Our client wins compensation after a 2 and half year battle for personal injury compensation where the Defendant alleged the claim was fraudulent.

Accident circumstances

Mr S reduced his speed due to traffic in front when the Defendant pulled out of a side road and collided with the passenger side of our client’s vehicle.Mr S suffered soft tissue injuries to his lower back, neck and shoulders.Mr S decided to pursue a car accident claim and searched for personal injury solicitors who specialise in dealing with non-fault accidents. He decided to contact Clearwater Solicitors to represent him.

The Defendant’s insurer’s position.

Once the accident had been reported, the Defendant’s insurers admitted liability meaning the claim was straight forward and therefore the Claimant would be entitled to personal injury compensation.

–        To value Mr S’s claim we arranged for his vehicle to be examined by an engineer and an appointment with a medical expert.

–        The engineer report showed that the collision caused extensive damage to vehicle meaning repair costs would be £2272; which were greater than the vehicle value which was £975, rendering the vehicle at uneconomical total loss and unroadworthy. This meant that the car would go into storage which would incur charges as well as cost of a replacement vehicle for Mr S to use.

–        The medical report showed that the impact of the collision caused Mr S to jolt sideways and the failure of the airbags to deploy caused Mr S to suffer; shock, stiffness of the neck, back and both shoulders, having significant effect on Mr S personal life restricting day to day duties, travel anxiety and sleep deprivation.

–        Primarily the third party insurers offered to settle the claim and pay £2600 in July 2012, in which we advised our client to accept as it was a reasonable offer, however months later the insurers refused to pay on the basis they were making further enquiries and insinuating the claim was fraudulent. They relied on. amongst other things, the age of our client’s vehicle.

–        The basis for their allegation was they were unable to contact their insured as well as other concerns.

–        Mr Ahmed who specialises in dealing with such allegations spoke to our client and believed our client’s claim was genuine and recommended we issued court proceedings.

–        We attempted to argue that a contract was formed as the Defendant had made an offer and the Claimant had accepted the offer and as fraud was not pleaded in the Defendant’s defence our client should be entitled to compensation. Unfortunately, the District Judge did not agree and the defendants were allowed to withdraw their admission of liability.

–        Approximately 4 months before the trial the Defendant’s solicitors, Keoghs who specialise in dealing with complex claims, sent a 5 page table allegedly showing:-

1. Multiple claims where our client had resided
2. Name, addresses, dates of birth and telephone numbers with which policies were taken out and claims made.
3. Showing a person with the same name as Mr S but with a different date of birth.

The purpose behind this was to argue that our client was associated with fraudsters and he was the same person who took out the policies using a different date of birth. The made an offer to our client to discontinue his claim which Mr S rejected.

How Clearwater Solicitors resolved the matter

Mr S was angered by the allegations the Defendant were making and therefore instructed us to pursue his claim for compensation and cooperated fully with Clearwater Solicitors.

–        After we explained to Mr S the serious nature of the allegations we obtained statements from the passengers in his car.

–        After the complex table was disclosed 4 months before the trial we asked the defendant’s solicitors for further details. Unfortunately, these details were not forthcoming and therefore we made an Application to Court for disclosure. The application was due to be heard on the trial date.

–        Approximately, 2 weeks before the trial the Defendant disclosed part of the documents we had asked for. Within the same were details of the other accidents the Defendant believed our client was involved in. After discussing the same with Mr S advised that he was only involved in 1 accident for which he received compensation from the Defendant’s insurers. He advised the other accidents had nothing to do with him.

–        Mr S also advised that the properties he resided at were rented accommodation and the rooms were let out to different people. Rightly he argued he could not be held liable for the actions of other people.

–        We contacted the third parties for the other accidents and it appeared they had been involved in claims with suspicious circumstances. They were more than willing for me to send photographs of our client to them and they would confirm whether our client was the person involved in accidents with them or not.

–        We pointed out to the Defendant’s solicitors that their disclosure was very late and we could not fully take our client’s instructions and therefore we would be objecting to including these documents within the trial.

–        A barrister was instructed to represent Mr S. The barrister was of the view that the claimant had a strong case and therefore was happy to proceed on a no win no fee basis.

Two week before the trial Keoghs again made an offer for our client to discontinue his claim which our client again rejected. They made a further 2 offers ridiculous offers to our client which our client again rejected based on our advice. Eventually the matter was resolved four days before the trial, Keoghs finally agreed to an offer we had made 6 months earlier.

 

Mr Ahmed’s comments about the case

Mr Ahmed said the case was straightforward and should not have got to the stage it had. The Defendant was determined to read too much into minor issues. For example, relying on the age of the Mr S’s vehicle to indicate that his claim was not genuine. It seems the Defendants are suggesting that any person who is driving an old car will be involved in fraudulent claims.

The consequences for Mr S were serious – if it was found that his claim was fraudulent he not only could have lost his home but he could also have been sent to prison. Further, any claim he made in the future would be thoroughly investigated.Too many solicitors would have recommended to the Client that he discontinued his claim when the offer was made to him. However, Mr Ahmed believed in our client and therefore was more than willing to pursue his claim successfully.

How can Clearwater Solicitors help you

Clearwater Solicitors is experienced in handling car accident claims where fraud is intimated.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.