The MIB have confirmed to the op that they are going to pursue him for their outlay before proceedings have been issued going on what the OP has confirmed in that they have sent him a few letters. Good advice re a solicitor though and definitely get as much info as you can regarding payments made, to whom and what for etc. What the op has also got to remember is that hiring a solicitor for a defence will also cost £000-0000's (possibly even if the OP wins) and if you force the MIB to issue proceedings, their costs of doing so and up to any settlement if they win will be on top of the original sum.

The MIB have 2 years from the date of settlement to issue recovery proceedings against the OP under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, so they still have 15 months to run!

Yep, it takes a while, plus you have to pay a £300 excess to make the process even more enjoyable.

The damage was caused by an unknown driver. As such, the claims come under the MIB's Untraced Drivers Agreement and compensation should be sought from them or the individual 's own car insurance policy.

Just read this about Homeserve. http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/homeserve-fined-750000-for-excessive-silent-and-abandoned-calls/1395962.article

If it is a test case then surely the insurance company will appeal it - especially given the ridiculously disproportionate fees racked up. I know i would... Have they?

What does your policy wording say on this subject? TBH, I am with UB on this one and think that the FOS will have sympathy for Supercover.

Limitation wise I think you will be ok. Section 14(a) (5) of the Limitation Act 1980 gives leave to apply the limitation point from the date of knowledge that the negligence occurred and as such, you have three years from the 'date of knowledge' to issue proceedings. As you were not aware in 2003 that the survey, if undertaken correctly and the floor examined, would lead to a finding of fault with the floor, then your date of knowledge for the purposes of the act is not this point. Your date of knowledge comes from when you first learned that the floors were defective and rendering your house un-sellable i.e. 2010. However, success with any litigation is another matter. You will have to prove, which will be tricky and expensive, that the floor - if examined in 2003, would have been in the same parlous condition as it is now or in 2010 when the new survey was done. I don't think you have any comeback on the 2010 survey as they were just undertaking instructions form their client. I suspect that to put the floor(s) right to enable the sale of the property it will be expensive? If so, you should be able to get a lawyer to do it on a no win no fee Conditional Fee Agreement given that you can persuade them that in this instance the claim is not statute barred. What you have to remember is that if you start proceedings against either company and you lose, given the level of damages that you will be seeking, you will have to pay their costs. Ask your insurers i.e. car, home, contents, credit card, if you have legal expense insurance and see if they will cover it (unless you have already tried this of course).

Blimey, nice to see everyone being so nice to each other... Anyway, section 153 of the Highways Act does confirm that a gate should not open onto the street, so the owner of the property is technically in breach of the highways act. However, in a civil action such as the OP's, the fact that there has been a breach of the highways act does not lead to an automatic finding of liability against the property owner. If you wish to claim then you will have to prove that but for the unlawful gate being open the accident would not have happened. It is therefore difficult to succeed at 100% liability finding against the property owner as the judge will no doubt find that the gates were there to be seen, the driver should be driving at such a speed as to see hazards etc. Given that the road is also a cul-de-sac, you will also be up against it as there will be little speed involved. You will also have to prove that there was an obstruction in the road so as to create a further hazard to negotiate - any witnesses? Whilst i agree that the property owners gate is probably not legal, it certainly does not get you home and dry by that fact alone.

So what you are saying is that a qualified Legal Exec is more likely to make fraudulent or frivilous claims than a solicitor. I am sure ILEX would love to hear such things!! Plus if you want to make a complaint against a solicitor/Legal Exec you must make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman, not the Law Society. I would also suspect that the lawyer in the proceedings is just setting out on the claim form and within the particulars of claim the alleged injuries sustained and not purporting to be a medical expert. In any event, if proceedings have been issued and served without medical evidence, then they are in breach of the Pre-action protocol Para 2.14 and so service will not have been effected. Plus, the Claimant will not have established causation and a prima facie case without expert evidence and so coupled with the lack of service, an application for strike out can be made. However, I still maintain that this has the feel of proceedings issued for a court approval.

