Jump to content

Editor1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Editor1

  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 about quantum - hence the number of complaints against them by Claimant's. Luckily, and having not ignored correspondence with MIB, whilst all concerns I personally are are valid, the fact remains that MIB will want to reduce final liability payout, not increase it. That's the gist of the advice given by a Solicitor, which puts my mind at rest. Now for the paperwork and getting my associate to actually sign it. If anyone considers the legal advice issued as sub par, please advise, as my own assistance is given on a voluntary bases and don't particularly desire to cause harm to any party.
  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 ensures any liability costs are fair, that is fair for both parties. Had correspondence from MIB confirmed the figure that was given over the phone, then I'd not question the value of compensation. Indeed, this post would never have been made.
  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', the claimant within 14 days decided to involve the Police. My associate was charged with Leaving the scene of an accident, despite no Police being informed at the time of the accident, and despite the fact that he was hospitalised as a result of injuries received not long after the accident, that is he was taken to A&E and admitted and the A&E timeline fits in with the CCTV footage - the nearest A&E is a good 20 mins away from the scene of the accident - most of the witnesses I've spoken too, none of whom at the time were associated with either Party, confirm the above - they were good witnesses for any defence to have, particularly in light of what transpired after the accident itself, which, cannot be disputed if discussing just a simple RTA with one Party having no insurance. Regrettably, things did not pan out in a simple manner, which is why my associate landed up doing time having been charged on several counts, all of which begin with this simple RTA. Why should the above have any bearing on the Civil Liability side? In a nutshell, due to actual events themselves after the RTA, basically, we have a huge amount of bad feeling, much of which rests upon the fact that neither party wanted the authorities or insurance involved at the time of the RTA. What resulted though, was a great criminal law case - not great from my associates view though!
  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 I'd never advise. Alas, the criminal proceedings are now a record of fact, but this does not absolve the claimant, who ensured he neither visited a A&E department straight after the accident, nor reported it formally to the Police until he took instructions himself from close drinking pals, who curiously happen to be serving Detectives. Had the emergency services been involved and a breath test given I'm confident the claimant would have been charged with Drink Driving, hence his desire at the time of the accident to play things down - witness statements from those who stopped their vehicles and went to give assistance tally with this version of events, namely the claimant appeared intoxicated and smelled of alcohol, they also confirmed that the claimant did not make a song or dance at the scene of the accident. Indeed, my associate is the one found Guilty of leaving the accident scene, despite the record showing he was taken to hospital by one of the witnesses and attended too at A&E within 60 minutes of the accident. Whilst the fact he had no insurance is not disputed, other issues resulting from the accident should have been disputed from the time charges were laid. I'll see what others have to say before penning a dispatch to MIB, but somewhat concerned that no medical details have been presented to either MIB or myself, all I know is my associate is liable for the NHS Consultants fee, this from around the time of the incident, but in excess of 48 hours after the accident. So, whilst the claimant has a right to make claims from his initial visit to Hospital - an injury had occurred, how serious said injury was/is is open to dispute, particularly given said injuries did not stop the claimant visiting his local pub regularly after the accident, namely, he was out drinking the night after and several days thereafter! We have witness statements to attest to this fact from the Pubs clientele, not all of whom can be claimed to be friends of my associate.
  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 final payout/award if Claimant over plays their hand, which is what I fear.
  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 approx. £5.00 per week based on his present means.
  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 financial position means MIB at most can expect no more than £250 per year to pay off any Liability they award. Given my associate is of not fixed abode and had the MIB correspondence passed on to him via his mother, he could have done what many do and ignored the MIB Correspondence, who then, not hearing from him would have assumed Liability on his behalf and made a payout to the Claimant, which they either accept or reject - this is what I gather from these Boards and other similar forums. In essence, you suggest that Liability must be accepted, and only after the acceptance I can proceed to argue Quantum once the full extent of claimed liability has been instructed? Further, a few others have commented that Solicitors are only allowed a certain fee for MIB claims for work undertaken, i.e., I'm fine with accepting Liability, but not if the award is driven up to ridiculous levels by the claimants solicitors fees and any further battles for a larger medical payout if that awarded by MIB is unacceptable to the claimant. Again, and I ask, if the claimants injury/ies were so severe, how was it he was able to continue normally with his life, that is he was out each evening after the accident drinking with Police buddies, meaning, in no way was he held back by these alleged injuries, the details of which have not been imparted to me, nor to MIB by the tone of their correspondence.
  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 to play the 'old soldier' game, seems a bit harsh to accept liability, knowing the claimant was probably drunk - we have witness statements to the effect, which means the claimant is also liable, or would have been had both parties followed the law to the letter, which neither party did.
  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 too - which is where I come in. Having been released from prison, my associate has received correspondence from MIB requesting for him to state clearly he's liable for both the RTA and any injuries sustained by the driver of the other vehicle, thus allowing MIB to process a claim and make a payout, the value of which MIB have not indicated. Having spoken to the case officer at MIB, an actual solicitor, in order to gauge what damages my associate may be looking at I was given a figure of £8,200 (far less than I feared) this was broken down into solicitors fees for the injured party, an award for medical injury and NHS Consultant fee. I made a note of all payments and dispatched an email requesting they clarify that my notes were correct and that my associate would not be looking at paying out more than the figure advised over the phone. To my surprise, I have received correspondence today that raises alarm bells and does not tally at all with the details I was initially provided with, namely, I was given actual figures over the phone, whilst the details below suggest liability is 'open-ended': "Our claim is currently reserved at £5,521.00 but we are yet to receive the medical report of Mr XXXXXX. A more appropriate guide as to the claim value would be known once we have the medical report, as the reserve is a guide only. However, we are aware that Mr XXXXXX insurers have incurred a loss of £2,100.00 in dealing with his vehicle damage. It is not known what their total disbursement is. In any case, we are not responsible for recovering the insurers outlay and they will pursue Mr XXXXX directly. Mr XXXXXX Solicitors' costs and disbursements are also unknown at this time as we are yet to be provided with their bill of costs and do not expect this until the conclusion of the claim. It is noted that it is difficult to give a response with situation regarding quantum being unclear at this time, however, we require a decision as to whether liability can be accepted, because only then will Mr XXXXX Solicitors provide the medical evidence, together with the schedule of special damages." If the liability costs against my associate were under £10K, my advice would be to accept liability, organise a payment schedule with MIB and try and sort his life out, given he's unemployed and of no fixed abode - hence, he's on a meagre income, one that would preclude in reality making much in the way of recompense. However, and as the letter clearly indicates, no 'fixed value' has been given formally in writing, despite figures given to me over the phone. I am further alarmed that after nearly two years no medical report has been issued to MIB, as such, and if liability in full is accepted, we may be looking at a medical payout alone in excess of the quoted set aside fee. I'm also struck by the fact that no police were involved originally at the scene of the RTA, that the accident occurred late in the evening where the claimant had actually been observed drinking alcohol at a local Pub and that the claimant, despite allegedly being injured, was observed drinking not only the evening after the accident, but for many evenings after said accident. My associated was charged with having no insurance, leaving the scene, driving whilst banned and a few other matters - that said, such were his own injuries he was at hospital within 1 hour of the incident and hospitalised as a result of his injuries - should have called an ambulance rather than had another witness/driver take him to A&E. Any advice welcome, particularly given my associate is trying to turn over a new leaf and stick to the straight and narrow, hence my own willingness to help.
×
×
  • Create New...