Hairdresser wins his claim despite the third party insurers believing his claim was fraudulent

Accident Circumstances

Mr M was indicating right to turn off a main road into a car park so he could turn round. Mr M said that as he was doing this the defendant tried to overtake him and she collided into the side of Mr M’s vehicle. Mr M said that the defendant got out of her car and said that it was his fault. Mr M however believed that the accident was not his fault and there was a witness who gave a statement in favour of Mr M. The claim was submitted to the Defendant’s insurers on the road traffic accident portal.

Defendant’s Position

The Defendant’s insurers did not respond to the claim on the portal within the allocated time so the file was transferred to Mr Yaqub in the litigation team. Mr Yaqub put forward a part 36 offer of liability of 100% in favour of Mr M. However, the Defendant’s insurers believed both parties were responsible for the accident and therefore put forward a 50/50 liability split offer.

We recommended to Mr M he should reject the offer and Mr M agreed with our advice. The defendant’s insurers rejected this offer but stated they would be willing to deal with the claim if Mr M signed a Deed of Assignment and Agreement form. Mr Yaqub advised the claimant not to sign the form as the form would require Mr M to cooperate with the Defendant if they were to decide to sue their insured. This could mean Mr M would be interviewed, sign a statement and attend Court. Mr Yaqub’s view was that Mr m was an innocent victim and why should he be inconvenienced further.

How we resolved the case

Mr Yaqub asked the Defendant’s insurers why they required a Deed of Assignment and Agreement Form and they reluctantly disclosed the defendant was failing to cooperate. They said that if Mr M signed the Deed of Assignment and Agreement they would deal with his case on a without prejudice basis. Mr Yaqub advised Mr M not to sign the form and Mr M agreed with Mr Yaqub’s advice.

–        The Defendant’s insurers transferred the file to their personal injury solicitors who made a new allegation stating they believed the claim was fraudulent. They withdrew all of their previous offers and admissions. This was totally ridiculous because Mr M had already been paid for his vehicle damage.

–        The defendant’s insurer’s solicitors stated that they wanted to see all of Mr M’s medical evidence, medical records, the engineers report along with supporting colour photos of the damage and a questionnaire about the occupancy of Mr M’s vehicle.

–        Mr Yaqub was shocked that the third party solicitors were alleging fraud. He said that he would not release any information about Mr M or his records unless it was ordered by the court. Mr Yaqub also stated that because liability had still not been admitted he would be issuing court proceedings against the defendant.

–        Instructions were sent to counsel. A the meeting with Counsel Mr M came across very well and Counsel recommended we issued Court proceedings.

Mr Yaqub advised Mr M to put forward a part 36 offer for £3273.20 in respect of his general damages before this happened the third party submitted a better offer of £4500. This was accepted by Mr M.

How can Clearwater Solicitors help you

Clearwater Solicitors are experienced in handling car accident claims where the Defendant disputes the accident circumstances or alleges fraud.If you think you have a case or require further information contact Clearwater on 08000 430 430 or fill in the online call back request.