I suspect the claim will be done and dusted pretty much and all the child's solicitors have done is issue proceedings for the Court to approve the settlement agreed between the OP's insurers and solicitors. In any event, you need to pass the insurers. Regarding the previous RTA, any medical expert will have had to review the medical records before coming to a decision and so they will have taken into account the previous RTA (hopefully). This sort of claim is perfectly normal and insurers get hundreds of them a week. They know how to sniff out a fraud claim usually and so just let them get on with it would me my advice. Interesting article I read yesterday about fraud blackspots for anyone who might be interest... http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/keoghs-index-finds-nine-new-motor-fraud-black-spots/1395249.article

If you obtain a judgment against him that is summarily assessed at below £5,000 then you can obtain a warrant of execution against him - if he doesn't pay up. If he doesn't pay up after you get a warrant, then you can ask the Court bailiffs to go to his house and take goods to the value of your judgment against him. However, if you have a look on the bailiff threads on here, this aint as easy as it sounds...

The likelyhood of the driver of the vehicle that ploughed into the property maintaining a succesful defence on the basis of it being an involuntary act is unlikely. Such defences are notoriously hard to maintain. The cases on this point are Ryan –v Youngs 1938 CA, Waugh v James K Allan Ltd 1964 HL and Jones v Dennison 1971 CA. Basically, the driver will have to convince a court they knew that he had no health problems and had looked after themselves well. If the driver was a known diabetic and he had low blood sugar then he will not be able to sustain such a defence and as such you wil more than likely succeed against the driver. I would look to see if you have any legal expense insurance on your car, contents, credit card etc insurance policies as this will more than likely cover you to get legal representation to pursue your claim. If not then I would probably claim through the drivers insurance company and let them go to the expense of getting a loss adjuster to assess your losses, however, I am with Mwynci on not having any faith as to them doing a good job and so any offer needs to be looked at and independent quotes obtained for any work/replacement items that are offered.

How are they going to be negligent for your actions when you couldn't control your own vehicle when driving at 1-2 mph? You leave spaces when you park or in traffic so that you can manouevre out of that spot if the car in front breaks down etc, not on the basis you might accidently leap forward and hit the car in front or crush the poor unfortunate sole who is trying to pass in front of the vehicle. I can see where you are trying to go, but a carrier such as Eurotunnel would have a quite reasonable expectation that someone who has passed their uk driving test would be able to drive slowly onto a train without stalling or hitting other vehicles. If the Eurotunnel employee was dressed as a clown, was jumping and dancing around and squirting water out of his fake flower onto your windscreen, so obstructing your view and being a distraction, then you might have a chance... otherwise I would just hope no claim is made against you.

I think your best bet is down the medical road. Have you sought to discuss the ongoing distress your child is having with the unsightliness of the scar with your gp/treating consultant? Counselling is good for kids with these problems and a good plastic surgeon may well be able to clean up any redness and cosmetic scarring, but with age these things fade reasonably well, but i truly understand that this is hard to explain to a 9yr old girl. Good luck and I hope that your daughter makes a good recovery.

Be aware that if you do go for a civil claim it is quite likely that as parents, you will be brought into the claim for lack of supervision etc. You have already stated that it was a busy dual carriageway, that you had already crossed it once that day and you knew that the crossings were not in action and that it was in chaos. Stating that the child was adequately supervised may not cary too much weight given the accident happened... (i am certainly not saying you were at fault, just assessing the likely possible outcomes and what the defendants will do). You may well have some success against the m/c and possible the council, but not without a fight and you may also face a finding of liability against you in a civil claim of which you will have to pay the damages to your daughter either from any insurance you have or savings etc. Plus as soon you are accused of any lack of supervision, you will have to find someone else to represent your daughter in court/the proceedings.

If you go through the small claims court you will simply be going against her insurers anyway. presuming she has the good sense to pass on any letters of claim/proceedings etc to her insurance company. In any event, she wants to go through her insurance company. Therefore ask her for her insurers detials and policy number, write to them with your quotes etc and with a witness statement and they should sort it out for you. If you don't do this and you start proceedings then you will be criticised by the Court for not allowing the TP or her insurers the chance to mitigate their loss. But the easiest way is to let your insurers sort it out for you, but I can understand your reticence to let them do it.

Well, you have two actions to pursue now. One for the claim against the bridging loan company and for the negligence claim against the finance firm. If the finance firm has an in house 'solicitor' then that solicitor will be regulated by the Solicitors Regultation Authority and you will need to contact them immdediately who will launch an investigation. Any such investigation should help any civil action you have against them if they have done something wrong. Realistically, if you are looking to go for a claim between £500k to £1m then you need a damn good solicitor and counsel in your team. Personally I would go and see one a large regional law firm like Eversheds, DLA etc and get them to give you some advice and see if they will run it on a CFA for you. If not they may be able to point you in the right direction to a firm who will.

