20th March 2020
The worldwide spread of the Coronavirus has resulted in emergency measures and Government guidance about restricting physical contact with other…
Mrs H had been at work before she set off to collect her son from the local school. She set off just before three o’clock and she was proceeding correctly down school road. Mrs H stated that as she was driving down the road she was behind a male driver. She was travelling at approximately twenty five miles per hour as she noticed that the vehicle in front had made a turn to pull in on the left hand side pavement.The claimant stated that all of a sudden the third party driver decided to do a U-turn without realising that there was a vehicle behind him.
She collided with the rear of the third party’s vehicle. The claimant stated that she recognised the third party as he was also on the way to the school to collect his son. Our client exchanged details with the driver and then both parties went to school to collect their children. However, the Defendant did not provide his name. Mrs H suffered neck, shoulder and upper back injuries. Mrs H decided to pursue a car accident claim and contacted Clearwater Solicitors to represent her.
We submitted Mrs H’s claim to the Defendant’s insurers who rejected the claim as our client did not provide the Defendant’s name. The Defendant would not even confirm if they insured the Defendant’s vehicle. The file was passed to Mr Ahmed in the litigation department. Two witnesses were provided by Mrs H and they both confirmed that the third party was at fault by pulling in and then proceeding to do a U-turn without indicating. The Defendant’s personal injury solicitors came back to us stating that they held Mrs H responsible because according to their insured she tried to overtake his vehicle when he was indicating right. This was not confirmed in the witness reports.
The third party questioned the credibility of the witnesses because they knew Mrs H because they had children at the same school. Mrs H said that they were not friends, only acquaintances from collecting their children. One of the witnesses also said in her statement that the defendant pulled the same manoeuvre in front of her that same morning.
– The third party still would not admit liability and a 75/25 offer regarding liability in the third party’s favour was submitted to us. That would mean that from every £100 pounds Mrs H would get £25 only.
– We recommended the offer was rejected and Mrs H agreed with our advice. She was adamant that the road traffic collision was the third party’s fault.
– Clearwater Solicitors advised Mrs H that she should take the case to court and proceedings were issued.
– Closer to the time of the court hearing a 50/50 liability offer was submitted and this was accepted by Mrs H because understandably she did not want to go to court.
– The third party offered to pay £1000 in terms of personal injury compensation to our client and also £175 towards her insurance excess. Mrs H gladly accepted this offer.
We had some fantastic comments from Mrs H regarding her file handler Mr Ahmed who works in our litigation department. She said:-
“Mr Ahmed is always very kind and courteous; he always kept her in the picture and let her know what stage the case was at. I have recommended Clearwater Solicitors to a friend from work and he is now being represented by Clearwater Solicitors for an accident at work compensation claim.”
Clearwater Solicitors is experienced in handling road traffic accident claims where the Defendant disputed liability. If you think you have a case or require further information contact Clearwater on 08000 430 430 or fill in the online call back request.