Is there a chance I will lose this case and be liable for the costs?

[Ohdoleavemealone]

In Feb 2019, someone drove into the back of me.
He admitted liability but said he didn't believe it should have caused me the damage it did.
I had pains in my arm that lasted a few months but it was noticably weak afterwards. For over a year after, my leg was numb. It was painful when I stood for too long or sat in certain postitions for too long. I had physio which helped a little. Had an MRI to discover why I wasn't healing as the experts said I should.
By the time this finished I had been left with a dull ache in my hip which I still get. It is amplified by sitting too long or in certain positions. I am only 31 so should be able to do these things with ease.
I was advised to contact a solicitor to make a claim to get the physio due to a long wait on the NHS and being unable to afford it myself. They are pretty useless!

The insurance company have been trying to fight me ever since I had the MRI scan and it showed nothing. They have since decided I must be lying and are taking it to court to prove this despite records from physio, medical experts ( there is a descrepancy here which I think they are clinging onto), mechanic reports about my car and pictures of my laptop that was flung accross the foot and smashed despite being in a case.
The court paperwork states that if found to be lying, I face the costs associated with the case. I am of course confident that I am not lying and have said I will happily attend court to argue this, (solicitor thinks it won't get to court) but am now concerned that if they do decide I have lied, that I could be paying out alot of money I do not have.

Can anyone advise?

No, sorry, as a solicitor with previous in civil
Claims it's not a case of 'if you're proved to be liable' you're liable for costs it's if the judge rules against you and in their favour which is different. Are you still represented now? It's a gamble to be honest from what you say, and if you were my client, based only on what I've read here i would advise that it's not worth it for the cost of private physio. If the judge doesn't think you've sufficiently proved that you need private physio you could end up paying tens of thousands for costs.
Did this already settle or is it ongoing?

@nellly it is ongoing. To be honest the solicitor is shocking. She keeps losing documents and didn't even think to get the reports from the garage until I suggested it. This is why I am asking here.

Do you have ATE insurance?

@gobbynorthernbird

Do you have ATE insurance?

No idea. We have legal cover on the home insurance?

@Ohdoleavemealone

Sorry *@LIZS* I don't understand your comment.

You implied physio had stopped due to pandemic, unless I misunderstood. There is a wait for nhs physio but you could have been referred and assessed by now. You may have been expected to do so to minimise costs. Difficult to treat if scans etc show no damage though.

Any reason why your own insurers wouldnt pay? Have you actually handed over any money of your own for any reports or repairs etc?

What is included in your claim? Just physio?

OK, you need to find out tomorrow if you have it. That should cover both sides costs if your claim is dismissed at hearing stage.

I'm assuming you're not just claiming for physio, so do you know what your sols have valued the claim at? And is it just quantum (the value of the claim) that has not been settled?

Also, has there ever been an admission of liability from the other side? Your insurer at the time will be able to tell you if the other party's insurer paid up.

ATE insurance should've been discussed at the outset though? Part of the client care/engagement letter, which sets out how the costs will be funded which no one ever reads

The claim is for physio, MRI scans, medical expert examinations and possibly solicitor fees. I think valued at 4K.

Barrister here. In personal injury claims you now benefit from ‘Qualified One Way Costs Shifting’ (‘QWOCS’). This means that simply losing the claim does not make you liable for costs; you only become liable if you lose and are found to have been dishonest. You may lose the case, but it’s much less likely you’ll be liable for the costs.

And yes, the other side admitted liability. He literally got out the car and said sorry, jay was my fault, I'm in a mess and shouldn't have been driving.

It is the insurance company saying things like they don't think I was even driving the car!

@Valmur

Barrister here. In personal injury claims you now benefit from ‘Qualified One Way Costs Shifting’ (‘QWOCS’). This means that simply losing the claim does not make you liable for costs; you only become liable if you lose and are found to have been dishonest. You may lose the case, but it’s much less likely you’ll be liable for the costs.

Thank you! I am 100% not lying and have gone out of way to avoid doing so and hope that it is enough.

Hard to prove lies either way though when the evidence doesn't exsist!

I was a witness for a similar case and was only called the day before the case to say that the other side were settling. Same is happening to my sister right now, her solicitor is saying to expect a call tomorrow as they are due in court on Thursday.

It is a common scare tactic to try and get the claimant to back down if they are indeed exaggerating.

@PyongyangKipperbang

I was a witness for a similar case and was only called the day before the case to say that the other side were settling. Same is happening to my sister right now, her solicitor is saying to expect a call tomorrow as they are due in court on Thursday.

It is a common scare tactic to try and get the claimant to back down if they are indeed exaggerating.

Thank you.

I thought it was a scare tactic too but still do worry sometimes. It is very frustrating!

OP I hear you! Was driven into by an HGV and I was in a mini 18 months ago. I was stationary and as driver applied his breaks the cab battered into my car. Cracked bumper but not as bad as I expected for how bad it felt. He accepted responsibility straight away.

I went straight to hospital as my ears were literally ringing and I had neck pain (had previous op to my neck a year earlier and seatbelt was over the area that had been operated on). I've had neck pain and debilitating tinnitus ever since. I'm now on codeine for neck and need to take amitryptaline daily to sleep as the tinnitus is most intrusive at night when its quiet. I've had to reduce my hours at work because I am constantly fatigued due to broken sleep.

My solicitor doesn't seem to be doing anything because of the pandemic and hasn't arranged for me to see an ear specialist even though its having a massive impact on my life.

I honestly feel just like giving up because I feel if I pursue it I'll be treated like I liar :(

So sorry you are going through this @Blackisthecolour

@Blackisthecolour

OP I hear you! Was driven into by an HGV and I was in a mini 18 months ago. I was stationary and as driver applied his breaks the cab battered into my car. Cracked bumper but not as bad as I expected for how bad it felt. He accepted responsibility straight away.

I went straight to hospital as my ears were literally ringing and I had neck pain (had previous op to my neck a year earlier and seatbelt was over the area that had been operated on). I've had neck pain and debilitating tinnitus ever since. I'm now on codeine for neck and need to take amitryptaline daily to sleep as the tinnitus is most intrusive at night when its quiet. I've had to reduce my hours at work because I am constantly fatigued due to broken sleep.

My solicitor doesn't seem to be doing anything because of the pandemic and hasn't arranged for me to see an ear specialist even though its having a massive impact on my life.

I honestly feel just like giving up because I feel if I pursue it I'll be treated like I liar :(

Is the solicitor one you chose or one recommended by your insurance? Either way, get a new one.

When I had a horrific accident 14 years ago I started with the solicitor my insurers recommended but they were shit so I instructed a different firm and they were so much better.

Yes, you have a risk. Your solicitor is the only person who can advise you and you shouldn’t be asking randoms on mumsnet.. It will be all about the strength of the evidence. And only your solicitor can tell you this.

You do have a negative, which is late claim. It is not normal to claim a year later, they know this and the judge also knows this , and they will be all over this. Examining your financial situation and wishing to know why you didn’t claim closer to the time. Did you suffer financial hardship in that year ? Could there be another reason for your claim? They will also be all over any discrepancies.

The court date is effectively automatically generated. The insurer has hired external lawyers and they are on review trying to prove “fundamental dishonesty”. This is not easy to prove. They are really hoping you’ll drop it. If you do not, they will wind up the evidence and decide if they proceed or not to trial based on what rhey feel is the strength of the evidence, or pay out. If it gets to trial it is all about the judge. It is their decision..

The insurers lawyers, are unlikely to be high st. They are likely to be big law. Big law that only hire the best law students and train them up. The guys with high firsts from oxbridge and high ranked Russel groups. They are not cheap.

Now you can drop out any time before you walk through the court room doors. But the closer you get to the trial date the higher the other sides costs will be they have built up.

As such, when you drop out, if it’s close enough to trial they will likely come after you for fundamental dishonesty after the event and it will proceed to trial without you. as they will request their costs back from you. And the drop of the claim will be presented to the court as evidence of your dishonesty and why you should pay the costs .

If it’s an early discontinuation it’s unlikely they will come after you after the event as the costs won’t have built up so high.

They will also know your financial situation, do you own a house, what do you earn, what assets do you have etc, and can they get their costs back, so is it worth it.

However they are only trying to stop fraudulent claims. If your claim is honest then you should absolutely proceed. You are entitled to compensation. Neither the insurer or their lawyers wish to not pay for honest claims. Hence why it comes down to the strength of the evidence.

So, Yes of course there is always a risk. But If you’re being honest and can answer the questions and address the discrepancies , you should absolutely proceed , the evidence won’t be strong enough and you will get compensated.

