Rear ended :(

Adam · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:27

I don't agree with large sums being paid out for nonsensical temporary injuries such as whiplash. The compensation, in my opinion, does not directly correlate with the injury. I understand you took days off, had to travel to/from the hospital and ultimately shouldn't be out of pocket due to the actions of another party.

However, MikeHiow is just playing a very poor system that has been put in front of him which he is entitled to do. He hasn't said "I DEMAND £4.5k BECAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT". This is a sum that someone else has awarded him which is deemed to compensate him due to the injury. I work hard, I have bills to pay. A sum of £4.5k being handed to me is not something I would say no to and I imagine the vast majority of this forum would also gladly take it. He is entitled to the money and hasn't been dishonest or immoral. To suggest he has is unfair.

To me, it seems the fashionable thing to jump on MikeHiow when the anger should be directed to the people who make such ludicrous claims possible and so easy.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

InvaderGIR · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:29

Adam said:
Don't hate the player, hate the game

If less people played the game at full tilt we'd have a much better game in place.

Mucky_Pup · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:30

LiE said:
Maybe next time I get injured by no fault of my own I'll start suing people, perhaps it will the next big thing. Honestly, I've had sports injuries that have been more serve than the whiplash I've had.

You chose to play sports though, I didn't chose for an old codger to try and ram his Fiesta into the glovebox of my Focus from behind.

Will Gill · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:30

I hate the player if they claim for the sake of it, bunch of wannabe septics

[TW]Fox · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:35

MikeHiow said:
Thanks for pointing that out.

My accident pre-dates this.

So my point stands, I did not lie and those invoice figures are correct.

LOL, all that means is that the previous years tariff applies. Which for a 1.6 Focus prior to July was 37.33.

Nobody paid 130 quid a day to rent you that car.

Firestar_3x · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:35

Mucky_Pup said:
You chose to play sports though, I didn't chose for an old codger to try and ram his Fiesta into the glovebox of my Focus from behind.

He didn't choose for someone to injure him whilst playing sports, he played the game knowing the risks, much like you drive a car knowing the risks, which lets face it could ultimately be death.

[TW]Fox · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:42

Adam said:
To me, it seems the fashionable thing to jump on MikeHiow (

He admitted he deliberately bumped this thread because the forum was a bit boring lately and he wanted to spice it up.

MikeHiow said:
I knew the response this would have, it's been a bit too boring in here over the last few days I've been observing again.

He is deliberatly causing another epic thread and knows what he is doing, so hold the sympathy back, thanks.

Deep · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:48

When I had an accident in October, a solicitor company tried to win me "loss of earnings" despite the fact that I was unemployed!

I only found out about this a few weeks ago, when the lady who I had the accident with rang me up.

Participant · 11 Feb 2011 at 13:53

Deep said:
When I had an accident in October, a solicitor company tried to win me "loss of earnings" despite the fact that I was unemployed!

I only found out about this a few weeks ago, when the lady who I had the accident with rang me up.

Why is that strange? You were theoretically able to work, temp in a shop or something, but were (potentially) prevented from doing so. Not sure if that's how LOE works mind...

[TW]Fox · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:00

Robbie G said:
Why is that strange? You were theoretically able to work, temp in a shop or something, but were (potentially) prevented from doing so. Not sure if that's how LOE works mind...

It's loss of earnings not loss of potential earnings, you have to prove it to get it.

Deep · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:05

Robbie G said:
Why is that strange? You were theoretically able to work, temp in a shop or something, but were (potentially) prevented from doing so. Not sure if that's how LOE works mind...

But how would they calculate the loss of earnings if I had none? It doesn't really make sense to me

Will Gill · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:08

minimum wage at the very least?

Reality Bites · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:13

Howard said:
His word is just taken as gospel by claims companies because he is qualified.

Mayber they should just post on OCUK for the verdicts then.......who else will they consult but people with years of training and medical experience?

Reality Bites · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:15

[TW]Fox;18443938 said:
It's loss of earnings not loss of potential earnings, you have to prove it to get it.

But it would have stopped them getting a job?

Howard · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:16

Reality Bites said:
Mayber they should just post on OCUK for the verdicts then.......who else will they consult but people with years of training and medical experience?

That wasn't really my point. My point, as has been already made 20 times throughout this thread, was that it's difficult to prove or disprove, and hence the money is easily accessible to someone with a bit of a sore neck. Whether they need it or not.

the_r_sole · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:17

i got rear ended by someone recently, they wrote off my car and i suffered some whiplash, never made a claim for the injury at the time, now i've got a new car, my insurance policy has gone from 160 fully comp to 752 with the same insurer, and 495 for the cheapest quote, i didn't lose ncb or get a better car as a replacement, moreover i got bugger all money from the insurance company to replace the car...
i wish i had made a claim for the injury now, as someone elses poor driving and observation have put me more than a grand out of pocket

Reality Bites · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:19

Howard said:
That wasn't really my point. My point, as has been already made 20 times throughout this thread, was that it's difficult to prove or disprove, and hence the money is easily accessible to someone with a bit of a sore neck. Whether they need it or not.

but your point is rubbish I'm afraid. Doctors would be consulted on any injury claim.....they are there to work out what he has or hasn't got....simple really

Howard · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:22

Reality Bites said:
but your point is rubbish I'm afraid. Doctors would be consulted on any injury claim.....they are there to work out what he has or hasn't got....simple really

I know. And they can't say "no sir, you don't have a stiff back or a sore neck, I'm a doctor and you are mistaken", can they?

Reality Bites · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:25

Howard said:
I know. And they can't say "no sir, you don't have a stiff back or a sore neck, I'm a doctor and you are mistaken", can they?

but who else do you turn to?

At the end of the day, people on here are saying the OP suffered no injury worth claiming. Yet, he tells us he suffered pain, stiffness and rubbish sleep. If those were suffered, then he's fully entitled to the comp.

OCUK have turned into judges and doctors with no proof other than 'men' who haven't claimed for things in the past so it must be wrong to do so.

Howard · 11 Feb 2011 at 14:27

Reality Bites said:
but who else do you turn to?

At the end of the day, people on here are saying the OP suffered no injury worth claiming. Yet, he tells us he suffered pain, stiffness and rubbish sleep. If those were suffered, then he's fully entitled to the comp.

OCUK have turned into judges and doctors with no proof other than 'men' who haven't claimed for things in the past so it must be wrong to do so.

Please note that I haven't brought the OP into any of my responses. I'm talking about the whole claim culture generally, which I think is largely blown out of proportion and ridiculous. Are you saying you'd claim if you were a bit sore following a low speed accident? Are you happy to pay hugely inflated insurance premiums as a result of so many people doing so in the last few years?