Litigation Question

[LoonR1]

Jasandjules said:

You seem to have forgotten that at any point the insurer could make a fair offer.. A Part 36 even. Get the ball rolling very quickly and even resolved. Save all those nasty lawyer fees....

OP, I regret to advise that historically, certain claims were dealt with by instruction from the insurer to delay as much as possible in the hope that the claimant would die of their disease. Perhaps Mr Loon will dispute or deny this, but I was trained by some who were so instructed.

In short however, yes, delay, frustration and so on can be tactical. BUT, quite often incompetence also has a large part to play....

I'll dey it happens now, because their is zero value in dragging out claims unnecessarily. Workloads are high, subbed out claims cost a bloody fortune to service and most insurers are close to ruinously understaffed. Claims staff are there to settle as many claims, as quickly as they can and as cost effectively (this includes proper liability resolution, as well as quantum). There is little point Part 36ing stuff until all amicable discussions are coming to an end.

There's a good chance the issue is down to understaffing at the insurer as well. Despite the view that I'm exclusively pro-insurer, I do take and accept there are failings within insurers. I don't necessarily see that admission from the legal side though.

I'm still convinced that the amount claimed is the stumbling block here.

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

I'm still convinced that the amount claimed is the stumbling block here.

I can't disagree with that, it usually is.

[pork911]

LoonR1 said:

There's a good chance the issue is down to understaffing at the insurer as well. Despite the view that I'm exclusively pro-insurer, I do take and accept there are failings within insurers. I don't necessarily see that admission from the legal side though.

the first line of your first post in this thread was a nonsense dig at the solicitors, i thought it was a lack of coffee and you later said it was to get a reaction, i don't see any similar baseless anti-insurer bks spouted by anyone in this thread


obviously both sides might be better staffed if recoverable costs increased

[LoonR1]

pork911 said:

LoonR1 said:

There's a good chance the issue is down to understaffing at the insurer as well. Despite the view that I'm exclusively pro-insurer, I do take and accept there are failings within insurers. I don't necessarily see that admission from the legal side though.

the first line of your first post in this thread was a nonsense dig at the solicitors, i thought it was a lack of coffee and you later said it was to get a reaction, i don't see any similar baseless anti-insurer bks spouted by anyone in this thread


obviously both sides might be better staffed if recoverable costs increased

Not necessarily this thread, although the first post is pretty anti insurer and there are a few tinfoil "drag it out for the sake of it" type posts.

[KungFuPanda]

Given that the OP States that his bike was worth £3.5k, it sounds like the interim payment made in the sum of £2.5k was for this less wear and tear/depreciation/over valuation by the OP and was probably made to stop him going for an over priced credit hire bike two grade above his own (I jest). In any event, if that is the case, sounds like general damages are up in the air.

[LoonR1]

KungFuPanda said:

Given that the OP States that his bike was worth £3.5k, it sounds like the interim payment made in the sum of £2.5k was for this less wear and tear/depreciation/over valuation by the OP and was probably made to stop him going for an over priced credit hire bike two grade above his own (I jest). In any event, if that is the case, sounds like general damages are up in the air.

Good post

[pork911]

LoonR1 said:

KungFuPanda said:

Given that the OP States that his bike was worth £3.5k, it sounds like the interim payment made in the sum of £2.5k was for this less wear and tear/depreciation/over valuation by the OP and was probably made to stop him going for an over priced credit hire bike two grade above his own (I jest). In any event, if that is the case, sounds like general damages are up in the air.

Good post

ahh but that stopped a referral fee, all of which helps to keep the money spinning

[Greenish]

Well the end of the week has come and as usual I have heard diddly squat.

No doubt I can hope for something next week but I suspect it will be me on the phone again chasing for updates with very little progress being made.

Re the comment above about the bike, luckily it is very new and I have all the receipts and documentation for it, so the value is a genuine one. It was in showroom condition as it was used rarely, and it was discontinued around the same time that I bought it, so direct replacement was not an option. In that sense, I have actually lost out more, as the bike is not able to be replaced.

