OP
OP
EasyPeez
Veteran
- Location
- Cottingham, East Yorkshire
Yeah, them's the ones. Glad it's not just me feeling the pain!
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
EasyPeez
Veteran
- Location
- Cottingham, East Yorkshire
Hi,
So after months of submitting extra bits of evidence and hearing nothing back, I today received the letter below from Leigh Day solicitors, acting on my behalf and engaged by British Cycling after I initially rang them to ask for advice.
I never actually wanted to make a claim for this, I wanted the lady to do the right thing and buy me a new helmet. She accepted blame verbally at the time and said she would make good my costs, but then changed tack when I rang her the following day. So I contacted BC for advice and they suggested I should make a claim against her and put me in touch with LD. They advised that a claim in respect of a new helmet and damaged clothing would not be viable but that as I had to have physio etc for my injuries in the aftermath I had a good chance of winning a claim for these injury and damaged property elements combined. So I took their advice and gave them permission to go ahead on m behalf.
I have tried to contact LD today to clarify a few things in the letter but the solicitor in question is not available for the next few days. I would appreciate advice from anyone with more experience of the legal system than me.
If I understand the letter correctly I am being offered a settlement of 20% of £600 - i.e £120, but this is on the condition that I accept 80% of the blame for the incident, and this acceptance then effectively serves as an admission of guilt on my part for any counter claim the defendant might bring against me?
I am very reluctant to accept this offer. I had right of way and no reasonable time to react to prevent an accident. I therefore don't accept that I was 80% to blame, and for her to claim that her car was stationary is a complete lie - she drove into me. Moral issues aside, I am concerned that if I do accept this offer I open myself up to a counter claim, the cost of which could be anything, depending on what she claims the damage was to her car (none, I checked it a few days later as I cycled past. It's a rusty old fiesta and can't be worth more than a few hundred in total, but how do I know she hasn't taken a hammer to the front wing since then, will claim her laptop got smashed up as it flew off the seat, that she has suffered trauma ever since and can't drive to work....etc?!)
But if I refuse this offer and a court trial doesn't find in my favour, or finds in my favour but to a lesser value than £120, I would then have to pay the defendant's court costs, which again could be any amount. I'm not sure how a court could find in my favour to be honest, with no visual footage as evidence or contactable eye witnesses. Surely the principle of innocent until proven guilty points towards them finding in her favour?
If what I have written above is correct, I'm now concerned that whatever choice I make I stand to be hit with a big bill for something that was not essentially my fault.
If I accept the offer (which I really don't want to do as it would be me being complicit with her lies) and am then subject to a counter claim would any costs of this potential counter claim be paid for by my BC liability insurance or out of my pocket? If the former, would this have any knock-on impact on my car or home insurance premiums?
If I don't accept the offer and the court doesn't find in my favour to a value beyond £120 (or £600?) would any court costs then come out of my pocket or be covered by my BC insurance or be sent as a bill to LD for them to pay? Again, would this also impact on my home or car premiums?
I appreciate I must come across as very naive here, but I've never been involved in an insurance claim of any sort in my life. I thought I had entered into an agreement with LD on a no-win, no fee basis and thought having read their terms that I didn't stand to incur any costs, regardless of outcome, so long as i) I wasn't found to be lying ii) I failed to provide evidence iii) I failed to co-operate or iv) I dropped the case. Now I don't feel so sure on this and feel they have cajoled me into making a claim that they said I had an excellent chance of winning when in fact it was always likely that I would leave myself open to paying costs in some way
I am not a rich man and this has got me very worried. I just wanted the defendant to do the right thing and accept blame and get me a new helmet! Now I am feeling like I should never have pursued it and just let her walk away and been thankful I wasn't crippled.
Any advice or insight anyone can offer would be much appreciated.
So after months of submitting extra bits of evidence and hearing nothing back, I today received the letter below from Leigh Day solicitors, acting on my behalf and engaged by British Cycling after I initially rang them to ask for advice.
I never actually wanted to make a claim for this, I wanted the lady to do the right thing and buy me a new helmet. She accepted blame verbally at the time and said she would make good my costs, but then changed tack when I rang her the following day. So I contacted BC for advice and they suggested I should make a claim against her and put me in touch with LD. They advised that a claim in respect of a new helmet and damaged clothing would not be viable but that as I had to have physio etc for my injuries in the aftermath I had a good chance of winning a claim for these injury and damaged property elements combined. So I took their advice and gave them permission to go ahead on m behalf.
