Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Tom Crispin on 3 Jul 2008 22:10 On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:21:50 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> 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. The van was stuck in traffic at red lights. It took the opportunity of no oncoming traffic (due to the lights) to pull out to the right 50m ahead of a loading bay on the right. He must have passed one or two stationary cars before turning into me from behind, his wing mirror clobbering me on the back of the head, and then proceeding to drive over my bike's front wheel. There is little doubt that the driver was 100% to blame for running me over. His only defence is that he was indicating at the time that I passed him and that I was driving [sic] too fast. He was not indicating at the time that I passed him, and my speed was about 12 mph. The simple facts are that he didn't look properly before turning right across two sets of zigzag lines at a pedestrian light crossing, and he did not indicate in any way that I could see, therefore I could not have reasonably predicted the manoeuvre he was about to undertake. For further details see: www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/rundown
From: Paul Boyd on 4 Jul 2008 02:49 Tom Crispin said the following on 03/07/2008 19:28: > Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? > > The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free > settlement is worth �255. Having been through the grief of no-win no-fee cowboys (and they were supposedly on my side and eventually got me 100%!) I would personally say that �255 isn't worth the hassle. If you continue to push, there's the possibility that with a different magistrate you may start going backwards in percentage. Entirely up to you, of course! From what you describe though, I can't see how you can be in any way to blame. -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
From: Brian G on 4 Jul 2008 03:22 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. > > 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%? > > The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free > settlement is worth �255. Crumbs, that's a dilemma alright. I have absolutely no experience of this and consequently no advice worth offering. From the comfort of my chair my instinct says, "Stuff them, why should you admit any liability at all?" OTOH, the thought of being grilled in court is not an inviting one. I guess most of us would cheer aloud if you went the whole hog, but would understand if you ducked the court appearance. -- Brian G www.wetwo.co.uk
From: Tony B on 4 Jul 2008 03:25 Tom Crispin wrote: > 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. which does not mean it will be accepted... it is merely an offer from you to them. However, IME of insurance companies you would be well advised to settle when you are happy with the dosh rather than holding out for �255 worth of personal pride. Those blame apportionments SEEM official etc. but they are just weasel lawyer constructs, based on the judgement of weasels... the actuality of the event is almost unnecessary for the legal record. Don't let it bother you, just take the cash and move on. Otherwise you will be in for a long haul and lots of blood-boiling legalese. T
From: Andy Leighton on 4 Jul 2008 03:34
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:49:41 +0100, Paul Boyd <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Tom Crispin said the following on 03/07/2008 19:28: > >> Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? >> >> The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free >> settlement is worth �255. > > Having been through the grief of no-win no-fee cowboys (and they were > supposedly on my side and eventually got me 100%!) I would personally > say that �255 isn't worth the hassle. But of course that counter-offer may not be accepted. It could be seen as part of the negotiation process. So unless you stick to the 95% of original sum and say that is your final position and you will see them in court if not met it is a bad opening move. Going for the 100% as an initial offer seems to be a no-brainer. The only issues are time and hassle. Firstly it will test the opposition - was their initial offer serious (surely not), will they come back with a more sensible offer or even accept the counter-offer. You can always drop back to a 95% settlement at the next round and make it seem as you are making a concession in order for a quick resolution. PS - I haven't had any experience of any of this. -- Andy Leighton => andyl(a)azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ |