Talk about brass neck...

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by ]Not Responding, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. 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.
     
    Tags:


  2. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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
     
  3. Lee

    Lee Guest

    "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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??
     
  4. >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**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
  5. "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > 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)
     
  6. "Lee" <[email protected]com>
    wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  7. Lee

    Lee Guest

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

    > 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
    >
    >
    >

    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
     
  8. 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

    http://www.guide-on-line.lawsociety.org.uk

    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**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
  9. 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
     
  10. "Lee" <[email protected]com>
    wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > 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
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > 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!

    > 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
    >
    Absolutely.

    Rich
     
  11. McBain_v1

    McBain_v1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Not Responding] you must respond to this kind of intimidatory crap 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 :mad:
     
  12. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

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

    > 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...
     
  13. > 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 (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004
     
  14. McBain_v1

    McBain_v1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are taking the pith I know that ;)
     
  15. The Slapster

    The Slapster Guest

    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 protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
     
  16. Burt

    Burt Guest

    "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
     
  17. "burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > 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.
    >
    >

    How do you contact CTC?
     
  18. Geoff Pearson wrote:
    >
    >
    > How do you contact CTC?
    >
    >

    http://www.ctc.org.uk/

    You get a nice magazine as well.

    --
    Chris dot Gerhard at btclick dot com.
     
  19. Just zis Guy

    Just zis Guy Guest

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

    >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.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  20. On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:52:30 +0000, burt wrote:

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

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