I have tried to contact LD today to clarify a few things in the letter but the solicitor in question is not available for the next few days. I would appreciate advice from anyone with more experience of the legal system than me.
If I understand the letter correctly I am being offered a settlement of 20% of £600 - i.e £120, but this is on the condition that I accept 80% of the blame for the incident, and this acceptance then effectively serves as an admission of guilt on my part for any counter claim the defendant might bring against me?
I am very reluctant to accept this offer. I had right of way and no reasonable time to react to prevent an accident. I therefore don't accept that I was 80% to blame, and for her to claim that her car was stationary is a complete lie - she drove into me. Moral issues aside, I am concerned that if I do accept this offer I open myself up to a counter claim, the cost of which could be anything, depending on what she claims the damage was to her car (none, I checked it a few days later as I cycled past. It's a rusty old fiesta and can't be worth more than a few hundred in total, but how do I know she hasn't taken a hammer to the front wing since then, will claim her laptop got smashed up as it flew off the seat, that she has suffered trauma ever since and can't drive to work....etc?!)
But if I refuse this offer and a court trial doesn't find in my favour, or finds in my favour but to a lesser value than £120, I would then have to pay the defendant's court costs, which again could be any amount. I'm not sure how a court could find in my favour to be honest, with no visual footage as evidence or contactable eye witnesses. Surely the principle of innocent until proven guilty points towards them finding in her favour?
If what I have written above is correct, I'm now concerned that whatever choice I make I stand to be hit with a big bill for something that was not essentially my fault.
If I accept the offer (which I really don't want to do as it would be me being complicit with her lies) and am then subject to a counter claim would any costs of this potential counter claim be paid for by my BC liability insurance or out of my pocket? If the former, would this have any knock-on impact on my car or home insurance premiums?
If I don't accept the offer and the court doesn't find in my favour to a value beyond £120 (or £600?) would any court costs then come out of my pocket or be covered by my BC insurance or be sent as a bill to LD for them to pay? Again, would this also impact on my home or car premiums?
I appreciate I must come across as very naive here, but I've never been involved in an insurance claim of any sort in my life. I thought I had entered into an agreement with LD on a no-win, no fee basis and thought having read their terms that I didn't stand to incur any costs, regardless of outcome, so long as i) I wasn't found to be lying ii) I failed to provide evidence iii) I failed to co-operate or iv) I dropped the case. Now I don't feel so sure on this and feel they have cajoled me into making a claim that they said I had an excellent chance of winning when in fact it was always likely that I would leave myself open to paying costs in some way
I am not a rich man and this has got me very worried. I just wanted the defendant to do the right thing and accept blame and get me a new helmet! Now I am feeling like I should never have pursued it and just let her walk away and been thankful I wasn't crippled.
Any advice or insight anyone can offer would be much appreciated.
- I have received an offer to settle from the defendant insurers on a 80/20 split liability
basis in the Defendant’s favour. This means that you would be accepting 80% of the
blame and would be able to recover 20% of any agreed valuation of your claim. With
this in mind, the defendant insurers also offer £600.00 in full and final settlement of
your claim, net of liability.
The above also means that the Defendant would be entitled to recover 80% of any
counter claim they may bring. If any counter claim is made it is usually in respect of,
but not restricted to, vehicle damage.
Such an offer is often referred to as a Part 36 offer because that is the section of the
rules of court that deals with the position when these offers are made.
This offer has important costs consequences for you. If you do not accept it, even if
you succeed at trial, should you not be awarded higher damages than the amount
offered, you would be liable to pay the Defendant’s costs from 21 days after notice of
payment in until the end of the trial – and these will be the bulk of their costs
Of course, if you succeed at trial and are awarded higher damages than the offer
made, the Defendant may be ordered to pay your costs. - If the offer were to be accepted by you more than 21 days before trial, you are entitled
to claim your costs from the Defendant up to the date of serving notice of acceptance.
Less than 21 days before trial, if costs cannot be agreed with the Defendant, the offer
can only be accepted with the permission of the Court, and they will make an order as
to costs.
The Defendant states that she was stationary waiting for traffic to pass on Calvert
Road. You were overtaking stationary traffic and collided with her vehicle.
