Kaykay
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Yes. I want the thread to stay open for others willing to contribute. It took you over a month to make your contribution but appeared you did not read the original post to see what I reported and the follow up posts I reported including the picture of Car C purportedly moderate impact of the accident whereas she asserted that impact was never that of the incidence. I believe others might take sometime to respond. I believe she was benefiting from my feedback hence you can see what I stated about her receptive comments. Even if she was not benefiting I believe I am learning new things and others as can be seen from those who have viewed the thread. She told me that she is still going to appeal but not yet received the Court order upon which she would appeal. So as I believe that some people here are keen to stamp out fraud so it would be good to read their experiences, opinion and ideas.
-
What I have reported here of her case appeared different from what you are saying here. She said there was absolutely no impact to Car C. Her problem was not on Car B where there was impact but Car C where there was no impact. She appeared to have evidence that once the case is tried in a court of law the Driver of Car C may likely be prosecuted for fraud. I have also never reported any independent evidence that favoured the Claimant. The evidence she has got which I have seen clearly showed that the little child was seated on the front passenger seat of Car C and nobody was seated on the rear passenger seat. The Claim was that the little child was seated on the back seat and she took that to be a different person in her evidence and thus she believes that was a clear case of fraud as nobody was seated in the back seat of Car C. She told me she was receptive and never told me she has put it behind her. She told me she has never had any parking contravention in her life in whatsoever form and never had any accident ever before this incident.
-
I fed the information to her. She appeared receptive especially relating to the path that her name would not be searchable in any database. She told me that what Car C did means anyone can easily claim whiplash and receives four figure compensation. She said any passenger in a bus that had emergency stop could easily create a scene in the bus and ask for ambulance and claim four figure compensation. That without anyway to correct such fraud it would continue to escalate.
-
What she told me that is making her extremely unhappy is that her name was written in the court document as causing an accident which resulted in a little child injury whereas no such accident occurred involving the car the little child was seated. She told me it would be easy to let go if there had not been a court recording or if the Insurance firm was used as the defendant instead of her name. Is there absolutely no way she could seek a remedy for the decision to be quashed?
-
My thinking: Since she disputed the claim served upon the judge had one course of action to give directions for the case to be tried. For the judge to refuse the case to be tried after it has been disputed appeared to me to be plainly wrong.
-
Are you saying that she cannot appeal if the judge was plainly wrong? She believes that she is the Defendant and she should be listened to rather for the Insurance firm who makes economic decision. She told me there was no finding of fact involved as the judge simply disregarded her being the Defendant on the basis that the hearing was a settlement hearing and notwithstanding the Acknowledgment of Service she filed and served in which she disputed the claim and also disputed the jurisdiction as to the suitable for Part 8 Claim. She wanted the opportunity for whoever who believes that there was impact with the Car C to make oath before the court and their testimonies to be tried. According to her the judge had to adjourn the hearing briefly on the day to allow Counsel from the Claimant to confirm that the Insurance Firms of the Claimant and the Defendant has agreed on the money to be paid out to the little child.
-
If what Driver A said happened exactly and her determination to appeal, I was wondering if there is any statutory right for her to do so and if so what are the likely permutations?
-
The child's representative. The medical expert stated the following under a section entitled Methodology:
-
Yes. Car C was the car in the very front and directly in front of Car B. Car B which is directly in front of Car A is positioned in between Car C and Car A. The excerpts of the medical expert report she sent to me last December: "[Minor's name] vehicle suffered a rear impact by a car. She was jolted forwards before recoiling back into the seat. The injured party's representative estimated the impact of the colliding vehicle as moderate. Pain and stiffness to the neck referred into both shoulders with associated headaches. This injury/symptom presented itself immediately. The severity of this injury/symptom was described as severe."
-
She was the driver of Car A. Car A hit Car B when Car B suddenly stopped. She disputed Car C claim of Whiplash as she stated that Car B never shunted to hit Car C. She said that Car C claimed a moderate impact whereas she said there was no single scratch on the front of Car B that purportedly gave the moderate impact on Car C. So she insisted to me that there was no involvement of Car C in the sense of being impacted and that the claim of Car C was utterly false.
-
She disputed the involvement of the second car (Car C). You were correct that there was nothing she can do to dispute or prevent the claim settling as she made me to know this afternoon. She attended the Court after she had validly contested the claim in her Acknowledgement of Service. She said that the Claimant was represented by a Barrister and she represented herself. She said she spoke to the court for directions for a full trial because it was a false claim. The Barrister submitted to the court that she should be disregarded as the issue does not involved her but her insurance firm. She said she responded back to the court that the Insurance firm were not physically present at the scene and that it was wrong for Car C to make a claim when they were not involved. That a trial will establish the facts that Car C was never involved. She said that the judge commented that in his twenty years he has never seen a Defendant that was affected personally contested a claim. That he would disregard her objection to the claim and approve the settlement. She said she requested for permission to appeal and the judge did not grant her permission but at the same time the judge refused to state whether he refused her permission to appeal. She told me that she is really disturbed that a car that was never involved in an accident despite her objection and evidence to the court she was disregarded. She told me that she will be appealing the decision. This is really interesting for me that a court would approve money when there was objection from the principal defendant that the settlement must not be allowed because it was a false claim. If as she put it to me is correct then I feel that the decision of the court appeared to be abetting crime or fraud. I would welcome other viewpoints on this.
-
Have you seen the evidence? Would that be considered moderate impact in insurance term or in medical expert term? Is this not a false claim that would be passed on to motorists in their renewals? The pleadings in the court proceedings I have seen stated moderate impact.
-
I have been advised that this is the evidence upon which the medical report declared to be a moderate accident and therefore the compensation of the Whiplash. Again note that according to the engineering report there was no single scratch of any kind to the front of Car B that purportedly shunted forward to cause the said evidence reported.
-
Thank you for your responses. She was served the court proceedings. She told me she is extremely worried that a false record about her if not contested would be kept for ever in her name. She said in future no one would realise that it was a false claim in the event she inadvertently in the rare event she had a real fault. She said she is using the way the judicial system works in the UK to predict the future in the sense that lawyers would go back to find out what happened in the past in the form of any mitigation. This is the reason she said that since the claim was false it was improper for it to be settled without her knowledge and more so for the expert medical report to state moderate impact when there was no such impact.
-
There were pictures taken by the parties but Car A driver took a few pictures before the phone battery went dead. The area of the incidence has no business and no CCTV camera. She is more interested on how to contest the court proceedings in view of the stigma that her name would be in a court record for what she believes to be a false claim which her insurance appeared to have accepted liability to Car C insurance.
