Road accident compensation

[lala1974]

I have recently been a victim of a road accident. I was riding my bike and on the road and got hit by someone who came out of a stop and did n ot see me. I leanded on my head and face which resulted in various scabs and bruises and a black eye.

The person who hit me was very kind, admitted it being her fault and took me to hospital to be checked out: the hospital doctor attended my cuts and bruises and was sent home 3 hours after the accident. I have all details of driver, their insurer and witnesses.

I have been off work for 4 days, due to aches and pains and the fact that I was feeling tired and needed to sleep a bit more + could not look at pc for too long before I got a headache (I work on PCs).

I did not go to the doctor during my absence from work as I believed I just needed rest: I have been told, though that I could be entitled to some compensation for my injuries. As the injuries were not major, I was told there was no need for a solicitor (which I am glad about) and that I just needed to write a letter to the driver's insurer. I have never done anything like this before and I was wondering whether there is a template letter for this kind of issues which I can adjust to my requirements.

Can someone advise on this matter, please? Any help appreciated.

Thanks

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Who said you don't need a solicitor?

For personal injury cases you do!

 

Do you have household insurance? It may include legal expenses cover that will pick up the tab for this until you get a settlement.

 

My personal experience is that final settlements obtained by lawyers are about ten times the initial insurers offer. That obviously is a sweeping generalisation as so much depends on nature of injuries, loss of earnings etc etc.

[Hobbie]

I have recently been a victim of a road accident

 

And it was just that, an ACCIDENT so why are you jumping on the compensation culture band wagon and looking to make an easy buck? By your own addmision it was an accident, and of course accidents happens.

 

Get over it, and move on with your life. [/end_rant]

 

But yes if you want to claim, you do need a solicitor for personal injury claims, plenty of those "No Win, No Fee" type of cowboys about.

[lala1974]

It was actually a solicitor who told me that for minor injuries like mine, it would have been better to write directly to the driver's insurer and see what offer they came back with.

I have checked with my home insurance and they do not seem this kind of circumstances...

I am just a bit puzzled on what I am supposed to do at this point as I do generally write letters to insurance companies myself: if I had been driving a car or a scooter, I assume it would have been taken care by my vehicle's insurer, but in this case I am a bit at loss.

Thanks

[lala1974]

In reply to Hobbie: I would just like to clarify that I am not interested in "making a buck" as you put it and I was/am more than happy to drop the whole thing.

I was reading on the web and asking advise about something I know nothing about: I believe this site is meant for people to seek and receive advise and not to be judged on the questions they post.

[Hobbie]

In reply to Hobbie: I would just like to clarify that I am not interested in "making a buck" as you put it and I was/am more than happy to drop the whole thing.

 

So drop it?

 

....I believe this site is meant for people to seek and receive advise and not to be judged on the questions they post.

 

I totally agree, and this is a public forum open to debate and peoples views and opinion. I gave both my opinion and view on this, and also advised you that a solicitor is generally required for personal injury claims and that should you wish to proceed then plenty of "no win, no fee" cowboys will be willing to offer you help.

[Trojan1401]

I am totally against the compensation culture of this country however, insurance cover is there to compensate a person for loss or injury. In this case the OP does have a valid claim for injury as a result of an accident.

 

I am assuming that you were riding a pushbike therefore if you have legal expenses cover under your household policy they should be your first port of call. If not, you should seek professional but avoid the "no win no fee" ambulance chasers. There will be no doubt competent legal firms in your area offering this service who will normally only charge a nominal fee for this as it appears relativelt straight forward.

 

If you lost wages as a result then you can claim for this also.

 

To reiterate, where there is a genuine loss or injury, that is what insurance is for. The subject is very emotive as we do see many cases where people seek "compensayshun" for injury to feeling etc which I agree is completely over the top but in this case I think there is a genuine loss/injury.

[poppynurse]

There is nothing to stop you writing to the other parties insurers explaining what happened and asking for compensation for time off work (lost earnings) and the cost of repairing any damage to the bike. Or if this sum is less than the OP excess it may be that they wopuld be willing to settle rather than going through the insurance.