The defendant insurers are relying on a case called Powell v Moody. In this case
there was a line of stationary traffic on a main road when a motorcyclist overtook the
traffic on the offside. A large milk tanker signalled for the Defendant to pull out of a
side road. As the car driving inched out he collided with the motorcyclist. The car
driver was held 20% to blame and the motorcyclist 80% at fault.
Please could you let me have your comments on the Defendant’s allegations and
confirm whether the Defendant edged out of the side road? Also, what kind of van
was it which gave way to the Defendant?
Last edited:
Arjimlad
Tights of Cydonia
- Location
- South Glos
Hi,
So after months of submitting extra bits of evidence and hearing nothing back, I today received the letter below from Leigh Day solicitors, acting on my behalf and engaged by British Cycling after I initially rang them to ask for advice.
I never actually wanted to make a claim for this, I wanted the lady to do the right thing and buy me a new helmet. She accepted blame verbally at the time and said she would make good my costs, but then changed tack. So I contacted BC for advice and they suggested I should make a claim against her and put me in touch with LD. They advised that a claim in respect of a new helmet and damaged clothing would not be viable but that as I had to have physio etc for my injuries in the aftermath I had a good chance of winning a claim for these elements combined. So I took their advice and gave them permission to go ahead on m behalf.
I have tried to contact LD today to clarify a few things in the letter but the solicitor in question is not available for the next few days. I would appreciate advice from anyone with more experience of the legal system than me.
If I understand the letter correctly I am being offered a settlement of 20% of £600 - i.e £120, but this is on the condition that I accept 80% of the blame for the incident, and this acceptance then effectively serves as an admission of guilt on my part for any counter claim the defendant might bring against me?
I am very reluctant to accept the offer. I had right of way and no reasonable time to react to prevent an accident. I therefore don't accept that I was 80% to blame, and for her to claim that her car was stationary is a complete lie - she drove into me. Moral issues aside, I am concerned that if I do accept this offer I open myself up to a counter claim, the cost of which could be anything, depending on what she claims the damage was to her car (none, I checked it a few days later as I cycled past. It's a rusty old fiesta and can't be worth more than a few hundred in total, but how do I know she hasn't taken a hammer to it since then, will claim her laptop got smashed up as it flew off the seat, that she has suffered trauma ever since and can't drive to work....etc?!)
But if I refuse this offer and a court trial doesn't find in my favour, or finds in my favour but to a lesser value than £120, I would then have to pay the defendant's court costs, which again could be any amount. I'm not sure how a court could find in either of our favours o be honest, with no visual evidence or contactable eye witnesses?
If I have understood the above correctly, I'm now concerned that whatever choice I make I stand to be hit with a big bill for something that was not essentially my fault!?
If I accept the offer (which I really don't want to do as it would be me being complicit with her lies) and am then subject to a counter claim would any costs of this potential counter claim be paid for by my BC liability insurance or out of my pocket? If the former, would this have any knock-on impact on my car or home insurance premiums?
If I don't accept the offer and the court doesn't find in my favour to a value beyond £120 (or £600?) would any court costs then come out of my pocket or be covered by insurance? Again, if the latter would this impact on my home or car premiums?
I appreciate I must come across as very naive here, but I've never been involved in an insurance claim of any sort in my life. I thought I had entered into an agreement with LD on a no-win, no fee basis and thought having read their terms that I didn't stand incur any costs regardless of outcome so long as I wasn't found to be lying or failed to provide evidence and co-operation. Now I don't feel so sure on this and am feel they have cajoled me into making a claim that they said I had an excellent chance of winning when in fact it was always likely that I would leave myself open to paying costs in some way
I am not a rich man and this has got me very worried. I just wanted her to do the right thing and accept blame and get me a new helmet! Now I am feeling like I should never have pursued it and just let her walk away and been thankful I wasn't crippled.
Any advice or insight anyone can offer would be much appreciated.
- I have received an offer to settle from the defendant insurers on a 80/20 split liability
basis in the Defendant’s favour. This means that you would be accepting 80% of the
blame and would be able to recover 20% of any agreed valuation of your claim. With
this in mind, the defendant insurers also offer £600.00 in full and final settlement of
your claim, net of liability.
The above also means that the Defendant would be entitled to recover 80% of any
counter claim they may bring. If any counter claim is made it is usually in respect of,
but not restricted to, vehicle damage.