[LoonR1]

You don't have to justify the bike. It was a bit of a technical in joke for those who understand the nerdy bits of a claim.

[Greenish]

One week later and no update again despite assurances I would hear something by the end of the week. No doubt a few weeks will now pass until I have to chase it up again.

[LoonR1]

Greenish said:

One week later and no update again despite assurances I would hear something by the end of the week. No doubt a few weeks will now pass until I have to chase it up again.

So who's not updating you?

[Greenish]

Both. I have to constantly chase my solicitor for an update and invariably when I eventually get one the update is that there is no update.

[7db]

FWIW, I dealt with Slater & Gordon when they were Russell Jones & Walker and found them to be excellent and highly professional. It may depend on the partner, and as I recall updates typically come from a associate which might be a bit more hit and miss. Prepared very well for trial and got a fair result in advance.

Stick with it and let them run the process. That is their day-job, after all.

[davamer23]

Greenish said:

Both. I have to constantly chase my solicitor for an update and invariably when I eventually get one the update is that there is no update.

So you want them to call you every few days to tell you there's no update?

[allergictocheese]

7db said:

FWIW, I dealt with Slater & Gordon when they were Russell Jones & Walker and found them to be excellent and highly professional. It may depend on the partner, and as I recall updates typically come from a associate which might be a bit more hit and miss. Prepared very well for trial and got a fair result in advance.

Stick with it and let them run the process. That is their day-job, after all.

Basic PI claims are unlikely to be dealt with by a partner. Typically admin done by NQ staff supervised by a junior solicitor. There isn't the money in it to have qualified staff doing the donkey work.

[Greenish]

Just had an email from my solicitor to say they are issuing proceedings in the absebce of any offers by close of play today due to an unacceptable delay in communication. This has also been forwarded to the third party insurer. Looks like the process is going to get a whole lot longer.

[walm]

Greenish said:

Just had an email from my solicitor to say they are issuing proceedings in the absebce of any offers by close of play today due to an unacceptable delay in communication. This has also been forwarded to the third party insurer. Looks like the process is going to get a whole lot longer.

I only have one experience of this but it is similar to yours.
My claim was strung out for a year (sorry, "was dealt with in a timely fashion over 12-18 months") and my solicitors finally issued proceedings.
The offer was made pretty much immediately after that...

But it then took a further 6 months for the third party insurer to pay up and for my NCB to be reinstated.

[Greenish]

I was going to ask actually... and I dont know if its different not being a motor vehicle driver and therefore not having an insurance company to act on my behalf...

Lets say I get an offer which is agreed by all but then the insurer does not pay up and continually delays matters as has been the case so far?

[walm]

Greenish said:

I was going to ask actually... and I dont know if its different not being a motor vehicle driver and therefore not having an insurance company to act on my behalf...

Lets say I get an offer which is agreed by all but then the insurer does not pay up and continually delays matters as has been the case so far?

Well again in my VAST experience of ONE - the solicitors had to write them another letter explaining that 120 days was a little longer than their normal payment terms.

But once they have agreed you are on to a completely different issue which much simpler - they know they owe you and there is no disagreement - it's just a question of forcing them to pay which is a low level accounts process not a "we actually have to think about it" type decision IYSWIM.

[Greenish]

Just to confirm, I spoke to my solicitors today who have stated they are sending out the court papers to me in the post to sign and return. They say the delay is ridiculous and my file has been sat on her desk now idle for 3 months and everyone is getting fed up with it. Basically they drag their feet and stretch it out as long as possible, replying in the time frames required but not replying with anything meaningful.

They state I may get an offer once the paperwork is initiated but this is where it is now going. I must say I couldn't be more fed up with it all, I had my suspicions about insurance companies and what a racket it all is, and this whole experience has just confirmed it for me. I just cannot understand how anyone can get away with treating people so disgustingly.