[empowered]

Hi

 

All insurance companies want to keep solicitors off their backs for PI claims especially where the person is a motorcyclist or cyclist, as the potential costs could be huge with solicitors fees etc. The OP insurance should make you a substantial offer, say up to £1000 especially as their policyholder has admitted liability. If you go down the solicitors route, the insurance company will need at least 2 medicals and it will also take far longer to resolve to check that there are no recurring medical problems from the accident.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited June 21, 2008 by empowered
missed a bit out

[BankFodder]

Firstly with the continuing symptoms which you describe, I would go to your own doctor as soon as possible. These are good indication of a concussion and you should at least get on record so in the event of some deterioration in your condition you have something on file.

Secondly you should see your doctor and tell him/her all about it so that later you can ask for some kind of report for the purposes of compensation.

 

I hope that you took photos of the injuries. You should always keep a photographic record on a day by day basis along with notes which record the development and the resolution of the signs and symptoms of your injury. Keep your damaged cycle helmet as well (You were wearing one, weren't you?).

 

I would write an immediate letter to the driver, copy to the insurers and put them on notice as to the accident, your injuries as they appear so far and your intention to lodge a claim.

 

I suggest that you don't do anything further until you are satisfied that you understand your whole injury and that there are no latent ill-effects.

 

You can usefully prepare as far as the hospital report goes. Write to them and ask them for a copy of the file and the doctor's report. If there is any difficulty about this - meaning if you don't hear anything within 14 days then make a FOI request.

 

One you are really sure that there are no further ill effects, go and see your doctor for a last check up just to make sure. If you suspect or notice anything strange then see your doctor immediately and report it. Keep your doctor updated all of the time.

 

Come back here when you have done this and you think that you are clear.

[BankFodder]

To those who are critical of someone who makes a compensation claim in these circumstances and who complain about the compensation culture, let me say that the compensation system is actually a vital part of today's system of quality regulation. It plays a very important economic role. It is the fact that manufacturers know that they may be sued for defective products which persuades them to take that much more care to ensure that their goods are safe or that their factories are non-polluting. It is the fact that suppliers of goods know that they may be sued which makes them take the trouble to insist on higher quality goods from the manufacturers. It is the threat of compensation claims which makes sure that train companies or bus companies take extra care that their transport systems are safe and less likely to have accidents and cause death or personal injury. It is the threat of compensation claims which frighten NHS services into trying to exercise better quality control over over their hygiene regimes or the professionalism of their staff. It is the threat of losing no claims bonuses or facing higher insurance premiums which contributes to the pressure upon drivers to drive their vehicles more prudently upon our roads - and it goes on.

 

It is called risk management the idea is based on when does being careful cease to be profitable. All big companies factor this into their maintenance/quality etc calculations.

It it costs more to take extra care than it might cost to pay compensation to negligence victims over an accounting year, then the maths dictates that you have to stop spending more money on safety as having the accidents and paying out the compensation will be cheaper and therefore more profitable. If it is cheaper to have the accident - then have it.

 

Quite a few years ago I saw a report produced by London Underground.

At that time they calculated that the cost of death and injury claims was an average of £681,000 per victim. This meant that if they could reduce the number of victims for cheaper than that figure per victim, then this would be the sensible/profitable thing to do.

 

It is this kind of figure which informs their budget calculations when considering repairs and maintenance for the next financial year.

 

Don't kid yourself that they are actually interested in you not being hurt.

[BankFodder]

And by the way, if your business activities are going to cause victims, it's much cheaper to have a dead victim than a live one. Dead victims don't need life-long care and compensation for lost career chances etc.

 

Also, if you have the choice of injuring a poor man or a rich man, get the poor man. Much less quality of life and prospects to compensate for.

 

It's all heart, isn't it.

[cazzaswfc]

Again like some I'm critical of the "compensation" culture, completly understand where you are coming from Bankfodder and to contridict myself! agree with the points made

 

however,

 

For me as some others point out, compensation should be for "loss" or injury ( that effects your day to day life, be it short or long term)

 

At a guess I'd say that the 4 days sick were paid for by the postees Employers? therefore no "loss" of earnings? Compensation for cuts. bruises and a headache? It's a little different to say a few broken bones, unable to work for 6 months.

