Court claim for bump

[buzby]

Pass it to his insurers at the time.

[buzby]

HE should still involve his insurers. It is often a mistake no keep them in the dark on the premise that it wasn;t your fault and you don;t wish to have a grey mark at your next renewal, but since you cannot trust thirsd parties, this is often a foolish move. Even at this stage he can still advise his insurers that a matter he thought was being settled has flared up, and he needs their assistance. As the issue is not a critical one, I still believe attempting to deal with it himself may ultimately work against him. He paid for his insurance, he might as well have their protection.

[buzby]

He MIGHT just get away with it. His insurers remain responsible, so providing he had a policy in force at the time of the incident there's every chance they'll take it on - he does NOT have to be a current customer of their for them to settle or look after him.

[buzby]

His reasons for not responding could be legion, but as they were notified in the first instance so his initial duty to do so was discharged. (on a separate note isn't your advert and begging bowl for reputation a bit OTT? It doubles the size of each post to no real effect.

[buzby]

Bless you. It just filled up so much screen real estate on my display it made weeking out the actual message to reply to quite difficult! Thge ols BB s/w had an opt out so I'll need to investigate what has hapened to this.

[buzby]

There is mo automatic right to car hire. Additionally, a claimant is required to keep their costs reasonable, and at the very least this would not be for more than a few days at the most. If it is being bumped up to make the costs increase, that is fraudulent and needs to be rejected. Also, he should have been provided with estimates and a breakdown. If all he received was a POC this should also be challenged.

[buzby]

Others might be better placed than me on this one, as there may be Englisg court defended that I'm unaware of. However as a guide, a simple rejection of the claim against you and in the way it has been dumped on you without disclosure of the costs will be enough to put them on the back foot.

[buzby]

Won't this be too late? A defence needs to be also sent to the Pursuers, and if the court does this, there will not be enough time for them to receive and take whatever action to prepare they need. You'd really need to send it TODAY at the latest.

[buzby]

As it is non complaisant, you may have to apologize and ask for a new date to give the pursuers time to consider it, which is their right.

[buzby]

One action does not impact on another failing. The fact your defence relies on showing that their pursuit has no merit (due to the delay and lack of corroboration of the work undertaken) the fact your defence pointing this out was not provided in good time works against you. As I see it, the three options of the pursuer would be: 1) complain od late service and seek judgement, stating you defence was out of time. 2) Tell the court they've only just received your defence and need a continuance to consider it. 3) having briefly seen your defence strategy/requirements, decide not to proceed and abandon the action.

 

You don't say who the pursuer is, whether the other driver in person, a solicitor or his insurer. This would also have a bearing on which of the 3 routes that could be taken.

[buzby]

With a solicitor, they go for option one. It will be up to the judge to decide whether this is reasonable or not. The fact remains, if I was a pursuer, I would be pushing to emphasis the defendant had ample opportunity to comply within the timeframe and did not. (So it can go either way). Their need to disclose the costs could be argued, but this has nothing to do with not responding in good time. By getting it in withing the timeframe, this provides the nature of the rejection of the claim, so provides the defence position that would be unassailable. The pursuers can argue you had your chance and blew it, and if accepted - could result in judgement. It doesn't pay to be lax with timeframes.

 

Of the 2 cases I had with a similar delayed action by the defender, I won one, and had to put up with a fresh date for the other.