Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Colin McKenzie on 4 Jul 2008 04:31 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. No experience, but a couple of thoughts: 1. As others have said, a counter offer means you're haggling, and the end result is going to be a long way from your first offer. 2. If something similar happened again, I could see the fact that you voluntarily accepted partial liability this time might count against you - "Mr Crispin has a record of reckless cycling." 3. If you think you can prove to the court that you were hit from behind (not the side), I think they will have to find that you were not at fault. If you can't prove this, I think you'll have trouble. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
From: Rob Morley on 4 Jul 2008 04:56 On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:31:28 +0100 Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > 3. If you think you can prove to the court that you were hit from > behind (not the side), I think they will have to find that you were > not at fault. If you can't prove this, I think you'll have trouble. > I disagree - if the van sideswiped him it's just as much the driver's fault. Even if the van had indicated in plenty of time and Tom had run into the side of him it would have been 50% the driver's fault for pulling out without making proper rear observation.
From: Colin McKenzie on 4 Jul 2008 05:33 Rob Morley wrote: > Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: >>3. If you think you can prove to the court that you were hit from >>behind (not the side), I think they will have to find that you were >>not at fault. If you can't prove this, I think you'll have trouble. > > I disagree - if the van sideswiped him it's just as much the driver's > fault. In reality yes - but not in terms of what a court is likely to accept. They are likely to confuse it with your second sentence below, and find Tom partly responsible. > Even if the van had indicated in plenty of time and Tom had run > into the side of him it would have been 50% the driver's fault for > pulling out without making proper rear observation. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
From: Rob Morley on 4 Jul 2008 05:47 On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:33:50 +0100 Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > Rob Morley wrote: > > Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > >>3. If you think you can prove to the court that you were hit from > >>behind (not the side), I think they will have to find that you were > >>not at fault. If you can't prove this, I think you'll have trouble. > > > > I disagree - if the van sideswiped him it's just as much the > > driver's fault. > > In reality yes - but not in terms of what a court is likely to > accept. They are likely to confuse it with your second sentence > below, and find Tom partly responsible. > > > Even if the van had indicated in plenty of time and Tom had run > > into the side of him it would have been 50% the driver's fault for > > pulling out without making proper rear observation. > So claim £10k and accept 50% if it's offered. :-)
From: Alan Braggins on 4 Jul 2008 06:33
In article <slrng6rkjh.7h3.andyl(a)azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton wrote: >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. On the one hand Andy's argument makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand if you can't trust your solicitors to be better informed about what is likely to work than a bunch of Usenet posters, maybe you should be looking for different solicitors. On the gripping hand, if the solicitors think it's a choice between 95% without hassle now or 100% eventually after hassle only you can decide how much hassle your pride is worth. |