 

However, If for example you were wanting to claim for damage to your bike then I understand and would advise you to seek legal advice, if say this was how you get to work/around you could argue that you have being subject to increased travel costs ( therefore financial "loss")

[james22008]

And it was just that, an ACCIDENT so why are you jumping on the compensation culture band wagon and looking to make an easy buck? By your own addmision it was an accident, and of course accidents happens.

 

Get over it, and move on with your life. [/end_rant]

 

Crikey - I'd like to hear you say that when some young hooligan without a license or insurance crashes in to someone you love because they were driving poorly - that would constitute 'an accident' but I doubt you' be so quick to "get over it"

[JonCris]

I'm not going to get into the 'compensation culture' argument again other than to say that those who make claims about there being one are talking rubbish

 

There are now fewer claims than 10 years ago & the increase in costs claimed by the insurers? all down to them I'm afraid fighting every claim every step of the way.

 

As for the OP I suggest that, if you don't follow BF's advice & because the affects of whiplash can be latent in nature, you take advice from a recognised specialist personal injury solicitor who you will find on here The Law Society - Home & who will make no charge to you whatsoever for their advice & service

[Hobbie]

Crikey - I'd like to hear you say that when some young hooligan without a license or insurance crashes in to someone you love because they were driving poorly - that would constitute 'an accident' but I doubt you' be so quick to "get over it"

 

well that wouldn't be an accident now would it? it would be a criminal offence and the http://www.cica.gov.uk/ was establied by the Government to compensate victims of CRIME, not victims of an ACCIDENT, incase your not aware... the two have two very different meanings.

[JonCris]

An 'accident' is an act of GOD as it's unforeseeable while a car crash is usually classed as an 'incident' because it is foreseeable

 

& compensation for injury due to an uninsured vehicle incident, criminal or not, would be met by the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) fund

Edited June 24, 2008 by JonCris

[Hobbie]

.... an act of good ...

Is not a politically correct term, as not all cultures beleive in "GOD" so therefore it GOD can not commit such an act, and as several insurance companies establied in the floods of last year, the court ruled that to be the case, if one does not beleive in GOD then no act is committed. Crazy? well... my opinion it is... :)

 

But it is no longer called a Road Traffic Accident, as most accidents can be avoided, so it would be a Road Traffic Collision, be it a motor vehicle + person(s) involved, several motor vehicles involved or 1 m/v and street furniture/lamp post etc... it would be still be a collision.

[JonCris]

Then I suggest you advise all & sundry such as the media, the police that they are all using the wrong term to describe the situation & that it should be called a collision instead of incident as it is now

 

As for 'Act of God' last time I looked we where still considered a Christian country & apart from atheists most believe in some sort of omni presence so using the term 'Act of God' is just fine

[JonCris]

Insurers have not been able to claim 'Act of God' for years when they used to argue that storm damage was an 'Act of God' therefore they where not liable.

 

However if a vehicle driver succumbs to an undiagnosed heart disease which results in an incident (even one causing death) then that will be classed as an Act of God & therefore no liability is attached to that driver

[Hobbie]

Don't need to inform "all & sundry" as police forces do use the correct term to describe the situation... Just a quick search of Google brings back several English and Welsh forces using it.

 

One example. http://www.leics.police.uk/files/library/documents/rtc_policy20070427.pdf

 

Although the media may use the older term of RTC as most people will understand the meaning, and the media try the best not to confuse folk, unless trying to twist or place some spin on a story.

 

As for where you looked, where DID YOU look? But yes I agree it is still a Christian country (For now at least) But the political correctness has gone insane, and forced down everyones throats, and so that the Government are not seen to discriminate against other religions and cultures they've changed wording not to include 'An Act of God' insurance companies may still use it, but the Governments stance on the matter is otherwise, of course I'm not a spokesperson for the Gov't but just searching your favourite search engine will come back with several hundered results for RTC and/or Road Traffic Collision.

 

Anyway, we're totally and utterly going off the original posters topic now, if you wish to discuss this further then start a new thread and PM the link where I will be more than happy to continue if you so wish.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

FWIW the term "unavoidable accident" is what is now used rather than "acts of God".

[JonCris]

There is no such thing as an 'unavoidable' accident

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I think perhaps I meant "inevitable accident" but "mis-typed"

[JonCris]

I think perhaps I meant "inevitable accident" but "mis-typed"

 

Still no such thing. Terms 'inevitable' & 'accident' are incompatible