Loss of earnings after accident

[nellystew]

My wife was involved in an accident, which the other party insurers have admitted they were at fault.

As a result of injuries she was unable to get to work and so the her company got rid of her.
The job was a temp contract leading to an employed role and she was still in the contract bit of it.

Her solicitors have said they can't claim for loss of earnings as she was a temp worker at the time and the company could have got rid of her with no notice.

Is this how it works?

By the same token if she was a permanent member of staff, could she only claim 1 months salary as that was her notice period?!

Her "solicitors" are part of the same group as the insurance company and I get the feeling their not working in her best interests, just trying to keep the value of the claim down.

[TooMany2cvs]

nellystew said:

Her solicitors have said they can't claim for loss of earnings as she was a temp worker at the time and the company could have got rid of her with no notice.

Is this how it works?

Yes.

nellystew said:

By the same token if she was a permanent member of staff, could she only claim 1 months salary as that was her notice period?!

If she was permanently employed, and had been there more than two years, it would have been illegal for them to just get rid of her like that in the first place.

[chazwind]

nellystew said:

Is this how it works?

Absolutely not, they are just trying it on. It's irrelevant whether she was a contractor or permanent employee.

She will need payslips for the preceding 2-3 months, and proper evidence that her injuries were the direct cause of her absence. Don't let them fob you off.

[ModernAndy]

From a pragmatic point of view, surely it's worse given she's lost her job rather than been placed on sick leave given the accident has caused more financial loss than if she had job security. You'd have thought more compensation would be required rather than less.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Can you clarify if she was a temporary worker ie employed on a daily or weekly basis or a fixed term contract ie for say 6 months?

[Jasandjules]

If she had not been injured, then she would have continued to work. Accordingly, she can claim those losses. The other side may argue that she would have been dismissed, then obtain a letter from her former employer which confirms that had she not been unable to undertake her work she would have been employed until at least X date

[nellystew]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Can you clarify if she was a temporary worker ie employed on a daily or weekly basis or a fixed term contract ie for say 6 months?

It was on a weekly basis I think.

[Jasandjules]

nellystew said:

It was on a weekly basis I think.

Ask them to put in writing how long they anticipated she would have been employed for. They will at least know for example if they had replaced her and that person remains employed to date.

[nellystew]

Jasandjules said:

If she had not been injured, then she would have continued to work. Accordingly, she can claim those losses. The other side may argue that she would have been dismissed, then obtain a letter from her former employer which confirms that had she not been unable to undertake her work she would have been employed until at least X date

Her solicitors have a letter from the agency that employed her saying she was "dismissed" because of the accident, in the letter they also said she was on a temp contract and that's the bit the solicitors are concentrating on.

Grinds my gears that she's having to fight her own solicitors!

[Jasandjules]

nellystew said:

Her solicitors have a letter from the agency that employed her saying she was "dismissed" because of the accident, in the letter they also said she was on a temp contract and that's the bit the solicitors are concentrating on.

Grinds my gears that she's having to fight her own solicitors!

Yes those are facts. Nevertheless you can ask them (the employer) the questions I noted.

And sadly the solicitors may be looking for the simple way out.

[chazwind]

nellystew said:

It was on a weekly basis I think.

The contract length doesn't matter. If her work history shows that she routinely worked xx hours/week at xx £/hour up until the accident, then she has a valid claim (for as long as the medical evidence shows that she couldn't work because of her injuries).

If she's looking to be compensated for time searching for another job, then that's more problematic, but not impossible. A few weeks may be reasonable. Several months is obviously harder to substantiate.

[Nezquick]

chazwind said:

nellystew said:

It was on a weekly basis I think.

The contract length doesn't matter. If her work history shows that she routinely worked xx hours/week at xx £/hour up until the accident, then she has a valid claim (for as long as the medical evidence shows that she couldn't work because of her injuries).

If she's looking to be compensated for time searching for another job, then that's more problematic, but not impossible. A few weeks may be reasonable. Several months is obviously harder to substantiate.

Chaz is absolutely right. I defend PI claims for a living. She is perfectly entitled to claim LOE for whatever period a medical expert deems reasonable. If her GP signs her off with Med3's then that's proof enough in my view.

Just get details of her 13 weeks pre-accident earnings and send them to her solicitors telling them you want to claim. Whether she's on a contract or whether she's 'permanent' is utterly irrelevant.