An "interesting" day at court this week
Discussion
I had a less-severe version of the same about 10 years ago, so it's not new - some twunk in a people carrier (with his two kids in the back!) bombs up behind me on a dual-carriageway in Kent, misjudges me moving back across to the inside lane (out of his way), and collects my o/s/r bumper corner with his n/s/f corner.
One 70mph tank-slapper later we're both safely on the verge - him for rather longer with a flat tyre.
Anyway, 6 months later I'm back in Kent for the bloody insurance hearing - his story was fantastic* - apparently I joined from a local slip-road, already travelling faster than him (I had a sports car = I was speeding!). I then swooped straight out in front of him. He braked (please note the laws of physics and his earlier assertion of my speed), braked again (why twice???), and then still hit me.
The Mags did at least understand Newtons Laws of Motion, and found in my favour. What did this chancer then say to me? "Well done mate", and offered his hand. Given I was out a day's holiday for this charade, plus all the time spent dealing with the insurers, I wasn't best pleased...
What comeback was there for him? NOTHING. Aside from a day off (he was a self-employed mechanic), he incurred no financial or other consequences for lying through his teeth for 6 months just to try and get off being an aggressive f
kwit behind the wheel.
* In the original but less common use of the word.
One 70mph tank-slapper later we're both safely on the verge - him for rather longer with a flat tyre.
Anyway, 6 months later I'm back in Kent for the bloody insurance hearing - his story was fantastic* - apparently I joined from a local slip-road, already travelling faster than him (I had a sports car = I was speeding!). I then swooped straight out in front of him. He braked (please note the laws of physics and his earlier assertion of my speed), braked again (why twice???), and then still hit me.
The Mags did at least understand Newtons Laws of Motion, and found in my favour. What did this chancer then say to me? "Well done mate", and offered his hand. Given I was out a day's holiday for this charade, plus all the time spent dealing with the insurers, I wasn't best pleased...
What comeback was there for him? NOTHING. Aside from a day off (he was a self-employed mechanic), he incurred no financial or other consequences for lying through his teeth for 6 months just to try and get off being an aggressive f
kwit behind the wheel.* In the original but less common use of the word.
TonyTony said:
How do these cases even get to court, usually the person is an oxygen thief bottom feeder, if a 'Normal' member of the public tried it on they would probably be prosecuted for fraud. 
It's probably worth it for the no-win no-fee brigade to go to court now and again because they'll hope that next time the insurer will take a more pragmatic view and agree to settle.havoc said:
I had a less-severe version of the same about 10 years ago, so it's not new - some twunk in a people carrier (with his two kids in the back!) bombs up behind me on a dual-carriageway in Kent, misjudges me moving back across to the inside lane (out of his way), and collects my o/s/r bumper corner with his n/s/f corner.
One 70mph tank-slapper later we're both safely on the verge - him for rather longer with a flat tyre.
Anyway, 6 months later I'm back in Kent for the bloody insurance hearing - his story was fantastic* - apparently I joined from a local slip-road, already travelling faster than him (I had a sports car = I was speeding!). I then swooped straight out in front of him. He braked (please note the laws of physics and his earlier assertion of my speed), braked again (why twice???), and then still hit me.
The Mags did at least understand Newtons Laws of Motion, and found in my favour. What did this chancer then say to me? "Well done mate", and offered his hand. Given I was out a day's holiday for this charade, plus all the time spent dealing with the insurers, I wasn't best pleased...
What comeback was there for him? NOTHING. Aside from a day off (he was a self-employed mechanic), he incurred no financial or other consequences for lying through his teeth for 6 months just to try and get off being an aggressive fkwit behind the wheel.
* In the original but less common use of the word.
I do hope you didn't shake his hand when offered.One 70mph tank-slapper later we're both safely on the verge - him for rather longer with a flat tyre.
Anyway, 6 months later I'm back in Kent for the bloody insurance hearing - his story was fantastic* - apparently I joined from a local slip-road, already travelling faster than him (I had a sports car = I was speeding!). I then swooped straight out in front of him. He braked (please note the laws of physics and his earlier assertion of my speed), braked again (why twice???), and then still hit me.
The Mags did at least understand Newtons Laws of Motion, and found in my favour. What did this chancer then say to me? "Well done mate", and offered his hand. Given I was out a day's holiday for this charade, plus all the time spent dealing with the insurers, I wasn't best pleased...
What comeback was there for him? NOTHING. Aside from a day off (he was a self-employed mechanic), he incurred no financial or other consequences for lying through his teeth for 6 months just to try and get off being an aggressive f
kwit behind the wheel.* In the original but less common use of the word.
I'd have told him to F off...
