How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Stuart J Your Own Question
Stuart J
Stuart J, Solicitor
Category: UK Law
Satisfied Customers: 22624
Experience:  PGD Law. 20 years legal profession, 6 as partner in High Street practice
Type Your UK Law Question Here...
Stuart J is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I need some advice regarding two different incidents of

Customer Question

I need some advice regarding two different incidents of injury claims claimant is my son and I am his rep but I need some legal input.
1. MIB has agreed to pay but on 50% basis despite appealing to them. Next step is to appeal through dept of transport's arbitrator.
2. Claimant was unfairly dragged into court proceedings by the medical company when their dispute was with the appointed lawyers.
I can explain more and provide more information to the relevant solicitor / legal expert who is willing to help me please through JustAnswer portal.
Submitted: 11 months ago.
Category: UK Law
Expert:  Stuart J replied 11 months ago.

Good evening. Thank you for the question. It is my pleasure to assist you with this today.

I am in the United Kingdom and this is exactly my area of law. Could you please let us have the background detail to this and exactly what the problem is? Thank you.

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
Hi - A familiar voice - thx for picking this up. I will draft the background info and get back to you. Thx.
Expert:  Stuart J replied 11 months ago.

No problem.

I will get onto it as soon as I have it. Kind regards

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
First the injury claim case with MIB. There are 5 docs attached to explain the case to you. Let me know if u need further info.
Customer: replied 11 months ago.
Here are the documents relating to GoldSmithWilliams who were acting as our legal rep to get injury claim etc. regarding an incident that happened on 22 Oct 2012. They were suppose to deal with and pay for the medical assessment and safeguard claimant's interest. However, they failed to do this. From 5 Feb 2015 out of the blue and as far as we were concerned long time after this matter we started getting claims for a sum of money they should have paid SilverLine Medical for the medical assessment. W kept getting demands and county court stuff and I kept writing to GSW to remind them they need to deal with it and get this mess sorted. The issue however dragged on an on until we received confirmation that the matter was settled between GSW and SLM and court had issued a Notice of Discontinuance on 7 Dec 2015. During the court proceedings Humza my son's credit report kept showing a CCJ which was totally wrong and unfair as he had nothing to do with this dispute. This affected his credit rating and he had to take more expensive option for a car loan / finance. Oxford County Court should have removed any CCJ flags from their system from 11 Feb 2016. But due to an admin error / failure they did not update the relevant system until 26 Ag 2016 when I actually spoke with them on 26 Aug 2016. Thi came about as Humza was going through signing a new tenancy agreement with his landlord and the credit ref company flagged he has a CCJ showing on his credit report. This could have been avoided if court admin staff had done their job back in Feb 2016. Eventually county court issued the CCJ cancellation on 26 Aug 2016. With this Humza was able to get over the CCJ issue for his tenancy.
I believe all three GSW, SLM, and Oxford County Court are liable.
P.S. I need your email address to send you / forward some large files which I can not attach here.
Expert:  Stuart J replied 11 months ago.

I have read all the documents.

What actually happened in the incident?

Why was the medical bill not paid?

How old is your son?

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
Incident was not disputed. He was with a friend who stopped at a roundabout and got hit by someone in the back of the car who could not stop. My son is 24 yrs old now and was 21 at the time. He had whiplash injury and got the injury claim money. But after all this in 2015 it transpired the medical company was not paid by our solicitors dealing with the injury claim. Rather than just taking the solicitors to court the medical company also dragged my son through court proceedings.
Customer: replied 11 months ago.
Based on my experience as to how the process should work when dealing with an injury claim the claimant is not liable to pay for medical assessment etc. His or her appointed lawyer (generally appointed through his or her or if he is not the driver then driver's Insu company) is the go between to facilitate all these payments. So the question is why my son in this case the injury claimant was picked on by the medical company when the dispute was between them SLM and the appointed GSW. That is the question.
Expert:  Stuart J replied 11 months ago.

Presumably, the medical company has been paid now so what is it that you want to achieve?

You also mention about the 50% contributory negligence or don’t you want to know anything about that?

If so, your version of events is different from the insurance company. You also miss out quite a lot of facts which are relevant.

What is the relevance of the stolen car?

In your version of events you say that a car rear-ended your son’s car but you don’t mention what the insurance company say about the stolen car and your son first running into the stolen car.

I need the full version of events otherwise my answer to you will either be incomplete or wrong.

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
First thing first there are 2 separate incidents. That is why I sent you two diffrent batches of documents with two different covering notes. Please see above messages. It seems you are mixing and confusing the two incidents.Lets take one at a time to avoid any confusion.50% is the one dealt by MIB as per their latest letter dated 1 Sep.
With regards ***** ***** incident we recovered the cost of our written off car from our own insu company. However, as the incident involved a 3rd party stolen builders van driven by an unknown thief who fled from the scene we could not claim for injury and the excess from the 3rd party i.e. the builders insurance company. Or at least that is what we have been told.
Therefore we had to go to MIB to recover these costs.
Having gone through our case MIB is disputing our claim. They are saying driver i.e. my son who although was acting as a good samaritan as he was only trying to help the builders who were in distress running after their stolen van but MIB is saying he was also partly negligent and on this basis they are only offering 50% of injury claim and 50% of Excess.
Hope you get the full gist of the MIB case this time.Lets get your advise regarding this first then I will explain the other incident.
Expert:  Stuart J replied 11 months ago.