Such an offer is often referred to as a Part 36 offer because that is the section of the
rules of court that deals with the position when these offers are made.
This offer has important costs consequences for you. If you do not accept it, even if
you succeed at trial, should you not be awarded higher damages than the amount
offered, you would be liable to pay the Defendant’s costs from 21 days after notice of
payment in until the end of the trial – and these will be the bulk of their costs
Of course, if you succeed at trial and are awarded higher damages than the offer
made, the Defendant may be ordered to pay your costs.- If the offer were to be accepted by you more than 21 days before trial, you are entitled
to claim your costs from the Defendant up to the date of serving notice of acceptance.
Less than 21 days before trial, if costs cannot be agreed with the Defendant, the offer
can only be accepted with the permission of the Court, and they will make an order as
to costs.
The Defendant states that she was stationary waiting for traffic to pass on Calvert
Road. You were overtaking stationary traffic and collided with her vehicle.
The defendant insurers are relying on a case called Powell v Moody. In this case
there was a line of stationary traffic on a main road when a motorcyclist overtook the
traffic on the offside. A large milk tanker signalled for the Defendant to pull out of a
side road. As the car driving inched out he collided with the motorcyclist. The car
driver was held 20% to blame and the motorcyclist 80% at fault.
Please could you let me have your comments on the Defendant’s allegations and
confirm whether the Defendant edged out of the side road? Also, what kind of van
was it which gave way to the Defendant?
You probably won't get hold of LD over the bank holiday weekend but I would want to know that your claim is settled, if it be settled, in full & final settlement of any claim or counterclaim so there is no comeback on you. At the moment the wording is that it is only in full & final settlement of your claim not of D's counterclaim.
You've had a part 36 offer. This has its own rules. LD are best placed to explain it to you.
You obviously need to give them the information they ask you for before they will be able to advise you on the offer, whether it is a reasonable one or not. They are on the record acting for you, have a duty to you, and stand to get paid for their work for you so best to see what they say.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
I can't offer much in the way of 1st hand experience. However, from motorcycling forums, filtering accidents are quite commonly reported. With blame going from 0% blame to 100% blame to 50/50. But a lot of the arguments they make in defence of the driver is that the motorcyclist was overtaking at a junction.
There is of course the argument of overtaking vs filtering, but it's an expensive argument to have.
There is of course the argument of overtaking vs filtering, but it's an expensive argument to have.
classic33
Leg End Member
I went against the advice of LD and said I'd see the driver & owner in court. The owners side were the first to mention court action, not mine. This was relayed back and they settled out of court.
It's one persons word against the other. But I'd the drivers various excuses and other details to fall back on.
It's one persons word against the other. But I'd the drivers various excuses and other details to fall back on.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
vickster
Legendary Member
You would however need an expert urologist report to say this is so
My claim has been ongoing since Feb 2014, I need to see yet another different medical expert at some point and see the one I saw in February again in around 6 months. Not seen a penny yet
@EasyPeez As above, speak to LD next week - the actual solicitor leading the case, not his/her paralegal
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
I wouldn't accept any liability for the accident and as you say you will then be open to a counter claim.
classic33
Leg End Member
I'd take the slur on my character, lying about what had happened, just as seriously. "You've lied about that, what else have you lied/are you lying about?"
They want to go down that route let them, doesn't mean you have to. Whether you get anything else out of it or not, you'll know you didn't lie.
As for the tanker signalling for a driver to pull out, the law is fairly clear on the use of flashing headlights. They mean "I am here, and no other meaning should be attached to them". One excuse used by the driver that hit me, and my response to it.
@EasyPeez, personally I'd be asking what sort of van the driver claims was involved. And not answering questions her side have put to you. Ask a few of your own.
They want to go down that route let them, doesn't mean you have to. Whether you get anything else out of it or not, you'll know you didn't lie.
As for the tanker signalling for a driver to pull out, the law is fairly clear on the use of flashing headlights. They mean "I am here, and no other meaning should be attached to them". One excuse used by the driver that hit me, and my response to it.
@EasyPeez, personally I'd be asking what sort of van the driver claims was involved. And not answering questions her side have put to you. Ask a few of your own.
Last edited:
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
You are wise to be wary of a counter claim.
However, one hasn't been made yet and it's a bit late in the day to start one.
