Is my solicitor taking the wee-wee?

[PaulSB]

I have had two claims for cycling accidents, I have used Cycling UK for both, I never thought of using using household insurance, 2015 broken shoulder was the most severe injury, it didn't go well as it got infected, so had five ops, the bike and clothing was damaged, I settled for £27,000 within a year.
This latest accident 20th August, fractured skull and nose, various cuts and bruises damaged clothing, bike OK, the driver said it was my fault, my solicitor submitted evidence that it wasn't, I have had a first offer of £50,000 which surprised me and won't be happy until the money is in the bank, Cycling UK has been well worth the membership fee for me, YMMV.

I agree regarding the PI aspect of the claim. The BC solicitors very good and clearly understand cycling and cyclists. I would not have wanted a standard insurer doing this aspect of the work.

However the BC cover for my bike, kit, Wahoo etc. was "market value" that is secondhand value. It cost me a genuine £7500 to replace everything. Possibly Cycling UK offer "new for old" but BC don't. Add to this it could have been 13 months before I received the payment.

On this basis full replacement cost inside four weeks via home insurance is hard to beat.

 

[simongt]

When I was rear ended in 2018 and broke my leg, I used the Cycle UK recommended solicitors and after the faff of medicals, checks etc., it all went 'according to plan' although it took about a year to sort.
Payout was five figures and the culprit lost his licence.

 

[icowden]

I have had a first offer of £50,000 which surprised me and won't be happy until the money is in the bank, Cycling UK has been well worth the membership fee for me, YMMV.

Sounds good. The damages part is basically high stakes poker. Each side keeps making counterbids. The danger is in going to Trial because if you are awarded less than the opponent previously offered, you become responsible for all of their costs.

An added part is that your solicitor will not tell you if you should accept the offer, because if you do and then decide it was too low you could sue said solicitor for bad advice - same goes if they say to go to Trial then you don't get an offer and lose money. They will tell you what the likely range is, and what they think you can successfully claim for. They will also advise if an offer is way too low. Ultimately however the Solicitor wants to be paid. Therefore if they are under a "no win, no fee" arrangement, they want a win so they get their fee. Thus it is in their interest to ensure the case is settled properly.

 

[Venod]

Possibly Cycling UK offer "new for old" but BC don't. Add to this it could have been 13 months before I received the payment.

Cycling UK just refered me to the solicitor they are partened with, It's the solicitor who negotiates the value of payments, its the legal service I used not insurance cover from CUK.

 

[PaulSB]

Cycling UK you just refer you to the solicitor they are partened with, It's the solicitor who negotiates the value of payments, its a legal service not insurance cover from CUK.

That's interesting to know. I rather different service than BC who offer both the legal services cover and, rather underwhelming, cycle over. Thanks, I didn't know this. I rather feel it further strengthens my view re home insurance cover. It could take months of wrangling between the solicitor and the insurers to determine the value of loss in relation to a bike.

While I fully accept a used bike is only what someone is prepared to pay for it the value to me is far higher. The fully built Kinesis written off in my accident cost £3200, the replacement frameset was £2800!!!!! For me the security of "new for old" via an insurer is important.

 

[Venod]

That's interesting to know. I rather different service than BC who offer both the legal services cover and, rather underwhelming, cycle over. Thanks, I didn't know this. I rather feel it further strengthens my view re home insurance cover. It could take months of wrangling between the solicitor and the insurers to determine the value of loss in relation to a bike.

I don't know much about BC or CUK bike insurance cover a quick search brought this up for CUK.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/insurance

I an not a fan of BC as I blame them for ruining the last club I was in, with all their petty rules and regulations.

 

[Two-Wheels]

Sorry for the delayed response.

I'm not with any cycling insurer. In the end I just Googled "cycling accident solicitor" & went with one. I don't want to mention them as the case is on going.

Also reading some of your experiences, some of you have had horrible injuries & I can understand the wait time. I had a minor injury that meant I was off my physical job role for 6 months & then returned. I can do 100% of my job duties & as time has gone on I'm probably at 99% now with only a small nip occasionally on my elbow where I took the impact (I was thrown up & landed on my elbow).
A friend of ours has had much worse. Accident before mine & case still ongoing - but he's had sensory & memory loss etc etc etc, so a more complicated case.


They took 3 months of my wages to calculate an average. This produced a total BS result. My solicitor said I should consider accepting it & I told him no chance. The problem is I'm not salaried. My pay varies (or can) quite a lot month to month. Some months I'm paid 5 weeks but most are only 4 weeks so I argued a 12 month average should be considered for an accurate picture. I then compiled facts for the 2-3 years prior & the years since which showed basically every single year I'm ending on approx. the same pay (some have pay rises which is why I say approx.) but the accident year I was thousands & thousands off - which to be correct would've meant that I'd have had to have had another significant period of time off for it to be accurate.


Thankfully I'm in no rush, I'd just LIKE it to be over. I'm not rolling in money but I'm not struggling for it either as I had an emergency pot of 6 months pay for such situations should I ever need it (then at least the bills are covered). This is also why I'm fully willing to let it go to court if I get a stupid offer. Like I say, I'd rather receive less via a judge than directly accept an offer that blatantly takes the piddle.

 

[icowden]

They took 3 months of my wages to calculate an average. This produced a total BS result. My solicitor said I should consider accepting it & I told him no chance. The problem is I'm not salaried. My pay varies (or can) quite a lot month to month. Some months I'm paid 5 weeks but most are only 4 weeks so I argued a 12 month average should be considered for an accurate picture. I then compiled facts for the 2-3 years prior & the years since which showed basically every single year I'm ending on approx. the same pay (some have pay rises which is why I say approx.) but the accident year I was thousands & thousands off - which to be correct would've meant that I'd have had to have had another significant period of time off for it to be accurate.

You are right to push for a 12 month average and you need to press home the point that you are a contractor (presumably) and not salaried. Your solicitor should be able to put this across for you, and your company accounts should provide evidence to back this up.

Like I say, I'd rather receive less via a judge than directly accept an offer that blatantly takes the piddle.

Just be careful as if you receive less via a Judge you will also have to pay your opponents legal fees and they will take the pi$$.