Solicitor harassment

[autofive]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

 

tell them to fuck off and make a complaint to the law society

[Micrashed]

If you do go to the court and they find in your favour, can you get costs from the other party?

[fiatdaft]

Breadvan72 should be the man to ask me thinks.

[Guest]

[bar room expert mode/] I'm sure I remember reading that they can't sue someone in instances like these, as the fact you have insurance absolves you from all liability. I/E they need to sue your insurers, not you.

 

Er, how can I put this? That is 100% correct, except for the bits which are wrong, which are: all of it. Other than that, spot on.

 

The existence of insurance does not absolve a party of liability for a civil wrong, although in practice the other party may obtain redress via the insurance policy.

 

The OP's insurers ought to deal with defending the claim on his behalf, subject always to the terms of the insurance policy.

[Lankytim]

How can the OP be sued in this case then? He was insured fair and square.

[MrBen]

For my sins, I'm an insurance broker, so I have some clue about this stuff. (I have less clue about shite cars, although I enjoy them, hence I mostly lurk on here!)

 

As I suggested on the first page, the original solicitors letter needed to be passed to insurers to deal. If this wasn't done, and therefore the solicitors didn't get a response, they would after a certain number of days issue legal proceedings to force a response. This is standard solicitors practice in the long term, but these days some of the less reputable solicitors will issue almost immediately.

 

As you have passed the County Court claim on to your insurers, they should now deal with this for you. (they could question why the original solicitor's letter was not passed to them in the first place)

 

Regarding the question of whether the OP can be sued - as Breadvan points out, the OP was a party involved in the accident for which the other party believes him to be liable, so if he (or his insurers) have not dealt with the matter outside court then it would be correct that he would be the person to be sued As he is insured, and his insurers should indemnify him and deal with the legal proceedings.

[Guest Breadvan72]

How can the OP be sued in this case then? He was insured fair and square.

 

 

Please see what I wrote above.  Insurance does not obviate liability.  In practice, the other party may obtain redress via insurance, but the person who bears the liability for a civil wrong (if there is one) is not absolved of liability because he or she has insurance.   There is statutory provision for claims against insurers in some circumstances, and insurers may also obtain what are called subrogation rights, but we need not go into such things here. 

[Lankytim]

Ah, ok, I understand now I think. I was going from info passed to be by a barrister friend of mine who was looking into an insurer who would only cough up 50% of the value of a car transporter trailer that their client had run into and wrecked. I asked if the individual could be sued for the difference but he said not, only the insurers. Like I said bar room expert talk from me!

[Guest Breadvan72]

Ah, ok, I understand now I think. I was going from info passed to be by a barrister friend of mine who was looking into an insurer who would only cough up 50% of the value of a car transporter trailer that their client had run into and wrecked. I asked if the individual could be sued for the difference but he said not, only the insurers. Like I said bar room expert talk from me!

 

 

Your barrister friend is a pillock.  Tell him that another barrister says so, if you like!  If he gives such crappy advice to his clients, I hope that they sue his ass!

[Lankytim]

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but he's certainly not a pillock.

[Guest Breadvan72]

If he said what you say that he said, he most certainly is a pillock, or at least a completely rubbish lawyer.  Perhaps you misheard him.  

[Lankytim]

Well he isn't so perhaps I did.

[Pete-M]

Laws have changed recently regarding ambulance chasers. There'll be a lot less of them about in a year or so. Most are just tidying up old claims and buggering off.

[Richard]

When ambulance chasers phone you up about "your accident" is it purely speculative or are they working from a list?

 

I had one who was so insistent that I had had an accident that I almost believed him.

[dollywobbler]

Usually the insurance companies simply sell your details to the ambulance chasers. I chucked some quotes into confused.com recently, and had to state that I have an accident claim against me (when my wife rolled a Morris Minor into a ditch on my insurance). I did get a flurry of ambulance chasers getting in touch, even though IIRC, personal injury claims must be lodged within three years of the incident (accident was four years ago). 

[Danblez]

When ambulance chasers phone you up about "your accident" is it purely speculative or are they working from a list?

 

I had one who was so insistent that I had had an accident that I almost believed him.

 

This right royally boils my piss. I have had a few recently out of the blue (not had an accident) who simply put the phone down when I say I havent had an accident. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Guest a60rod]

Blody hell this has run away in my absence!

To summarise.

All parties had all details. FACT

Thrid PArties solys were jumping on band wagon as they issued a ltr asking for insurers details the day after the accident. Their client had them from me. Duplication at £35? a ltr. Grrrrrrrrr.

Making a case from nothing.

 

I studied law a few years ago, far from an expert but knew there had to be a ltr before action or whatever.

Anyway, I phone 3rd parties solicitor who confirms THEY send a s152 ltr (notice of intention to take Me to court) mid May and an invoice to my insurers start of May.

Long and short is my lot had shut the case........

When faced with facts and the bastard ltr from them saying 'case closed' dated the day before the County Court Claim they consumed pie of the humble type, made payment in full to An Other and paid my out of pocket expenses.

 

May not seem a biggie to the majority but to me it is. With a CCJ I am fucked for my job.

Not putting here what or who but for example a mates Mrs went for a job.

Got it, working in some high flying bank job. Pissed the interview.

They did background checks,  ex husband had a CCJ so she didn't get job.

[Lankytim]

When my Mum died last year I had a shitload of texts and calls regarding "my accident", too many to be a coincidence. The only people to have my number were the police liasion team.

[autofive]

bstards

 

its no coincidence

[overrun]

When my Mum died last year I had a shitload of texts and calls regarding "my accident", too many to be a coincidence. The only people to have my number were the police liasion team.

 

That's an absolute disgrace!

[Cavcraft]

Indeed it is a disgrace.

 

Direct Liars sold my details on after two claims against them (or their customers if you like) and it couldn't have been anyone else. I therefore feel obliged to occasionally express an interest in things on line and use their contact details as reference.