Monday, September 27, 2010

Grace v Tanner

I haven't updated on what has happened further to my accident when some stupid woman ploughed into the side of my car in July. Not because I haven't heard from the solicitors representing me in the case - in fact I had heard from them and it was pissing me off in a mega way.

23rd Aug, they wrote saying that the other party wanted me to accept 50/50 responsibility and that if the case were to proceed to court, this was what the judge would most likely agree. They also said "Had either or both of the parties taken heed of and given due care and attention to the other road user a collision could have been avoided."

On receipt of this letter, I called them and found that they had not at this point even received the documents from my insurance company so had not seen my description of the collision nor my highly detailed diagram of the incident...

1st Sept, they wrote "It is quite clear from your documents provided that the other driver was in the incorrect lane for their intended direction of travel; however, it is also appropriate when travelling on roundabouts for road users to take heed of other vehicles who may not be in the correct lane for their direction of travel. We enclose herewith a case of Grace v Tanner, whose accident circumstances are not dissimiliar to your own with the result decided by the Court." They also advised that I now accept a 75/25 split in my favour...

Well if they'd bothered to review my docs properly, they would have seen that the other driver was behind me so whilst I couldn't see them, they had full sight of me when they crashed into me, so they obviously did not 'take heed'. And as for the case law, well the only thing that it had in common with my case was that it involved an incident coming off a roundabout, the details are different - did they think I wasn't going to bother reading it?

Anyway, I rejected their advice, reiterated that the other driver had crossed into my lane from an ahead only lane, reminded them that it was the other driver that crashed into my car, not the other way round and that I wanted my case to be overseen by a solicitor, not some legal clerk.

21st Sept - I get a letter from them saying that the other party had admitted full liability.

Well aren't I bloody glad I didn't take their crappy advice.

Definitely worth pushing back and being persistent, also worth getting a second opinion if you can (I did speak to the legal guy at work who agreed with me), especially if they try to blind you by quoting case law - no case is exactly the same.

And with that sorted, I'm more than ready to go on my hols to sunny climes - can't wait.

2 comments:

  1. Care to name and shame the crappy solicitors involved?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sure will do now that I have insurance cheque in hand - Michael Halsall Solicitors, Newton Le Willows. Useless.

    ReplyDelete