Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News4 mins ago
No win - no fee solicitors
A neighbour has asked for help. He had a bad fall in town but council's insurers have sent him packing and suggested if he is unhappy, to consult a solictor - but they will not be reponsible for any expenses. Does that last bit sound like a hollow threat?
I worked in insurance for nearly 40 years so don't have the usual compensation culture attitude and if I thought he was on the make I'd not be writing here.
Has anyone any experience of such solicitors?
I worked in insurance for nearly 40 years so don't have the usual compensation culture attitude and if I thought he was on the make I'd not be writing here.
Has anyone any experience of such solicitors?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
your neighbour should instruct a solicitor. i hate the phrase "
The Solicitor will obtain the evidence from the Council in relation to their street...
The Solicitor will obtain the evidence from the Council in relation to their street...
22:54 Mon 23rd Apr 2012
No but you do not need a solicitor to go to the small claims court and the council cannot add their costs if they win. Councils insurers always threaten you with dire consequenses if you fail. Take as many photos to prove what happened of the pavement or whatever and the injury. get a hospital report if she went to a&e. As a general rule they are only responsible if the knew about the risk. Check to see if anyone else has complained or reported the risk
Its so annoying & upsetting when these 'Big Boys' try to palm you off when its their fault but I bet most people let it go cos they feel intimidated by them.
My elderly mother used one of these Solicitors I think they were called Panonne. She fell on a spill in Tescos & broke her arm.
Tescos were so nasty about it wanting to get her out of the shop as she was disturbing customers (she couldnt get up she was in so much agony!) Not wanting to call an Ambulance cos then they have to inform H/O ect ect so I wrote to the H/O & got the same 'not interested' reply.
We would never usually do anything like this but they annoyed me so much, my frail Mother sitting there with her arm in a plaster. struggling, all we wanted was an apology.
Panonne did everything a gave my Mum the full amount, she didnt have to pay or do anything, just make a statement & sign a form. Bet Tesco wished they had just apologised (would have saved them a few quid).
Tell you neigbour to go for & not feel intimidated, just make sure it really is' 'no win no fee'
Good luck
Millie
My elderly mother used one of these Solicitors I think they were called Panonne. She fell on a spill in Tescos & broke her arm.
Tescos were so nasty about it wanting to get her out of the shop as she was disturbing customers (she couldnt get up she was in so much agony!) Not wanting to call an Ambulance cos then they have to inform H/O ect ect so I wrote to the H/O & got the same 'not interested' reply.
We would never usually do anything like this but they annoyed me so much, my frail Mother sitting there with her arm in a plaster. struggling, all we wanted was an apology.
Panonne did everything a gave my Mum the full amount, she didnt have to pay or do anything, just make a statement & sign a form. Bet Tesco wished they had just apologised (would have saved them a few quid).
Tell you neigbour to go for & not feel intimidated, just make sure it really is' 'no win no fee'
Good luck
Millie
your neighbour should instruct a solicitor. i hate the phrase "compensation culture" being bandied about everytime mention is made of somebody making a claim - no win no fee was brought in becuase Legal Aid (paid for by taxes) was taken away for personal injury claims.
The Solicitor will obtain the evidence from the Council in relation to their street inspection, repairs and complaints records, and that will establish whether there is any liability on the part of the Council. Effectively if they can prove that they've adhered to their inspection regime, and that the defect was not present at the last pre-accident inspection, then they have a statutory defence to the claim. Having said that, there are allegations that can be made of the INspector having missed the defect, if witness evidence can be obtained to establish that it existed pre-accident for example.
Any no win no fee solicitor will give 100% of any compensatino recovered to the neighbour if they win the claim (costs paid by council's insurers). If the claim is not won, then all costs should be written off by the solicitors.
Look on-line for accident compensation solicitors - try to find a firm that says they're actual solicitors. give them the photos and measurements and see what they say from there.
As an aside - councils and their insurers always always deny liability at first - it doesn't mean that a claim won't be successful..... good luck x
The Solicitor will obtain the evidence from the Council in relation to their street inspection, repairs and complaints records, and that will establish whether there is any liability on the part of the Council. Effectively if they can prove that they've adhered to their inspection regime, and that the defect was not present at the last pre-accident inspection, then they have a statutory defence to the claim. Having said that, there are allegations that can be made of the INspector having missed the defect, if witness evidence can be obtained to establish that it existed pre-accident for example.
Any no win no fee solicitor will give 100% of any compensatino recovered to the neighbour if they win the claim (costs paid by council's insurers). If the claim is not won, then all costs should be written off by the solicitors.
Look on-line for accident compensation solicitors - try to find a firm that says they're actual solicitors. give them the photos and measurements and see what they say from there.
As an aside - councils and their insurers always always deny liability at first - it doesn't mean that a claim won't be successful..... good luck x
Johnny37 - if he takes it to the small claims court (a) he's limiting the amount of compensation he can recover; (b) he won't recover his own costs if successful so the damages will be reduced by his own cost; (c) he won't have legal representation bringing a claim against a heavily insured Local Authority - not to be recommended when legal advice is readily available for free....
