Good No Win No Fee company?

dougguk · 3 Jun 2006 at 10:56

Hi all,

Bro has been hit from behind by a truck. Police have done the other driver for dangerous driving. He has whiplash now, but is OK. Car is a write off however.

Anyone know of any good no win no fee places as he now cant get to work, etc and has lost his car. Or is it better to go through a normal solicitor for compensation claims?

Anyone got experience of this?

Thanks

Mic · 3 Jun 2006 at 10:58

Does insurance not cover the cost of the car?

dougguk · 3 Jun 2006 at 10:59

Yes it does, but you know what insurance companies are like!

Oblivious · 3 Jun 2006 at 10:59

Just go through the insurance company if you have a genuine greivance.

I hate no win no fee companies. It was hinted to me by all sorts of people that I should claim for whiplash when another guy hit me, BUT I think its morally wrong all this whiplash garbage. So I didn't.

SiD the Turtle · 3 Jun 2006 at 11:02

dougguk said:
Yes it does, but you know what insurance companies are like!

Yeah, must more trustworthy than no win no fee companies!

We got hit up the backside and got the car fixed, and claimed from damages from the other party for whiplash/missed work etc without having to do more than sign our names once or twice and go for a medical. Oh and it didn't affect the no claims at all.

dougguk · 3 Jun 2006 at 11:15

Who did you use Sid for the claim?

SoliD · 3 Jun 2006 at 11:23

dougguk said:
Who did you use Sid for the claim?

his insurance company by the wording of his post?

decmatt · 3 Jun 2006 at 11:27

I hate these things, it just seems wrong, the unbritish thing to do. This always seems to happen in USA, one of the reasons I prefare England.

Oblivious · 3 Jun 2006 at 11:27

SoliD said:
his insurance company by the wording of his post?

lol, Im sure he means which insurance company. Doesn't take a genius to work that out.

SiD the Turtle · 3 Jun 2006 at 11:34

dougguk said:
Who did you use Sid for the claim?

AA, who go through a solictors called Shoosmiths. Nice people, charge the AA a fortune and us nothing

Aliboy · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:00

Solac said:
I hate these things, it just seems wrong, the unbritish thing to do. This always seems to happen in USA, one of the reasons I prefare England.

What's wrong with claiming for an injury that you recieved through no fault of your own :confused:

Very unbritish .. pfft :rolleyes:

decmatt · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:05

Because sometimes its no ones fault, and you just happened to be there, it was your fault you where driving on that road at that time. Its unlucky anyone should have an accident, but its petty trying to get money for it. Sure maybe if it was intentional like being smacked in *** face and they should pay for plastic surgery to have you face rearranged, but car accidents are usually no ones fault as such, just someone caused the accident, and thats why its caulded an accident, because it was an accident.

willd58 · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:05

Old No.7 said:
What's wrong with claiming for an injury that you recieved through no fault of your own
Very unbritish .. pfft

Exactly, if someone hurts you, you should get somthing from them for your pain and loss's resulting from the pain. (work, time etc etc)

Beansprout · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:12

Um...insurance?

"He has whiplast but is OK" doesn't sound like much need for a lawsuit to me....each to their own, and it depends how the insurance company does a well I suppose.

Chronos-X · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:13

Solac said:
Because sometimes its no ones fault, and you just happened to be there, it was your fault you where driving on that road at that time. Its unlucky anyone should have an accident, but its petty trying to get money for it. Sure maybe if it was intentional like being smacked in *** face and they should pay for plastic surgery to have you face rearranged, but car accidents are usually no ones fault as such, just someone caused the accident, and thats why its caulded an accident, because it was an accident.

Indeed. The ambulance chasing sector is the scummiest part of the legal profession. All morons looking for a quick buck.

SiD the Turtle · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:18

Sheesh. Yeah I agree 'expecting' money is wrong there are times you are entitled to it.

In my case the pratt wasn't looking where he was going at all and due to his speed caused me extensive whiplash, which put me out of work for a while as at the time I was doing quite a 'manual' job. Blah blah blah you don't deserve it they say. Okay while I'm out of work due to my injuries I'll claim on the dole instead then shall I? Oh I forget that's 'wrong' too. I'll just pay the bills with good intentions then.

I knew this thread would go this way. Take it to Speakers Corner!

PeterNem · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:27

Without a doubt for any non-fault accident I have in the future I'd be straight onto http://www.helphire.co.uk rather than my own insurance company.

They take the case on your behalf and sort it with the ther drivers insurer. You'll get a like for like hire car whilst it's all being sorted.

You pay £10 or so to them into an insurance policy which means that even if the other drivers insurers don't pay up, you don't have to pay a penny more.

If you are involved in an accident that is not your fault why should you be inconvenienced? Call Helphire immediately. We can take on your case for you and:

* Provide you with replacement transport
* Organise and fund your repairs
* Help you claim compensation for injury or losses

Pinkeyes · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:45

Solac said:
Because sometimes its no ones fault, and you just happened to be there, it was your fault you where driving on that road at that time. Its unlucky anyone should have an accident, but its petty trying to get money for it. Sure maybe if it was intentional like being smacked in *** face and they should pay for plastic surgery to have you face rearranged, but car accidents are usually no ones fault as such, just someone caused the accident, and thats why its caulded an accident, because it was an accident.

I wouldnt say they are "usually no ones fault". They are an accident by definition, as they didn't mean to do it, but they are usually someones fault as to them happening.
If a driver crashed in the back of you because they had not been looking where they were going, would you say they were at no fault ?

Or to put it more realistically - if someone was driving at 100mph on a motorway and smashed into the back of you. It could be defined as an accident because they didnt mean to do it - but the damage caused to you and your car could have been significantly lessened or avoided all together had they have been going 70. So I would say their actions were to blame and they were at fault.

fini · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:53

Solac if a claim really is 'no ones fault' then you can't claim - or at least wont win the case. You can only claim if the person was acting below the standards a reasonable man might expect.

@ Chronos - Barristers and lawyers who choose to work in this area (called tort law) are hardly 'morons' as you put it - they get payed well and the law in that area's very interesting (Alcock, White, Page v Smith etc all very interesting cases). Perhaps you'd like to explain your comments more fully?

fini

Beansprout · 3 Jun 2006 at 12:57

Chronos-X said:
Indeed. The ambulance chasing sector is the scummiest part of the legal profession. All morons looking for a quick buck.

No...the companies employ the lawyers....so it's the company's business model which is 'moronic', if anything is...