Clearwater Solicitors successfully pursue a claim for compensation despite the third party disputing liability for 2 years

Accident Circumstances

Mr H was taking his wife to work along Charles Road in Birmingham. He noticed that a car was parked up to his left. Mr H was driving at approximately 25-30 mph. As Mr H drove past the stationary vehicle to his left the rear driver’s side passenger opened the car door to exit the vehicle without looking at traffic on the road. Mr H collided into the right side of the third party vehicle. Mr H pulled over to park in front of the defendant’s vehicle. He talked to the driver of the third party vehicle and he offered to pay for Mr H’s vehicle damages. Mr H declined and they swapped insurance details. Clearwater Solicitors were instructed by Mr H to pursue a vehicle damage and personal injury compensation claim.

After initial investigations the claim was accepted by Clearwater Solicitors and it was allocated to Mr Ahmed on the portal team. Engineers were instructed to inspect the vehicle and value the damage to Mr H’s vehicle. The third party insurers were contacted and they advised that they had not been informed of the road traffic accident by the defendant. The report from the engineer was received and they had recorded Mr H’s vehicle as a category C total loss because the repair costs were more than the actual value of the vehicle. The vehicle needed repair to the left front side and also a new left front door.

The Defendants Position

The third party advised that they could not release the vehicle damage payment on a without prejudice basis because they had not had confirmation from the defendant that he was involved in a road traffic accident. The claim fell off the portal and the case was transferred to Mr Yaqub head of Clearwater Solicitors litigation team.The third party solicitors stated that they would still not deal with the car accident claim because they hadn’t had any correspondence from the defendant.

They also stated that they would not pay the vehicle damage because the engineer said the vehicle was not roadworthy due to the passenger side damage sustained from the damage. They said that Mr H could have had a geometry test carried out on his vehicle to try and keep his losses to a minimum, get his vehicle fixed and not have to claim for a hire vehicle. The third party instructed their personal injury solicitors who said that they would fund the geometry test on a without prejudice basis to cease the costs that were building up from the hire vehicle.

How we resolved the case

Mr Yaqub believed that the test was not reasonable because it would have been inconvenient for Mr H because he was a taxi driver and he was reliant on having a vehicle. He also said that to move his damaged vehicle to a garage for repair and then repair it would cost more than the total loss valuation. The third party solicitors responded and confirmed that they would issue the total loss payment.

–        The third party solicitors submitted part 18 questions to the client.

–        Mr H was liaising with Mr Yaqub through a claims management company who also provided his hire car. Mr H stated that the claims management company took his vehicle to get it repaired but he had to pay for the repairs himself.

–        Mr Yaqub spoke to the third party solicitors and asked them to explain exactly what the issues were with Mr H’s claim. The third party solicitors said that there were inconsistencies and that they were going to close the file due to lack of correspondence. They also stated that they received a phone call from the claims management company asking if they had received the part 18 answers.

–        The Claims management company should not have done this without Mr Yaqub’s authority. He asked the third party solicitors again what the issues were with the claim and he received a different response. They told him that the defendant had very little damage on his car and they couldn’t see how Mr H had incurred so much damage to his own vehicle.

–        This was far from the straight forward case that it seemed at the beginning. Mr Yaqub believed that the claims management company could have jeopardized Mr H’s whole claim.

–        Instructions were sent to counsel and they were accepted. Mr Yaqub spoke to Mr H and advised him that they would only continue with his personal injury claim if he had no more correspondence with the claims management company.

–        Mr H’s medical evidence was sent to the third party solicitors and after reviewing it they advised that they were willing to deal with the personal injury claim on a without prejudice basis. However no offers were received so proceeding were issued against the defendant.

–        The third party solicitors received the notice of proceedings and they submitted a party 36 offer for the sum of £1900 for full and final settlement of the claim.

–        Mr Yaqub advised Mr H that the offer was too low and he should receive between £2,200 and £2,500. He submitted a counter offer for £2,400 and this offer was accepted by the third party.

Mr H settled his personal injury and vehicle damage claim for the total sum of £3,075.00.

How can Clearwater Solicitors help you

Clearwater Solicitors are experienced in handling car accident claims where there the defendant does not co-operate and where liability is not admitted by the third party. 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.