You did indeed send two different lots of documents, but there are massive holes in it so I don’t know the whole scenario.

You have asked two unrelated questions about the same incident. I understand that.

This would be dealt with through the MIB uninsured and/or untraced drivers scheme. Sometimes I pass liability onto the stolen vehicle insurer, sometimes it goes through their own process.

What you haven’t mentioned is the fact that he is alleged to have hit the vehicle in front first before the vehicle behind hit him.

If that’s the case, then he would normally be liable for the damage to the vehicle in front on the basis that he must have been travelling too close or too fast otherwise he would have been able to stop in time. That is what the insurance company seem to be alleging.

There is then the further incident which wasn’t his fault where someone ran into him. Classic concertina accident.

There is no suggestion, from the insurance company documentation, that the person that ran into your son pushed him into the car in front because of that was the case, I cannot see any contributory negligence.

If it were not for the fact that your son hit the car in front first, then he should be getting 100% payout.

With regard to the other issue, I don’t know what you want to achieve here. You almost certainly have a complaint to make against the solicitors that cause the problem by not paying the bill and if the complaint to the solicitors doesn’t work, then you can complain to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Ombudsman. It would be useful to know exactly what you wanted to get out of this second problem.

I am now until later but will pick this up then and then, I will be online and off-line spasmodically at the weekend.

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
MIB case and the other one involving the medical co SLM are actually 2 different incidents. Let's take MIB one first. I will read ur comments above about MIB case discuss it with my son and get bk to you.
Expert:  Stuart J replied 11 months ago.

No problem.

I thought the medical was done as a result of the same incident, however it doesnt matter if it was or not

Customer: replied 11 months ago.
Sorry for getting back to you late.
Yes you are right these are two different incidents.
The MIB case is to do with incident dated 19 June 2015.
The one we would like to complain to SilverLine Medical, Amber Medico, GoldsmithWilliams and Oxford County Court and get some compensation is to do with incident dated 22 October 2012.First we are trying to put to bed the MIB case.
If you look at Humza's letter dated 4 July 2016 I have pasted an extract from this below.
The gist of this is both stolen vehicles one in front and one behind were driven by two guys belonging to the same gang. They acted in unison by sandwiching his car and fleeing the scene never to be caught by the police as far as we know. Their joint act made sure Humza's attempt to follow them was derailed. Both the guys colluded in a way that he was not able to stop in time to avoid collision with the van in front. Technically it does look a 50/50 case and we could get the builder's van insurer involved to get the other 50% but my understanding is as the van was stolen and driven by the thief at the time of this incident they will not treat with this positively on the basis that their client (the builders) was not in control of its vehicle (the stolen van in front).After considering all this what do you think what if we do not accept the 50% offer and take it further through the arbitration (Dep of Transport) as per the MIB procedure. Do we stand any chance of getting 100%. If not then we might as well accept the 50% offer and do not waste any more time and effort. What do you say?
Kind regards.
I could not foresee the stolen vehicle was going to brake so hard in front of me. Had I been aware of this, the accident would more than likely not have happened. However, the simple fact that I cannot predict the future means that I would never have known the vehicle in front was going to brake so hard. Regardless if I had left myself adequate braking distance I still would not have been able to stop my vehicle and bring it to a sudden dead stop. I also did not know the stolen van driver was going to attempt to take me off of the road because this is what happened i.e. I was intentionally written off of the road. After the collision with the rear of the van in front of me I was now at a standstill in the middle of the road as another vehicle had smashed into the back of me straight after making a sandwich of my vehicle between the two stolen vehicles. As it turned out the vehicle behind me was also stolen. How could I be made responsible for this when I was forced to stop in the road and the car behind me had intentionally sped up and rammed into the back of my vehicle. Both of the men knew what they were doing they belonged to the same gang. They had intended to take me off the road and they were successful in doing that. I do not feel this is at all fair to say that I contributed to the accident when I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time trying to help a fellow human being in distress.
Expert:  Stuart J replied 10 months ago.

I’m sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Because of the age of this thread, I no longer get notifications that you are waiting. I just happened to spot it.

The general rule here is that the vehicle collides into the back of another one, is at fault for driving too fast or too close regardless of whether the vehicle in front brake suddenly or not and without reason because it’s no different than if the vehicle braked to avoid hitting a child. The vehicle behind would not necessarily see that. The problem here is that you took the law into your own hands and although they haven’t mentioned it, what you are doing is potentially racing on the highway which is in itself a criminal offence. Certainly, it seems likely that you were speeding.

It would be completely different if you had not decided to pursue the vehicle yourself. However, I can see no reason why you shouldn’t continue to press for 100% through arbitration if necessary.