if your barrister thinks you have a 70% chance of 100% success. Phil -- http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
From: Señor Chris on 3 Jul 2008 17:22 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". LOL. You'd think pulling out across several lanes of traffic without indicating would be considered slightly more hazardous. > >>> 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. A token 1% may be more convincing.
From: Peter Fox on 3 Jul 2008 18:41 My 2p. Dismiss the talk of liability : Demand 100% liability. (Ask the simple question of them : "In what particular way were you at fault? As they can't start to make a valid case and you can defend easily against any spurious bluster you have this base covered.) AND _more money in general damages_. (ie don't get distracted by %ages) Your barrister is saying (as far as possible) you have a cast-iron case. Good luck. Don't give up on the final straight you have everything in your favour. Either you'll get a cheque for 100% by return of post or an expensive(for them) day in court and educational day for you. Remember that it isn't inconceivable that you'll be helping others out with their court cases in future - so this could be an hour or two well spent. IANAL -- Peter (Prof) Fox Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at <http://vulpeculox.net> 2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex 01376 517206
From: R. Mark Clayton on 3 Jul 2008 19:21
"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message news:j44q641dmj09d1q9fg4cmk4197vfi2dpmd(a)4ax.com... > 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. Former sound bad (dislocation?) the latter not. > > 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. If this is a first offer reject it firmly, if not gently. > > 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. Overtook a slowing van; silly of him, pretty silly of you. > > Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? Counter offer (perhap vaguely) via solicitors, > > The no win - no fee barrister says the following (highlights only): This is your problem, you can't rely on their advice, as they are interested [only] in their fees. SNIP i detailed circ's. Once you get here you are playing poker. The problem you have is that your 'contingent' solicitors are playing for themselves and the other side know it. |