Jump to content

Editor1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Editor1

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. May I thank every one for responding and offer the following, which is advice received via a Solicitor who deals directly with MIB on RTA/Personal Injury cases. It would transpire, that by signing all paperwork required by MIB conceding liability that MIB will act is if my associates 'insurer', will take into account full cooperation & associates meagre means with regards income and ability to actually pay toward any liability awarded. Whilst I'm concerned about quantum, particularly with regards the personal injury, the fact remains MIB too, in most cases are very concerned abou
  2. Eric, I've stated clearly that any Civil case will double the costs that MIB are discussing. Again though, scant information in nearly two years has been forwarded by MIB - approx. two letters in fact, the one of which I've posted here. Still, and as others correctly argue, driving without insurance, or whilst banned is not a great idea, neither is drink driving. Thankfully, where I live no cars are allowed and public transport is good.
  3. SuperVillan, Date of RTA was April 2016, which means approx 21 months have lapsed and yet no post accident medical report, only the original Consultant report at A&E a few days later.
  4. Buzza, I'm not disputing Liability, which is a message I've conveyed to my associate, all I'm worried about is quantum and the fact that the Claimant has both form and a personal vendetta against my associate. My associate is just that, an associate and not a close friend, but one worries when certain issues raises red flags. It's a great shame I don't know any Barristers who deal with financial tort issues, as they'd be my first port of call on this issue. Alas i don't, hence posting on this Board in order that I may glean sufficient information to give valid advice to my associate and e
  5. BazzaS, In my day, that is the early 90's, when Legal Aid was more freely available, I'd have had a field day with this incident, which became far more complex - my associate, not being the brightest, did some pretty stupid things, which I certainly would have advised against and followed a different path. The fact remains at the time of the accident the Claimant was keen not to have Police involvement, that is police or emergency services called to the scene, i.e., both parties were breaking the law, namely, a decent Brief would have questioned why having agreed 'No Police, No Insurance'
  6. Unclebulgaria, Had I been involved from day one, my associate would not be in the mess he's now in, namely serving time for events/actualities surrounding the original accident, which, if handled correctly, would have ensured the Claimant's fitness to drive would have been questioned, never mind the fact that initially both parties agreed no insurance would be involved - I have witnesses to this effect, together with actual CCTV footage. In a nutshell, my associates Solicitors did a poor job of handling his defence - obviously acknowledging the fact he had no insurance, which is something
  7. BazzaS, No misunderstanding on my behalf, quite the reverse, just wanted to ensure that my associate was not receiving poor advice from me personally - I'd send him to CAB, but the nearest office is a considerable distance from our area. Of course, in an ideal world, I'd suggest he visits a Solicitors Group well versed in dealing with MIB, alas with no actual income and no recourse to Legal Aid, this is not an option. Your final paragraph essentially summarises what needs to be done to expedite a quick resolution for both Parties, whilst affording an opportunity to reduce fina
  8. DragonFly, Many thanks for your response, which is both common sense and logical, its just unlimited Quantum I'm concerned about and the fact my associate, with a clean sheet, want's to arrange some formal payment plan to make reparations, but these need to be realistic. Given his financial predicament, he can always claim bankruptcy as a result of this claim, given he owns no assets and is effectively a ward of the State. Suffice to say, with no qualifications and a criminal record, he's hardly going to get a decent job to make payments above those he's willing to make, which is ap
  9. Bazza, My own work in law was purely on the criminal side, and not Tort, and regrettably, the criminal element was undertaken before I became involved, otherwise I'd have left no stone unturned given what I actually know. So, of course my associate is Liable, however, I'm happy to admit liability if we have a good idea of the final payout, which MIB have not provided, essentially all the medical documents from the claimant have not been forwarded, this after 22 months from the original claim submitted to MIB. It is this fact that has raised alarm bells within me. Of course, my associates
  10. Bazza, I'm not contesting liability, he had no insurance and rear-ended someone, its the quantum I'm really concerned about, specifically claimant was DUI it would seem, so did not alert police or present himself to hospital for a fair period of time, namely, both Parties should have stuck around and waited for emergency services - claimant only had minor injuries, i.e., probably claiming whiplash, the other party was in hospital for two weeks, but obviously, with a criminal conviction over this is Liable. Again, if payment at £10K or under, no issue, but if claimant is trying
  11. First post, so hope I'm in the correct place regarding the Motor Insurer's Bureau? Keeping it short: I'm interceding on behalf of an associate who's educational level is low in a liability case concerning the Motor Insurer's Bureau (MIB), which means my associate was 'uninsured'. Further, and to the best of my knowledge - I read postgraduate law and interned at a criminal law practice - my associate is 'liable', namely, not only did he have no insurance, but he rear-ended a vehicle. As a result of this my associate is not only banned from driving, but served a custodial sentence
×
×
  • Create New...