On reflection I agree - no win no fee means what it says. They advertise on tv every day. They will assess what level of compensation is appropriate if any. They may even recommend dropping the claim if they cannot make a profit out of it. Segilla did not give any details so I assumed the amount at issue is fairly small. Councils get many claims like this every day. I recommend you get as much photographic and medical evidence you can now.
Imagine a road, its kerb, pavement, pavement edging, grassy area.
Salvage bins to the rt. and slightly back from line of edging slabs.
As he turned away from the waste paper bin his foot caught the end of the line of the edging. It stood 4" proud of the pavement and grass.
I took a photo of it for with a £1 coin for scale.
He wrote the Council who marked it within a few days and by the end of the week ghey had ground down the stone at an angle.
But that's only the start of the tale.
Salvage bins to the rt. and slightly back from line of edging slabs.
As he turned away from the waste paper bin his foot caught the end of the line of the edging. It stood 4" proud of the pavement and grass.
I took a photo of it for with a £1 coin for scale.
He wrote the Council who marked it within a few days and by the end of the week ghey had ground down the stone at an angle.
But that's only the start of the tale.
I used to work in liability insurance, segilla, and I would say it's worth making a claim. Nothing to do with the small claims court - he needs to instruct a solicitor and make a claim against the council's public liability insurance.
The fact that the council acted quickly to correct the matter sounds to me - in my experience - a good reason why they might admit liability - as soon as the trip hazard was reported to them, they took it away. Any rapid remedial action like that suggests to me that they realised it was a hazard.
The expression we used to use was "is there a reasonable expectation that an accident might arise from a situation?" A 4-inch trip hazard - yes, a risk which has immediately been removed.
Don't take any notice of the the council saying they won't pay fees. If liability is admitted, they have to pay their own fees AND the claimant's fees - that's why they have PL insurance. Go for it.
The fact that the council acted quickly to correct the matter sounds to me - in my experience - a good reason why they might admit liability - as soon as the trip hazard was reported to them, they took it away. Any rapid remedial action like that suggests to me that they realised it was a hazard.
The expression we used to use was "is there a reasonable expectation that an accident might arise from a situation?" A 4-inch trip hazard - yes, a risk which has immediately been removed.
Don't take any notice of the the council saying they won't pay fees. If liability is admitted, they have to pay their own fees AND the claimant's fees - that's why they have PL insurance. Go for it.
For once boxtops, I'm not sure I fully agree.
Once the council were made aware of the issue they had to deal with it- if they had left it unrepaired after being made aware of it they almost certainly would have been found liable.
But until it was reported, if no-one else had reported it, I'm not sure it can be regarded as negligence. I may be wrong but I don't think it's reasonable for councils to inspect every pavement regularly to identify every such problem as soon as it arises.
It may still be worth claiming though, particularly if it turns out the council had had previous warnings/issues in that area.
Once the council were made aware of the issue they had to deal with it- if they had left it unrepaired after being made aware of it they almost certainly would have been found liable.
But until it was reported, if no-one else had reported it, I'm not sure it can be regarded as negligence. I may be wrong but I don't think it's reasonable for councils to inspect every pavement regularly to identify every such problem as soon as it arises.
It may still be worth claiming though, particularly if it turns out the council had had previous warnings/issues in that area.
The problem for councils is that it's very difficult, if not quite impossible, to defend cases like this. They'll repair a defective pavement promptly to save themselves from further claims, some of which may be from chancers.
Their best response is to tell intending claimants to clear off (but in more forensic language). They never know; it might stop some people!
Ignore rubbish about not being liable for expenses. This man should go ahead and claim. The firms you see advertising are often 'claims farmers'; clearing agents who place the work with firms of solicitors; a local firm to this man may well provide a 'no win, no fee' service.
Their best response is to tell intending claimants to clear off (but in more forensic language). They never know; it might stop some people!
Ignore rubbish about not being liable for expenses. This man should go ahead and claim. The firms you see advertising are often 'claims farmers'; clearing agents who place the work with firms of solicitors; a local firm to this man may well provide a 'no win, no fee' service.
cathfromsaron - "no but he cannot claim for an injury unless it lasts longer than three months or he has a loss of income!" - sorry, you're completely wrong there I'm afraid.
As far as liability is concerned, it helps that the Council have now repaired in that it helps to establish that it was an actionable defect. It is the pre-accident inspection which is important - whether the Council noted or should have noted that it was there at that time. please advise him to consult a soliitor about this as some of the advice he's probably receiving from here and other places is not correct. good luck
As far as liability is concerned, it helps that the Council have now repaired in that it helps to establish that it was an actionable defect. It is the pre-accident inspection which is important - whether the Council noted or should have noted that it was there at that time. please advise him to consult a soliitor about this as some of the advice he's probably receiving from here and other places is not correct. good luck
Conditional fees (no win no fee) was introduced in July 1995, in April 2000 legal aid was withdrawn for all civil cases claiming money, which most were, under the access to justice act 1999.
Solicitors who operate on a conditional fee basis will usually only take on a case if there is a good chance of success, which is itself a good guide to the strength of a claim.
Solicitors who operate on a conditional fee basis will usually only take on a case if there is a good chance of success, which is itself a good guide to the strength of a claim.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Technology5 mins ago
Body & Soul20 mins ago
News28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