If you’re not being honest, your risk is huge, and the closer you get to trial date the higher the risk you’re going to have to pay their costs, even if you pull out

So it’s really all about the strength of the evidence.

Loool at the thought of insurance companies solicitors being like the above They are likely to be big law. Big law that only hire the best law students and train them up. The guys with high firsts from oxbridge and high ranked Russel groups. Chance are its gonna be somebody at Horwich Farrelly with a 2:2 from a redbrick and an LPC apprenticeship. And far too high a caseload. That's if it isn't a legal exec handling the file before passing a bundle to Counsel last minute.

@Bluntness100

Yes, you have a risk. Your solicitor is the only person who can advise you and you shouldn’t be asking randoms on mumsnet.. It will be all about the strength of the evidence. And only your solicitor can tell you this.

You do have a negative, which is late claim. It is not normal to claim a year later, they know this and the judge also knows this , and they will be all over this. Examining your financial situation and wishing to know why you didn’t claim closer to the time. Did you suffer financial hardship in that year ? Could there be another reason for your claim? They will also be all over any discrepancies.

The court date is effectively automatically generated. The insurer has hired external lawyers and they are on review trying to prove “fundamental dishonesty”. This is not easy to prove. They are really hoping you’ll drop it. If you do not, they will wind up the evidence and decide if they proceed or not to trial based on what rhey feel is the strength of the evidence, or pay out. If it gets to trial it is all about the judge. It is their decision..

The insurers lawyers, are unlikely to be high st. They are likely to be big law. Big law that only hire the best law students and train them up. The guys with high firsts from oxbridge and high ranked Russel groups. They are not cheap.

Now you can drop out any time before you walk through the court room doors. But the closer you get to the trial date the higher the other sides costs will be they have built up.

As such, when you drop out, if it’s close enough to trial they will likely come after you for fundamental dishonesty after the event and it will proceed to trial without you. as they will request their costs back from you. And the drop of the claim will be presented to the court as evidence of your dishonesty and why you should pay the costs .

If it’s an early discontinuation it’s unlikely they will come after you after the event as the costs won’t have built up so high.

They will also know your financial situation, do you own a house, what do you earn, what assets do you have etc, and can they get their costs back, so is it worth it.

However they are only trying to stop fraudulent claims. If your claim is honest then you should absolutely proceed. You are entitled to compensation. Neither the insurer or their lawyers wish to not pay for honest claims. Hence why it comes down to the strength of the evidence.

So, Yes of course there is always a risk. But If you’re being honest and can answer the questions and address the discrepancies , you should absolutely proceed , the evidence won’t be strong enough and you will get compensated.

If you’re not being honest, your risk is huge, and the closer you get to trial date the higher the risk you’re going to have to pay their costs, even if you pull out

So it’s really all about the strength of the evidence.

I made the claim at the time. I haven't waited a year. Not sure what made you think that.

@gobbynorthernbird

Loool at the thought of insurance companies solicitors being like the above They are likely to be big law. Big law that only hire the best law students and train them up. The guys with high firsts from oxbridge and high ranked Russel groups. Chance are its gonna be somebody at Horwich Farrelly with a 2:2 from a redbrick and an LPC apprenticeship. And far too high a caseload. That's if it isn't a legal exec handling the file before passing a bundle to Counsel last minute.

It’s really not. For the big insurers, it’s absolutely the really big law firms. It’s not high st. Companies like, Zurich, Axa or admiral don’t mess on thr high st.

I made the claim at the time. I haven't waited a year. Not sure what made you think that

Sorry it was th way the op was written, it read like it was a year later, I didn’t realise it was immediate. That’s good news for you.

Look youre being honest and there is little to no discrepancies. So you need to proceed. I don’t know why they think it’s fraud, but they won’t have evidence of it if it’s not.

Good luck, it sounds like you’ve had a terrible time,

I was in a very serious crash with multiple injuries. The other side still tried to claim I was lying despite X-rays, operations and reams of expert witnesses. They threatened me, filmed me secretly, all sorts to get out of paying.
I didn’t back down as I was telling the truth 100% but agreed to settle out of court as you can never guarantee court outcomes. An awful experience all round made worse by their underhand, bullying tactics.

@Bluntness100 thank you. I appreciate the advice.