Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


60 Excellent
  1. The MIB have confirmed to the op that they are going to pursue him for their outlay before proceedings have been issued going on what the OP has confirmed in that they have sent him a few letters. Good advice re a solicitor though and definitely get as much info as you can regarding payments made, to whom and what for etc. What the op has also got to remember is that hiring a solicitor for a defence will also cost £000-0000's (possibly even if the OP wins) and if you force the MIB to issue proceedings, their costs of doing so and up to any settlement if they win will be on top of the original sum.
  2. The MIB have 2 years from the date of settlement to issue recovery proceedings against the OP under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, so they still have 15 months to run!
  3. Yep, it takes a while, plus you have to pay a £300 excess to make the process even more enjoyable.
  4. The damage was caused by an unknown driver. As such, the claims come under the MIB's Untraced Drivers Agreement and compensation should be sought from them or the individual 's own car insurance policy.
  5. Just read this about Homeserve. http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/homeserve-fined-750000-for-excessive-silent-and-abandoned-calls/1395962.article
  6. If it is a test case then surely the insurance company will appeal it - especially given the ridiculously disproportionate fees racked up. I know i would... Have they?
  7. What does your policy wording say on this subject? TBH, I am with UB on this one and think that the FOS will have sympathy for Supercover.
  8. Limitation wise I think you will be ok. Section 14(a) (5) of the Limitation Act 1980 gives leave to apply the limitation point from the date of knowledge that the negligence occurred and as such, you have three years from the 'date of knowledge' to issue proceedings. As you were not aware in 2003 that the survey, if undertaken correctly and the floor examined, would lead to a finding of fault with the floor, then your date of knowledge for the purposes of the act is not this point. Your date of knowledge comes from when you first learned that the floors were defective and rendering your house un-sellable i.e. 2010. However, success with any litigation is another matter. You will have to prove, which will be tricky and expensive, that the floor - if examined in 2003, would have been in the same parlous condition as it is now or in 2010 when the new survey was done. I don't think you have any comeback on the 2010 survey as they were just undertaking instructions form their client. I suspect that to put the floor(s) right to enable the sale of the property it will be expensive? If so, you should be able to get a lawyer to do it on a no win no fee Conditional Fee Agreement given that you can persuade them that in this instance the claim is not statute barred. What you have to remember is that if you start proceedings against either company and you lose, given the level of damages that you will be seeking, you will have to pay their costs. Ask your insurers i.e. car, home, contents, credit card, if you have legal expense insurance and see if they will cover it (unless you have already tried this of course).
  9. Blimey, nice to see everyone being so nice to each other... Anyway, section 153 of the Highways Act does confirm that a gate should not open onto the street, so the owner of the property is technically in breach of the highways act. However, in a civil action such as the OP's, the fact that there has been a breach of the highways act does not lead to an automatic finding of liability against the property owner. If you wish to claim then you will have to prove that but for the unlawful gate being open the accident would not have happened. It is therefore difficult to succeed at 100% liability finding against the property owner as the judge will no doubt find that the gates were there to be seen, the driver should be driving at such a speed as to see hazards etc. Given that the road is also a cul-de-sac, you will also be up against it as there will be little speed involved. You will also have to prove that there was an obstruction in the road so as to create a further hazard to negotiate - any witnesses? Whilst i agree that the property owners gate is probably not legal, it certainly does not get you home and dry by that fact alone.
  10. So what you are saying is that a qualified Legal Exec is more likely to make fraudulent or frivilous claims than a solicitor. I am sure ILEX would love to hear such things!! Plus if you want to make a complaint against a solicitor/Legal Exec you must make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman, not the Law Society. I would also suspect that the lawyer in the proceedings is just setting out on the claim form and within the particulars of claim the alleged injuries sustained and not purporting to be a medical expert. In any event, if proceedings have been issued and served without medical evidence, then they are in breach of the Pre-action protocol Para 2.14 and so service will not have been effected. Plus, the Claimant will not have established causation and a prima facie case without expert evidence and so coupled with the lack of service, an application for strike out can be made. However, I still maintain that this has the feel of proceedings issued for a court approval.
  11. I suspect the claim will be done and dusted pretty much and all the child's solicitors have done is issue proceedings for the Court to approve the settlement agreed between the OP's insurers and solicitors. In any event, you need to pass the insurers. Regarding the previous RTA, any medical expert will have had to review the medical records before coming to a decision and so they will have taken into account the previous RTA (hopefully). This sort of claim is perfectly normal and insurers get hundreds of them a week. They know how to sniff out a fraud claim usually and so just let them get on with it would me my advice. Interesting article I read yesterday about fraud blackspots for anyone who might be interest... http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/keoghs-index-finds-nine-new-motor-fraud-black-spots/1395249.article
  12. If you obtain a judgment against him that is summarily assessed at below £5,000 then you can obtain a warrant of execution against him - if he doesn't pay up. If he doesn't pay up after you get a warrant, then you can ask the Court bailiffs to go to his house and take goods to the value of your judgment against him. However, if you have a look on the bailiff threads on here, this aint as easy as it sounds...
  13. The likelyhood of the driver of the vehicle that ploughed into the property maintaining a succesful defence on the basis of it being an involuntary act is unlikely. Such defences are notoriously hard to maintain. The cases on this point are Ryan –v Youngs 1938 CA, Waugh v James K Allan Ltd 1964 HL and Jones v Dennison 1971 CA. Basically, the driver will have to convince a court they knew that he had no health problems and had looked after themselves well. If the driver was a known diabetic and he had low blood sugar then he will not be able to sustain such a defence and as such you wil more than likely succeed against the driver. I would look to see if you have any legal expense insurance on your car, contents, credit card etc insurance policies as this will more than likely cover you to get legal representation to pursue your claim. If not then I would probably claim through the drivers insurance company and let them go to the expense of getting a loss adjuster to assess your losses, however, I am with Mwynci on not having any faith as to them doing a good job and so any offer needs to be looked at and independent quotes obtained for any work/replacement items that are offered.
  14. How are they going to be negligent for your actions when you couldn't control your own vehicle when driving at 1-2 mph? You leave spaces when you park or in traffic so that you can manouevre out of that spot if the car in front breaks down etc, not on the basis you might accidently leap forward and hit the car in front or crush the poor unfortunate sole who is trying to pass in front of the vehicle. I can see where you are trying to go, but a carrier such as Eurotunnel would have a quite reasonable expectation that someone who has passed their uk driving test would be able to drive slowly onto a train without stalling or hitting other vehicles. If the Eurotunnel employee was dressed as a clown, was jumping and dancing around and squirting water out of his fake flower onto your windscreen, so obstructing your view and being a distraction, then you might have a chance... otherwise I would just hope no claim is made against you.
  15. I think your best bet is down the medical road. Have you sought to discuss the ongoing distress your child is having with the unsightliness of the scar with your gp/treating consultant? Counselling is good for kids with these problems and a good plastic surgeon may well be able to clean up any redness and cosmetic scarring, but with age these things fade reasonably well, but i truly understand that this is hard to explain to a 9yr old girl. Good luck and I hope that your daughter makes a good recovery.
  • Create New...