Yep, Heliosuk and Crem are both right in that you need to report it as suspected fraud and then just let your insurance company deal with it as they will. The pleadings can be altered very easily and it happens more often than you would think, mainly due to the fact that a lot of RTA claims are run by paralegals who copy and paste pleadings from previous particulars of claim to save time, yet forget to take out the incorrect data. In reality, there is nothing you can do to prevent your insurers from settling the claim given that you have hit the car in the rear.

There has been a recent judgment on this matter. I attach a copy of the article from The Gazette and the approved judgment (if you need to throw this at them). http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-firm-wins-freedom-battle-over-non-panel-rates http://www.nwdpublishing.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Brown-Quinn-v-Webster-Dixon-LLP.pdf Whilst this ruling goes someway to allow you to choose your own solicitors, it does also still give some freedom for them to turn down the request. You need to concentrate on whether your chosen firm are specialists in the file, close location etc to try and prove you would be better off with them.

The Defendant will raise a defence of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which is the old legal maxim for not being able to benefit from an illegal act. However, such a defence is not a strict defence and the cases of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2008] and Smyly v Agheampong v Allied Manufacturing (London) Ltd [2008] show that some heads of damage are recoverable even when an illegal act has been undertaken. The test will be as to whether the illegal act materially contributed to or caused the accident i.e. bike faulty which would have been picked up on MOT and if no fault then the accident would not have happened. If the illegal act is related then it is likely that the Claimant will not recover any damages. In any event, I agree with the above that the Claimant will have a torrid time if he makes a claim. Personally, if I was on the defence for this claim I would be reporting the Claimant to the police, DVLA etc and bringing up all sorts of arguments in relation to fraud, Ex turpi and have the Claimant under surveillance if they made a claim for personal injury and then if I could prove any fraud I would try for a prosecution against them.

You also need to check with you own insurance company to see if they have settled 50/50 or agreed any liability with the TP - just in case ML and your insurers have not kept in close contact.

I doubt Virgin are going to send you anything voluntarily that will state they have made a mistake so you can use that in a Court of Law. You state in the post of the 12th January that despite sending in the details of your previous insurers, Virgin still continued to chase the policyholder, although you would not have seen these letters. I would suggest Virgin will turn round and say that your email only provided the details of your previous insurer and not proof of any no claims and so they sent reminders and then cancelled. I would suggest you need to have a look at the chasing letters sent by Virgin to your uncle to see what they actually said as the last thing you want to do is plead in a criminal case that you had done everything right and then for Virgin to provide information to the Court that says otherwise.

Yeah, you can claim if you don't still live there - just that any claim for nuisance will end when you leave and thereon you will have to just claim any incidental expenditure in respect of having to leave, fee for terminating contracts early etc.

It is a difficult situation you find yourself in. In order to make a small claim, you must first send a letter before action which sets out your losses and allegations of negligence against the Dfendant(s). You have to give the Defendants around 14 days to acknowledge and then a further 30 days (possibly 90) before you can issue proceedings in Court. Once proceedings have been served then again the Defendant has 28 days in which to serve their defence, then directions to be set down and then a trial. All in all, you could be waiting for about 6-9 months before you get to trial if the Defendant's don't admit liability. A further few problems you have with civil proceedings are that you will be dealing with an insurance company with large pockets and they will instruct lawyers to defend them and you will be up against a barrister in court, if you get there. Also, because this is a nusiance claim and there maybe a number of people claiming then the insurers will know that if they make any payment to you then they will probably have to pay out to everyone who lives in the area once it gets out that they are paying up. Another consequence of this maybe that the Court deems that your case is not capable of being in the small claims track due to the number of potential defendant's and the complexity of the case (due to having to have experts confirm sound measurements, number of witnesses, potential further litigation on the back of this etc) and so allocate to the fast or multi track. If so, you will then run the risk of paying the Defendant's costs if you lose (probably between £5,000 to £10,000) unless you have legal expense insurance to cover their costs. If I were you I would not issue proceedings unless you have to. Write a letter of claim and then pile the pressure on them with complaints, records of noise, license reviews etc and you may well get some award. You will probably only be looking at loss of enjoyment of your flat and so a percentage of your monthly rental cost.