Ah, the good ol' "I could prove you wrong but I am not going to" approach combined with the "you have already been proven wrong" despite him not being proven wrong at all at this stage. He has you bang to rights in his mega post, either come at him or admit you are wrong, don't fop off with nonsense, your a better poster than that, or at least I thought you were.
For your sake, I will tell you. (notice I quoted his whole post? not pick certain sentences?)
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
This is getting rather ridiculous now.
The issue Raymond is not the 'law', which you keep bleating about in broken English, but the appropriate course of action following a very minor incident. He has not just been pulled from a moderate smash. He's bumped his 1500 quid car into somebody elses 1500 quid car in a private carpark with no road markings. It's just one of those things.
It is one of those things, but it doesn't make it less valid. The value of the vehicle has no relevance on his injuries.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
Yes, well done, you work in law. Have a cookie. I know you are desperate to tell us but really you ought to stop ramming your work credibility into every post you make if you are not prepared to tell us in what capacity you work. You can't try to validate your posts with professional experience if you are not prepared to back that up. You are effectively saying 'Listen to me, I know because I work at XYZ but I wont tell you what I do so you must take my word for it'.
My work involve defending insurance company in road traffic accidents mostly. There are other cases such as work accidents, and even accidents in theme parks. The work range from minor whiplash to serious head injuries. My capacity is working in a team where our team's work mainly involve Fast Track cases with some small claims thrown in (such as damage only), where the claim is between £5,000 to £50,000. I have been doing this for the past 3.5 years and I see claims like the one in the OP often. Although most 50/50 cases occur in roundabouts. One will say he was already on the roundabout, one will say the other cut the other person off etc. And in my experience, where the claim of this nature, it is normally settled at 50/50.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
You go on about how opinion doesnt matter - I rather think it does, because thats all you'll ever get on an internet forum. Infact all you get from a lawyer is her or her opinion - ie, that lawyers interpretation of the law. Thats not fact either, which is why lawyers don't win every case they bring. Only a court decides what is fact in law. Constantly posting the factual procedure for a personal injury claim is of no real benefit to anyone.
Do you want to know my advice?
My advice is go see a doctor, get this in his medical records. Take the other lady's insurance details then sit on it. Do nothing. You have 3 years from the date of the accident to make the claim. If after a year you still feel stiffness and you think it is as a result of this accident and you feel it is affecting your daily life, such as you can't travel long journey without regular short breaks, or even sit in the same position for too long whereas you can before then at that point, consider making a claim. If you are fine then move on.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
I repeat - this is not a 3 car shunt on a main road. This is two cars having a bump.
How does the number of vehicles in an accident be of any relevance of making a personal injury claim?
The only test to making a personal injury claim is whether a person is injured. His GP already confirmed so.
The test of whether you want to claim for damage to your car is differ from person to person. An Saudi Prince could have a "bump" against your new BMW 330i and then buy you a new one and not go through insurance. Where as most of us can't afford to.
The test therefore is base on economics and I have already made my point in this matter back in post
56. where i said.
i couldn't care less what happens to his car, its a car.
Where I mean he could solve that however way he likes. It's a car.
And I said in post
51 &
74. and I will put the bit i mean in bold for you.
Personally speaking, if you think you'll be fine in a day then i wouldn't bother. HOWEVER, no one can tell the future so going to the GP now will protect your position.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
What the OP really needs is practical advice on the best way to get himself back on the road with the least amount of hassle and the least amount of cost to him, not you bleating about personal injury claims in an accident which its highly unlikely would be ruled in either favours party.
I said before, I don't give a monkey's ass about his car. I do, however, concern about a person's health. Where some of you make jokes and giving me various labels and telling the OP to man up, I like you to get whiplash and come back tell me you like to live with that for a week, a month or even 2 years in severe cases. Then come back and tell me you've man up and you never felt it.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
IMHO the best course of action is that each party fixes his/her own vehicle, out of his/her own pocket, and gets on with life. I doubt the damage is even more than the excess would be on the insurance.
I do agree on that.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
You can take the Raymond Lin SuperLawyer approach if you like but is it really worth the hassle for... what exactly? Because it hardly sounds like the stuff of 4 figure personal injury claims does it?
The bracket for whiplash starts at £750, up to about £4,000 in severe cases. So 4 figures is not that far off. Now, before you go all macho on me, let me say i am not pushing him to claim by telling you the numbers, the bracket for whiplash is what it is.
[TW]Fox;19286028 said:
Buy some stuff of Ebay. Fix car. Get on with life. Approach blind corners with caution when turning into junctions in future. Live happily ever after. The end.
Ditto.
[TW]Fox;19289566 said:
He's clutching at the fact i assumed he meant paying for representation when infact he was talking about a service thats 'free' to the claimant.
Actually the service is not "free", there are things you need to pay for, but you will include get all those costs back when the case settles.
Such as buying an ATE, making a claim will require After The Event Insurance, in case your case is unsuccessful. In the funding part of the claim form, you have to tell the Court how you intend to fund the claim.
[TW]Fox;19289566 said:
Which doesn't really change the point being made at all, which is that legal representation is not really required for such a minor incident really, is it?
It really depends how far you intend to take this minor incident isn't it?
Sort it out amongst themselves, no.
Issue legal proceedings, yes.
What you guys will no doubt will fail to understand is that if this appear on my desk, i will think the way you do. 5mph? is this a joke? But the fact of the matter is that i seen a lot of these come through the door, why we pay it off? Because it is legit. But unlike you lot, I can stand back and look at it more black and white. Who are we to play judge, jury and executioner? We are not here to judge, which a lot of people here already have. The law is there available to everyone. It is your prerogative whether to take that avenue.
p.s. Is that what you want to hear hurfdurf? and as for "nip lick", stupid iPad. I meant "pick"!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
