Talk about brass neck...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Not Responding said:

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

The most worrying piece of insurance company malarky I saw was some years ago when a friend was hit
by an idiot turning left in front of her bike. At the time she was living in a university shared
flat, and the loss adjustor (or somesuch) proposed to visit her at 10am on a weekday to `discuss'
the claim she was making (and, if memory serves, the counter claim made by the aforementioned
idiot). In the end my father went along. At the end of the meeting, a reasonable settlement was
made, quite out of line with the offers on the table up to that point.

I have a nasty suspicion that they intended to bludgeon an unrepresented 19 year old woman, and were
surprised when a competent negotiator turned up.

ian

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

I've got a photo of her car and the only discernable damage was a cracked number plate. So I'm
curious as to what damages she might have suffered. The trauma of seeing a bleeding unconcious
bloke lying in the rain under her car for half an hour, perhaps?

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to
'give it a year or so'. And it was utterly, utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest opinion.
She drove into me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

Pretty much standard fare for a no win no fee solicitor - all letters are the same.

Do you have any independent witnesses?

Surely if you were "under her car" so to speak, she mustve been moving.

I hate no win no fee solicitors - remind me why insurance premiums are on the rise??

Quoted message said:

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

Sadly, it sounds like standard solicitor bullying/delaying making a settlement tactics. Insurance
companies do it too. People who do such things, who are *supposed* to be acting in a professional
manner, yet are acting like invertibrate lifeforms who live in excrement, should be put up against a
wall, shot, and the bodies disposed of :-Þ

Not that I have any opinion on such solicitors at all....

Best of luck in sorting the thing out.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to
'give it a year or so'. And it was utterly, utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest opinion.
She drove into me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

You definately don't want to deal with this alone. Make sure you counterclaim straight away using a
cycle friendly solicitor if possible.

If you can't use your arm you could get a few thousand in compensation for your injuries, (plus the
cost of bike damage/loss of earnings/cost of alternative transport etc etc etc)

"Lee" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pretty much standard fare for a no win no fee solicitor - all letters are the same.

Do you have any independent witnesses?

Surely if you were "under her car" so to speak, she mustve been moving.

I hate no win no fee solicitors - remind me why insurance premiums are on the rise??

That wasn't a no-win no-fee solicitor talking, it was the other side's insurers. If they do defend
the case, it'll be using solicitors/barristers that they will pay for. I hope Not-responding has
engaged solicitors to help him with his side of the case, if necessary on a no-win no-fee basis
(although clearly claiming on legal expenses cover, if available, is the better option), as insurers
will always try harder to put one over on unrepresented claimants and don't risk their own costs
rising if they do. Not-respondings' injury is certainly serious enough that it merits professional
legal assistance.

Rich

"Richard Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That wasn't a no-win no-fee solicitor talking, it was the other side's insurers. If they do defend
the case, it'll be using

solicitors/barristers

Quoted message said:

that they will pay for. I hope Not-responding has engaged solicitors to help him with his side of
the case, if necessary on a no-win no-fee basis (although clearly claiming on legal expenses
cover, if available, is the better option), as insurers will always try harder to put one over on
unrepresented claimants and don't risk their own costs rising if they do. Not-respondings' injury
is certainly serious enough that it merits professional legal assistance.

Rich

No, it was a solicitor PROBABLY acting on behalf of her insurers. It isnt clear - seems to me the
solicitor is pushing the injury to driver question which wouldnt be covered by her motor insurance
in any case.

However it will be interesting to see how it ends, i reckon, if [not responding] fights his/her
corner then it will go away, but you gotta fight a bit

Just a thought...

If the solicitor is based in England or Wales, he/she is bound by the Law Society's rules of
professional conduct.

You can access the detailed rules online via

guide-on-line.lawsociety.org.ukguide-on-line.lawsociety.org.ukOpen ↗

See

"17.01 Fairness

Solicitors must not act, whether in their professional capacity or otherwise, towards anyone in a
way which is fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to their position as solicitors. Nor must
solicitors use their position as solicitors to take unfair advantage either for themselves or
another person."

