The kind of person who doesn't open letters (and we all know that there have been lots of letters, both from her insurers and latterly the MIB), who simply hopes things will "go away" probably doesn't have the mental capacity to successfully represent themselves in court.
Bumped someone with no insurance, 2 years later they want £7000
- Thread starter morguk
- Start date
The kind of person who doesn't open letters (and we all know that there have been lots of letters, both from her insurers and latterly the MIB), who simply hopes things will "go away" probably doesn't have the mental capacity to successfully represent themselves in court.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
[TW]Fox;16220504 said:
I couldn't care less what you think Fox if you're just going to be a mouthy arse. I do disagree with him, and I've said why. None of us have any idea what legal knowledge he has, you included. OCUK is full of Google Warriors, as you know well. Not quite sure why you think the exchange between him and I requires your clueless 2p?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So you feel its appropriate to claim it all comes from google? How much of a fool will you feel if he comes back and tells us he's a legal professional with 20 years experience?
Because you posted it on a public discussion forum.
You obviously feel wounded that people don't think your advice is akin to the gospel. Understandably its hurt your pride. But lashing out isn't the way to make people respond better to your advice.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
[TW]Fox;16221410 said:
I won't feel like a fool at all. I stand by my initial comment, which was accurate.
Aah - so you're not his girlfriend then?
No, wrong again. Initially I was just offering to assist the OP, it's since transformed into an argument with you for some reason. I don't post on any topic unless I believe I am right. In the rare instances I am not, then I am a big enough man to acknowledge that. The only person I am 'lashing out' at at the moment is you - you wouldn't mouth off to my face, why do it on the net?
Sorry?
Wow, have you got a window in that glass house to throw stones out of? My issue is with the way you accused the other poster of simply googling his legal facts simply because he disagreed with you and held a different opinion, when you've absolutely no idea what his background is.
I've even been reasonably polite - whereas you seem to be hurling insults in every post you've made since he disagreed with you. You've come across as very aggresive ever since, yet seem suprised when it attracts attention?
Odd.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Stop the bitching ladies.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
[TW]Fox;16221484 said:
How do you know he didn't Google the detail in his post?
You haven't been anything close to polite. What were your comments? Something about me having no credibility, then something about me being pathetic. I've made very few posts since then, and the only person I have been aggressive to is you.
You need to wise up. There's a saying 'Don't poke a dog if you don't want to get bitten'. Perhaps bear that in mind.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
I know I shouldn't react. I've said what needed to be said.
I would approach a solicitor (you can get 30 minutes free consultation with many firms).
The useful lines of questioning are:
1) They requested £400. This would imply that there were no issues (whiplash etc) existing "a few weeks later". Do you still have this letter ?
2) All parties involved in legal proceedings are obliged to mitigate costs. For example I can't claim for a chauffeur driven Merc to get me to the doctors I should use the cheapest suitable transport. How they got from £400 to £7000 should be questioned thoroughly.
The biggest problem is that you were uninsured, big problem. My brother did the same thing when he was 18 drove into the back of a car at low speed. He was lucky in that the person in front was in an old land rover with full off road bars/bumpers. The guy he hit was also decent about it and said no worries. They swapped details - which is when the no insurance bit came out - and my bro dropped round a crate of beer as a thank you a week later.
The useful lines of questioning are:
1) They requested £400. This would imply that there were no issues (whiplash etc) existing "a few weeks later". Do you still have this letter ?
2) All parties involved in legal proceedings are obliged to mitigate costs. For example I can't claim for a chauffeur driven Merc to get me to the doctors I should use the cheapest suitable transport. How they got from £400 to £7000 should be questioned thoroughly.
The biggest problem is that you were uninsured, big problem. My brother did the same thing when he was 18 drove into the back of a car at low speed. He was lucky in that the person in front was in an old land rover with full off road bars/bumpers. The guy he hit was also decent about it and said no worries. They swapped details - which is when the no insurance bit came out - and my bro dropped round a crate of beer as a thank you a week later.
I don't, but from previous posts of his I've read its pretty unlikely.
I actually said 'Credibility -1'. This doesn't mean 'no credibility' it means that in my eyes, you've lost a bit for what you said. It's a shame because I usually seek out your posts in threads because they are normally well formed and full of decent content. At no point did I say you had no credibility.
'something'? It's there for you to read, you know, you don't need to try and remember. I actually called the act of accusing somebody of googling everything as 'pathetic', not you yourself. I've no idea if you are pathetic, I've never met you.
Since we've moved onto meaningless little tit for tat phrases I think its probably best if we take Burnsys advice here and drop it. Hopefully you'll think a little before accusing people of things simply because you don't agree with them in future
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
[TW]Fox;16221558 said:Hopefully you'll think a little before accusing people of things simply because you don't agree with them in future
Hopefully you'll find out whether there is any basis in fact for accusing me of being wrong before having an unwise pop at me. I'll spare you the emotion.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
I've read Raymond's post. Perhaps you could direct your comments to me directly, rather than talk about me as though I am not here?
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Perhaps you'd better listen to Burnsy.
I give up. I can't even defend myself without skating on thin ice
Sorry Burnsy but... seriously? Thats exactly what you did to fini and exactly why I took issue! Had you done the above before replying to fini this little spat would never have happened.
I never accused your advice of being wrong, I've no idea which of you is right. I just took issue with the way you challenged him.
Last edited:
This isn't a personal injury claim in the traditional sense of the word, it is a monetary claim by the MIB for money they have paid out to an injured party under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement, by which the injured party has also assigned their cause of action to the MIB and the MIB is now seeking to recover their outlay.
It is therefore far from simple as to what the uninsured individual has to do, and impossible to give any meaningful advice based on the sparse information provided - which is why any sensible advice would be - go see a lawyer who knows what they are talking about and give them everything including any correspondence which was 'ignored' or 'forgotten' about. You may have to pay a couple hundred quid to get a consultation, but if you do nothing, the uninsured will end up with a £7k+ county court judgment against them and all the fun that entails.
And TMR you are right in a sense - the way that the Court operates is often quite different to what is laid down in the rules and regulations, there is still a fair bit of judicial flexibility and as a rule, they tend to be sympathetic and very understanding to litigants acting in person to give them a chance of a fair Hearing - to the extent that often it can become wholly uneconomic to pursue a matter against an determined litigant in person armed with a slightly greater than your average lay-person's understanding of the law.
That said, I have also come across a number of litigants-in-person who, however strongly they believed in their case and thought they were in the right, have been very badly burnt and have ended up not only losing their case but facing a considerable legal bill from the other side for their troubles - when a bit of sound advice at the outset could have avoided them getting into a distinctly unattractive situation.
Hence the recommendation to get proper advice on a matter like this - a couple hundred quid spent on getting proper advice could save thousands in the long term.
(IANAL etc)
It is therefore far from simple as to what the uninsured individual has to do, and impossible to give any meaningful advice based on the sparse information provided - which is why any sensible advice would be - go see a lawyer who knows what they are talking about and give them everything including any correspondence which was 'ignored' or 'forgotten' about. You may have to pay a couple hundred quid to get a consultation, but if you do nothing, the uninsured will end up with a £7k+ county court judgment against them and all the fun that entails.
And TMR you are right in a sense - the way that the Court operates is often quite different to what is laid down in the rules and regulations, there is still a fair bit of judicial flexibility and as a rule, they tend to be sympathetic and very understanding to litigants acting in person to give them a chance of a fair Hearing - to the extent that often it can become wholly uneconomic to pursue a matter against an determined litigant in person armed with a slightly greater than your average lay-person's understanding of the law.
That said, I have also come across a number of litigants-in-person who, however strongly they believed in their case and thought they were in the right, have been very badly burnt and have ended up not only losing their case but facing a considerable legal bill from the other side for their troubles - when a bit of sound advice at the outset could have avoided them getting into a distinctly unattractive situation.
Hence the recommendation to get proper advice on a matter like this - a couple hundred quid spent on getting proper advice could save thousands in the long term.
(IANAL etc)
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
When I said "Stop the bitching", that was supposed to be the last word. Just drop it and debate the topic. If you can't debate nice, don't debate at all. If you carry on this topic will just get a padlock.