Nothing surprises me any more, some years ago I was threatened with court action by the Council for £0.00
I called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.
In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
I called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.
In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
V8RX7 said:
Nothing surprises me any more, some years ago I was threatened with court action by the Council for £0.00
I called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.
In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
Were you tempted to go? Just to see what would happen.. I called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.
In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
I was recently on the fringes of a case in the (Australian) Local Court where a bloke was being sued for about $4000. He lodged a cross-claim for $1,001,000,000 for 'compensation for attempted murder, damage to property etc..' This amount escalated it to the Supreme Court, where old mate is a no show because he's now in the enforced care of a mental health unit. This is communicated to the court. Rather than throwing it out, the hearing is adjourned until the next no show. All while incurring costs for barrister representation etc
If a criminal case is to proceed it must pass two straightforward tests - the evidential test and the public interest test. If there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, or if it's considered that prosecution would not be in the public interest, then a prosecution will not go ahead.
These two tests generally ensure that the courts' time isn't wasted in dealing with frivolous, vexatious or trivial matters which have no chance of resulting in a meaningful conviction.
It's not just the CPS who are obliged to scrutinise potential prosecutions using these two tests - any authority with an enforcement role is expected to scrutinise their cases to the same standard.
I'm just amazed there isn't a similar test for civil matters which filters out the obvious chancers, liars, timewasters and scammers before they waste everyone's time and money.
These two tests generally ensure that the courts' time isn't wasted in dealing with frivolous, vexatious or trivial matters which have no chance of resulting in a meaningful conviction.
It's not just the CPS who are obliged to scrutinise potential prosecutions using these two tests - any authority with an enforcement role is expected to scrutinise their cases to the same standard.
I'm just amazed there isn't a similar test for civil matters which filters out the obvious chancers, liars, timewasters and scammers before they waste everyone's time and money.
It's no wonder that more and more motorists (including myself) are fitting dashcams in their cars with very large memory cards to store the footage for several weeks or months before being overwritten just in case such an incident occurs.
From what the OP said, perhaps it is time that the laws are changed so that the ambulance chasing solicitors foot ALL the bills if their client is proved to be lying or otherwise in on the scam.
From what the OP said, perhaps it is time that the laws are changed so that the ambulance chasing solicitors foot ALL the bills if their client is proved to be lying or otherwise in on the scam.
I think you'd need a memory card with the capacity of a supercomputer to defend a claim arisesing from a ficticious accident from almost 4 years ago!
My stepson had sold his car and worked for two further employers since the alleged incident - proving that he wasn't involved was very difficult and took some considerable effort and time.
My stepson had sold his car and worked for two further employers since the alleged incident - proving that he wasn't involved was very difficult and took some considerable effort and time.
twister said:
Reg Local said:
I think that the claimant's "fall back" position would be that the accident did take place, but that she may have made a mistake in writing down the offending car's registration number.
Making a typo when writing down the ref might be considered an acceptable error to make here and not in itself evidence of an attempt to deceive, but when it's combined with her being adamant that the collision was more serious than the photographic evidence she then supplied would suggest? you would have thought that someone would have raised the question of a typo beforehand, unless they'd had experience of other insurance companies just paying up as it was easier and cheaper for them.
i have no doubts that the chancer and her legal team thought the OP's stepsons ins co would just fold and it was easy money.
I went through a very similar process albeit I was actually involved in an accident. There was no way I could have been liable but we had to go through the whole process.
Your description of what happened in court is almost identical to my scenario. We were awarded our costs however.
My insurance company were not as good though, having already settled the case as a 50/50 with the other driver (who interestingly was insured with the same underwriter - so cost of zero in effect to them!). It was only because I went through an accident management company for a loan car while mine was in repair that they decided to take the case to court. I had to go back to my insurance company to 'rectify' their decision and change it to a no-fault claim by me (2 years later!).
Your description of what happened in court is almost identical to my scenario. We were awarded our costs however.
My insurance company were not as good though, having already settled the case as a 50/50 with the other driver (who interestingly was insured with the same underwriter - so cost of zero in effect to them!). It was only because I went through an accident management company for a loan car while mine was in repair that they decided to take the case to court. I had to go back to my insurance company to 'rectify' their decision and change it to a no-fault claim by me (2 years later!).
Sometimes you do wonder what these people are thinking...
I accidentally reversed my lorry into a parked car one sunny afternoon. It had been parked directly behind me in the time between my checking around the lorry and moving off; there was no way I could have seen it.
I was moving at less than walking pace, felt a slight bump, stopped and had a look. 7 year old Audi, cracked bumper, no other damage. Found out whose it was, swapped details, took photos, moved on.