Perhaps the bit where it says solicitors must not use their position to get unfair advantage could
be of use. Perhaps it could be argued that the bully-boy tactics are in contravention of the rules
of professional conduct.

I deal with solicitors on a fairly regular basis for clients in relatin to mortgages and I have to
say, I don't hold too many of the ones I've come across with a great deal of respect, based on what
I see them do and don't do.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

Reply from your legal representative (yourself) saying that the client was very upset by these
allegations and shall be seeking extra damages as a result.

Jon

"Lee" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Richard Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That wasn't a no-win no-fee solicitor talking, it was the other side's insurers. If they do
defend the case, it'll be using

solicitors/barristers

Quoted message said:

that they will pay for. I hope Not-responding has engaged solicitors to help him with his side
of the case, if necessary on a no-win no-fee

basis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(although clearly claiming on legal expenses cover, if available, is the better option), as
insurers will always try harder to put one over on unrepresented claimants and don't risk their
own costs rising if they

do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not-respondings' injury is certainly serious enough that it merits professional legal
assistance.

Rich

No, it was a solicitor PROBABLY acting on behalf of her insurers. It isnt clear - seems to me the
solicitor is pushing the injury to driver question which wouldnt be covered by her motor insurance
in any case.

Yes, he did say it was from 'her' solicitors, but I can't imagine they are writing from the
perspective of trying to make a personal injury claim on her behalf against Not-Responding. Most
likely, I would have thought, to be acting for the insurers to deflect a personal injury claim from
N-R against their driver. However it is of course possible that they are seeking compensation for
damage to her vehicle, but that would not be no-win no-fee work. Either way, it's unimaginable that
they would have been appointed on a no-win no-fee basis for p.i. damages suffered by her!

Quoted message said:

However it will be interesting to see how it ends, i reckon, if [not responding] fights his/her
corner then it will go away, but you gotta

fight

Quoted message said:

a bit

Absolutely.

Rich

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ]Not Responding
I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

I've got a photo of her car and the only discernable damage was a cracked number plate. So I'm curious as to what damages she might have suffered. The trauma of seeing a bleeding unconcious bloke lying in the rain under her car for half an hour, perhaps?

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to 'give it a year or so'. And it was utterly, utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest opinion. She
drove into me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

[Not Responding] you must respond to this kind of intimidatory [censored] in kind.

Without any specifics I would start by repudiating every allegation made against you and redirect the alleged negligence to the guilty party (i.e. the motorist) by claiming that they:

-drove without due care and attention
-failed to indicate any change in direction
-failed to come to a halt in a controlled and safe manner (after blatting you)
-failed to use their mirrors
-blatantly failed to consider other road users

I would stress that had this particular driver been any more lax then the police may well have been investigating a fatality and that your next of kin would be pursuing a manslaughter charge against his client.

You could suggest that she be forced to undergo another driving test and that if she fails to pass, she should be stripped of her license and pay full compensation without any further delay.

As it stands, medical advice has confirmed that you have lost full mobility of your arm and you will be expecting full recompense for:

-loss of earnings resulting from incapacity
-physical trauma
-emotional distress to both you and rest of family
-loss of ability to pursue legal recreation activity (i.e. cycling)

You will also be claiming for:

-damage to bicycle
-damage to clothing worn

I would go straight to the Citizens Advice Bureau (click here) to find out what else you can do to start to exert a little pressure of your own on this dozy bint who hit you.

DO NOT LET THIS GET OUT OF HAND, YOU MUST GET YOUR DIGS IN GOOD AND EARLY 😠

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did she not make an extremely public admission of liability? I presume
she's now retracting that.

--
Dave...

Quoted message said:

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

It looks like they've declared war. IMHO it sounds like they are the guys with the pith helmets and
maxims, and you're the little naked brown chap armed with a very sharp piece of fruit.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Thompson
It looks like they've declared war. IMHO it sounds like they are the guys with the pith helmets and maxims, and you're the little naked brown chap armed with a very sharp piece of fruit.

They are taking the pith I know that 😉

Couple of things "jump out at me":

If the "damage" was sustained as a result of you colliding with the *front* of her car, was she
reversing on a road? Was she on the wrong side of the road (parked or moving)?

I recently found that a letter listing my expenses up to that date (i.e. taxi fares, train costs,
etc), and the subtle hint hat these expenses were increasing daily seemed to focus the mind of the
"assessors" and resulted in a slightlt quicker settlement.

Good Luck

--
Regards from The Slapster, Cornwall, UK

Who hopes to die peacefully - just like his Uncle, And not kicking and Screaming - Like his Uncles
passengers!!

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

I've got a photo of her car and the only discernable damage was a cracked number plate. So I'm
curious as to what damages she might have suffered. The trauma of seeing a bleeding unconcious
bloke lying in the rain under her car for half an hour, perhaps?

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to
'give it a year or so'. And it was utterly, utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest opinion.
She drove into me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

I've got a photo of her car and the only discernable damage was a cracked number plate. So I'm
curious as to what damages she might have suffered. The trauma of seeing a bleeding unconcious
bloke lying in the rain under her car for half an hour, perhaps?

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to
'give it a year or so'. And it was utterly, utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest opinion.
She drove into me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The CTC legal representation is, IMHO, the
best, cheapest and most professional cover you could possibly get, and worth the subscription on its
own! It's too late after the collision, and I would seriously advise any cyclist to consider joining
just for the legal cover.

"burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

I've got a photo of her car and the only discernable damage was a cracked number plate. So I'm
curious as to what damages she might

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

suffered. The trauma of seeing a bleeding unconcious bloke lying in the rain under her car for
half an hour, perhaps?

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to
'give it a year or so'. And it was

utterly,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest opinion. She drove

into

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The CTC legal representation is, IMHO, the
best, cheapest and most professional

cover you

Quoted message said:

could possibly get, and worth the subscription on its own! It's too

late

Quoted message said:

after the collision, and I would seriously advise any cyclist to

consider

Quoted message said:

joining just for the legal cover.

How do you contact CTC?

Geoff Pearson said:

How do you contact CTC?

ctc.org.ukctc.org.ukOpen ↗

You get a nice magazine as well.

--
Chris dot Gerhard at btclick dot com.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:40:10 +0000, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

I would write to them expressing the sincere hope that she repeats this easily-disproved allegation
in court, as she is unlikely to be imprisoned for the trivial matter of nearly killing you, whereas
perjury generally carries a term in jug.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

burt said:

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just received a letter from the solicitor of the blind dipstick that ran me over.

I've got a photo of her car and the only discernable damage was a cracked number plate. So I'm
curious as to what damages she might have suffered. The trauma of seeing a bleeding unconcious
bloke lying in the rain under her car for half an hour, perhaps?

I find it hard to feel any sympathy for her as I still can't move my arm and have been told to
'give it a year or so'. And it was utterly, utterly, totally, 100% her fault in my honest
opinion. She drove into me, ffs.

Her solicitors claim I hit her *stationary vehicle*. Yeah, right.

They go on to list my 'negligence and breach of statutory duty' as follows:

- cycling without due care and attention
- failure to give prior warning of direction
- failure to apply brakes to avoid a collision
- failure to keep a proper lookout
- failure to give consideration to other road users

and they reserve the right for their client to add to these allegations!

I could get a bit annoyed if I wasn't treating the whole legal thing as a rather engaging game.

I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The CTC legal representation is, IMHO, the
best, cheapest and most professional cover you could possibly get, and worth the subscription on
its own! It's too late after the collision,

Just a quick note as I agree the CTC people are fantastic. I did once hear of someone who got legal
representation through them for an accident he had before he joined. IIRC the deal was he had to
join for a minimum of 5 years or so. I'm sure this is all at the CTC's discretion, but it may be
worthwhile enquiring.

AC

Quoted message said:

and I would seriously advise any cyclist to consider joining just for the legal cover.