Even if that happens, it's hard to see how it can amount to much given the overall low value of the car, and your reasonable contention it wasn't damaged.
A cyclist rolling over the bonnet of the car can surely have caused no personal injury to the driver, which is where the big money could be.
Her contention - which you dispute - that the car was not moving will work against her for any claim she may make, which is an example of why I say so much of legal/court disputes come down to tactics.
I suspect the solicitor is trying to steer you away from going to court, but may have unwittingly alarmed you in the process.
If you look at the commentary on Powell v Moody, the car was 'inching forward'.
Thus in legal terms, it may not matter in your case whether the car was moving or not.
That being so, there's no point in risking the unknown consequences of a court hearing to get a decision on it.
The perceived stain on your character by accepting the settlement is just that, perceived.
You will not be standing up in a public court saying: "I lied, the car was not moving as I said it was."
There is an element of pragmatism here, but you are only accepting a privately agreed settlement, you are not accepting anything else.
You should certainly raise your concerns about a counter claim with the solicitor, but my prediction is you will be offered some reassurance about that.
Before speaking to him, sort out in your mind what you want to achieve.
You, to use the legal term, 'instruct' the solicitor, in other words, ask him to work towards the result you want.
Given your target is a new helmet, the £120 may meet that.
The solicitor's letter has, quite reasonably, given you some anxiety.
But I think it may be better news than it first appeared.
However, one hasn't been made yet and it's a bit late in the day to start one.
Even if that happens, it's hard to see how it can amount to much given the overall low value of the car, and your reasonable contention it wasn't damaged.
A cyclist rolling over the bonnet of the car can surely have caused no personal injury to the driver, which is where the big money could be.
Her contention - which you dispute - that the car was not moving will work against her for any claim she may make, which is an example of why I say so much of legal/court disputes come down to tactics.
I suspect the solicitor is trying to steer you away from going to court, but may have unwittingly alarmed you in the process.
If you look at the commentary on Powell v Moody, the car was 'inching forward'.
Thus in legal terms, it may not matter in your case whether the car was moving or not.
That being so, there's no point in risking the unknown consequences of a court hearing to get a decision on it.
The perceived stain on your character by accepting the settlement is just that, perceived.
You will not be standing up in a public court saying: "I lied, the car was not moving as I said it was."
There is an element of pragmatism here, but you are only accepting a privately agreed settlement, you are not accepting anything else.
You should certainly raise your concerns about a counter claim with the solicitor, but my prediction is you will be offered some reassurance about that.
Before speaking to him, sort out in your mind what you want to achieve.
You, to use the legal term, 'instruct' the solicitor, in other words, ask him to work towards the result you want.
Given your target is a new helmet, the £120 may meet that.
The solicitor's letter has, quite reasonably, given you some anxiety.
But I think it may be better news than it first appeared.
keithmac
Guru
The majority of my filtering along stationary traffic done down the left hand side (right or wrong) slowly. Dooring is always in the back of my mind and anticipated.
This way you can see any side roads and anticipate what others are planing to do.
Filtering over any junction is a potentially dangerous situation, you need to have your eyes on stalks!.
I see this from both sides and to be honest I would call it a 50/50 accident.
I spend most of my road time on bikes and motorcycles, self preservation is top of my mindset and never assume any other road user is going to do the correct thing at all times.
It shouldn't be the case but that's how it is unfortunately..
This way you can see any side roads and anticipate what others are planing to do.
Filtering over any junction is a potentially dangerous situation, you need to have your eyes on stalks!.
I see this from both sides and to be honest I would call it a 50/50 accident.
I spend most of my road time on bikes and motorcycles, self preservation is top of my mindset and never assume any other road user is going to do the correct thing at all times.
It shouldn't be the case but that's how it is unfortunately..
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Why would their insurers want to pay you a penny if they genuinely thought you were 80% at fault? Sounds like an early low bid to see if you'll bite.
classic33
Leg End Member
I changed solicters after the first lot felt that the offer to replace the front wheel(£70) was more than adequate. I went back to the bike shop that I'd bought it from & got a quote for replacement. Then the another dealer of the same manufacturer, doing the same and sending the quotes on.
I was also given the bill for replacing the bonnet, if I accepted the offer. Close on a £1,000, it was a motor vehicle after all.
I was also given the bill for replacing the bonnet, if I accepted the offer. Close on a £1,000, it was a motor vehicle after all.