Six months later I was called into the office; a claim had been made against the Company for massive front end damage to the Audi and four cases of whiplash. The photos were still on my phone, the digital tachograph and the GPS tracker records showed the truck moving backwards at 2mph for a few seconds in between 1/2 hour periods stationary. I made another statement, the above mentioned was attached, it all went off to the insurance company.
The muppets still didn't give up.
Three months later our insurance company sent an investigator, I gave yet another statement, heads were shaken in disbelief.
I heard back after a while; they'd dropped it on the courthouse steps
I accidentally reversed my lorry into a parked car one sunny afternoon. It had been parked directly behind me in the time between my checking around the lorry and moving off; there was no way I could have seen it.
I was moving at less than walking pace, felt a slight bump, stopped and had a look. 7 year old Audi, cracked bumper, no other damage. Found out whose it was, swapped details, took photos, moved on.
Six months later I was called into the office; a claim had been made against the Company for massive front end damage to the Audi and four cases of whiplash. The photos were still on my phone, the digital tachograph and the GPS tracker records showed the truck moving backwards at 2mph for a few seconds in between 1/2 hour periods stationary. I made another statement, the above mentioned was attached, it all went off to the insurance company.
The muppets still didn't give up.
Three months later our insurance company sent an investigator, I gave yet another statement, heads were shaken in disbelief.
I heard back after a while; they'd dropped it on the courthouse steps
V8RX7 said:
Nothing surprises me any more, some years ago I was threatened with court action by the Council for £0.00
I called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.
In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
I'd have let that go to CourtI called them and explained it didn't make sense (I had previously paid the bill hence I didn't owe anything) but the employee was adamant I had to go to Court.
In the end I got my sister (a solicitor) to talk to them but it took several calls before they agreed to drop it.
Well done to the OP... shame it had to go so far...
Unfortunately it's symptomatic of UK modern day society who seem to think that the American way is the way to go...
We now have a society that thrives on "money for nothing" based on a litigious philosophy with the mouth breathers thinking that they don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions...
Most likely these are the same sort of people that will believe that have won €50m on the Spanish lottery.... despite having not bought any tickets...and then feel aggrieved when their winnings never materialize....
Unfortunately it's symptomatic of UK modern day society who seem to think that the American way is the way to go...
We now have a society that thrives on "money for nothing" based on a litigious philosophy with the mouth breathers thinking that they don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions...
Most likely these are the same sort of people that will believe that have won €50m on the Spanish lottery.... despite having not bought any tickets...and then feel aggrieved when their winnings never materialize....
Albeit farcical and frustrating, I genuinely enjoyed reading that post, OP.
It is beyond belief a case where the 'defendant' has such credible evidence to rubbish the accusation yet there he was, standing in front of a judge. Facepalm.
I was recently asked to make a claim for injuries I sustained during an accident in 2014. Apparently, you can claim for injuries for which you self medicate and there are no lasting pains. I whole heartedly refused to progress with it; I will not allow myself to be dragged down to the level of these fraudulent imbeciles, not for any sum of money.
It is beyond belief a case where the 'defendant' has such credible evidence to rubbish the accusation yet there he was, standing in front of a judge. Facepalm.
I was recently asked to make a claim for injuries I sustained during an accident in 2014. Apparently, you can claim for injuries for which you self medicate and there are no lasting pains. I whole heartedly refused to progress with it; I will not allow myself to be dragged down to the level of these fraudulent imbeciles, not for any sum of money.
Personally I'd like to see cases like this have the claimant up on charges of Perverting the Course of Justice or Perjury (or MiPO for any police naughtiness).
IMO there is a very real "public interest" in people not believing they can get away with lying in court and the CPS should bring the cases to court and make it very public that it is doing so. It seems to me there is very little risk of comeback for lying. Even blatantly.
IMO there is a very real "public interest" in people not believing they can get away with lying in court and the CPS should bring the cases to court and make it very public that it is doing so. It seems to me there is very little risk of comeback for lying. Even blatantly.
Fastdruid said:
Personally I'd like to see cases like this have the claimant up on charges of Perverting the Course of Justice or Perjury (or MiPO for any police naughtiness).
IMO there is a very real "public interest" in people not believing they can get away with lying in court and the CPS should bring the cases to court and make it very public that it is doing so. It seems to me there is very little risk of comeback for lying. Even blatantly.
Absolutely. I'm absolutely staggered by this situation. IMO there is a very real "public interest" in people not believing they can get away with lying in court and the CPS should bring the cases to court and make it very public that it is doing so. It seems to me there is very little risk of comeback for lying. Even blatantly.
False claims/blatant lies must be punished otherwise it opens the door for any old chancer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff