Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Winn solicitors saying we owe £13,000

110 replies

PinkBump2022 · 24/06/2022 14:48

4 years ago we were parked up eating lunch in the car in an Asda car park. All of a sudden we got crashed into from behind. We got out the car she took photos and the woman took off, we got a picture of her numberplate which is the only reason we Found out who she was. Both cars had some damage. Ours to the back hers to the front. We put a claim in at winns and they said we had a good case. The other party denied it all saying it was a tiny bump. I had whiplash and needed pain killers and physio. After 3 years of her disputing it and us sticking to the same story time and time again we got a court date! The day befoeo the trail we got a phone call from winns saying we would almost certainly loose the court case and should withdraw immediately before any further charges incur and we end up with the other party’s charges too!!!! We again took their advice as we had for 3 years. I didn’t understand why for 3 years they said we had a good case then suddenly we didn’t when obviously nothing had changed. So now we have both had letters my partner owes £8600 and I owe £5775……..
so my question is, does anyone know if we do actually owe this money? Is there a way out of it? Surly it’s no win no fee so how can they charge us?

OP posts:
zurala · 24/06/2022 20:46

FemmeNatal · 24/06/2022 20:22

The claim of whiplash from what sounds to be a low speed impact is suspicious. It may well be true, but it’s a common fraudulent claim.

Show quote history

I got really bad whiplash from a low speed impact that still causes me issues decades later. I don't think it's unusual or dodgy

FemmeNatal · 24/06/2022 21:00

zurala · 24/06/2022 20:46

I got really bad whiplash from a low speed impact that still causes me issues decades later. I don't think it's unusual or dodgy

Show quote history

Decades ago cars often didn’t have headrests designed to stop it happening. It’s hard to believe that it does in any modern car.

VelvetSpoon · 24/06/2022 21:12

It is possible to sustain whiplash type injuries at modest speeds, most insurers will tend to dispute if there is very minor damage (under £300) but frankly even the most minor bump in a car park tends to cause a few hundred or even £1000 damage, depending on the cars involved, prestige cars costing more to repair etc.

However even if it is a low speed impact, if the injured person seeks medical advice, and obtains a report from an independent medical expert who confirms they would have suffered an injury and gives them a prognosis of 6 months or whatever, insurers hands are tied - if the medical expert is satisfied the person was injured, a court would not go behind that opinion.

However, if the evidence given to the expert is grossly exaggerated, or untruthful (saying the collision was at 60mph when it was at 2-3mph, stating that you'd had no previous accidents when in fact you'd had several others, and pursued claims for those, or stating you couldn't go on holiday or the gym and the insurers find evidence of you doing all of that) then the insurers would have grounds to allege fundamental dishonesty and get the entire claim dismissed.

Comefromaway · 24/06/2022 21:31

eurochick · 24/06/2022 16:50

Look at the terms of engagement you signed in the first instance.

Like others I don't understand why this all didn't go through insurance.

It’s very common for your insurers to pass you on to a claims Managment company who in turn will pass you onto their preferred solicitors if the other side doesn’t settle.

DingDong88 · 24/06/2022 22:39

EggsBeforeChickens · 24/06/2022 20:21

The solicitors firm referenced earlier are Law Society Accredited and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In the first instance, if what the OP says is legit, s/he should be complaining to the SRA.
By naming the firm's alleged misdeeds on this forum the OP is potentially libelling them, so I've reported the thread.

Look at you out here doing God's work.

Namechangehereandnow · 24/06/2022 22:53

MrsOwainGlyndŵr · 24/06/2022 17:41

How did you get whiplash when your car wasn't moving and the other car must have been going very slowly?
Did you have to wear a collar?
We're you financially affected in any way? Eg did you miss work and not paid because of your injury?

Show quote history

You don’t get put in a collar nowadays - haven’t been for a very long time …

Longt · 26/06/2022 04:14

EggsBeforeChickens · 24/06/2022 20:21

The solicitors firm referenced earlier are Law Society Accredited and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In the first instance, if what the OP says is legit, s/he should be complaining to the SRA.
By naming the firm's alleged misdeeds on this forum the OP is potentially libelling them, so I've reported the thread.

It’s going to take you a while to go through all of Mumsnet reporting all potentially libellous threads. Have a look at the rest of the internet while you’re at it

SD1978 · 26/06/2022 05:27

If you go no win no fee, and then pull out, you are usually liable for the work they have already done, as they won't have a chance to recoup their costs. Do you have it confirmed in writing they told you to pull out? Otherwise, they probably have you and you will be liable. It's why it's not worth going for an ambulance chaser claim when there are little to no injuries, and you can't claim through your insurance for them

SaschaHendrick · 26/06/2022 06:31

Im sorry OP but you have fallen victim to unscrupulous legal practices. You didn't win or lose because you pulled out so therefore you have to pay the legal fees. They will have called you and advised you to pull out because they wanted to charge you for their services. After looking at your case they will have decided it wasnt strong enough in their eyes and if it went to court there was too much of a risk that you would lose and they would not get their fee so for them the best option was getting you to withdraw. They rely on people not fully understanding the terms they have signed up for. A firm can't make money on no win no fee cases so they make their money by convincing people to pull out or hoping the the case drags on for so long that people get bored and pull out off their own bat.

Looneytune253 · 26/06/2022 07:15

This is interesting. We are awaiting trial after a young girl reversed into DH. No damage to cars but we got a phone call from a no win no fee solicitor within half an hour of incident. Personal injury claim then put in. I genuinely don't think she's got a chance of winning the case and I hope her solicitor advises her to withdraw and then slaps all the fees on her. If it was up to me she would also be prosecuted for fraud.

Jalisco · 26/06/2022 07:32

EggsBeforeChickens · 24/06/2022 20:21

The solicitors firm referenced earlier are Law Society Accredited and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In the first instance, if what the OP says is legit, s/he should be complaining to the SRA.
By naming the firm's alleged misdeeds on this forum the OP is potentially libelling them, so I've reported the thread.

It isn't libel if it's the truth. Assuming it is the truth, then the OP's account is entirely factual and therefore not libel in any form. I am sure Trust Pilot, Which and a host of other review sites would love to know that they are involved in libelling bad companies.

MissMaple82 · 26/06/2022 07:35

What was your claim for? Whiplash? In anon moving vehicle on a car park?

MissMaple82 · 26/06/2022 07:39

Hmm I think maybe you reap what you sow

Shakeitshakeitbaby · 26/06/2022 07:39

It is perfectly possible to get whiplash in a low speed accident. Someone hit me from behind when I was stationary and I had whiplash. Didn't claim for it but was very sore for several weeks. My 8 year old car was also almost a write off, despite the damage looking minimal.

MissMaple82 · 26/06/2022 07:42

Shakeitshakeitbaby · 26/06/2022 07:39

It is perfectly possible to get whiplash in a low speed accident. Someone hit me from behind when I was stationary and I had whiplash. Didn't claim for it but was very sore for several weeks. My 8 year old car was also almost a write off, despite the damage looking minimal.

Maybe so, but whiplash isn't worth putting in a personal injury claim for. The only people that do, are money hungry folk

Ohthatsexciting · 26/06/2022 07:52

Bloody hell

through your naivety you have been screwed OP.

This should have all been dealt with via insurance including PI claim

too late now though. And if you signed up with a no win no fee, then you are engaged in a contractual relationship with them.

So now the question is whether there provided negligent advice.

so I’d approach the legal ombudsman in the first instance

knittingaddict · 26/06/2022 07:53

You claimed whiplash from an accident involving your parked car and another car manoeuvring in a car park? I'm not surprised that no one wanted to pursue that one.

I've been in an accident almost exactly like that and got shunted over a high kerb as well. The forces involved are not enough to cause whiplash and no one will believe that they did.

knittingaddict · 26/06/2022 07:58

For those saying that you can get whiplash at low speeds, what the op describes was at almost no speed - a stationery car and a slow moving one.

In any case it doesn't matter what we think. The people involved have decided it was a claim with no merit. That's what matters.

Itsallok · 26/06/2022 08:07

Basically the OP sounds like they were after cash.

3luckystars · 26/06/2022 08:10

It sounds like the communication wasn’t very good. Did they explain anything to you?

Dajeeling · 26/06/2022 08:14

They’ve had you over OP. I’d be tempted to ring them Monday and tell them you have recorded all your telephone calls and the one in which they told you to withdraw. It’ll be interesting to see if their attitude changes.

Villagewaspbyke · 26/06/2022 08:15

no win no fee lawyers usually take insurance to cover the other party’s loss if they lose. There is more to this story I suspect.

RedToothBrush · 26/06/2022 08:20

Someone got greedy and saw an opportunity to get easy £££
They could not be bothered to read the small print and were too naive to understand the concept of no win, no fee.
They just thought that they'd do nothing get money and they were laughing all the way to the bank either way.

In the meantime, no win no fee personal injury speculative claims put up insurance premiums and put people who have done fuck all wrong through the stress of dealing with chancers looking for a quick winfall.

I have no time for it. If you had a legitimate claim you wouldnt now find yourself in this situation.

Zero sympathy from me for people who want to fleece others and then end up fleeced themselves because they didn't do their own due diligence.

If you deal with dodgy no win no fee scum bags then remember that they play by the rule of the House Always Wins and the gambler always pays up one way or another over time.

Villagewaspbyke · 26/06/2022 08:27

VelvetSpoon · 24/06/2022 19:23

So much misinformation and downright wrong information on this thread!

To clear up a few things - if you are involved in a RTA and sustain injury, and the RTA was caused by the negligence of another driver, any claim is made to that drivers insurance company. Not your own insurance - your insurers will only deal with your vehicle, and with the claims of any passengers in your car if you were at fault for the collision.

Winns are a fairly slick operation, we deal with them a lot. They are difficult to deal with but generally get good results. It's very rare for them to run a case all the way to trial and then abandon it at the 11th hour. I think we may only have half the story here...in particular this sounds to me like the other side had evidence of fundamental dishonesty or similar.

Just to be clear, was liability admitted? If not, are you absolutely certain you correctly identified the car and driver? Were you able to describe the other driver? What did the driver say in their witness statement - did they deny being there, or deny that any impact occurred?

It's possible that there's a issue around identification but I would have expected that to be raised much earlier on. So I am leaning more to possible FD, that there is evidence to indicate you have lied about the accident or exaggerated your injuries.

On what basis exactly did Winns say you needed to drop the case? Was reference made to any new evidence being disclosed?

This seems most likely. They wouldn’t have taken it on a no win no fee basis unless they were clear they could win. So something changed. We are not getting whole story here

Jalisco · 26/06/2022 08:34

I'm sorry but I am shocked at the people piling on the OP to say that they are committing fraud and lying about their claim. Not one person here knows that to be the case. And that isn't relevant to the thread. Although nothing surprises me about no win no fee lawyers, the OP was TOLD by a legal firm that they had a legitimate claim, and that legal firm agreed to act on their behalf because of the advice they gave. Nobody twisted the arms of the legal firm - they chose to represent someone that they said had a case. Then they underhandedly reversed that decision at the last possible moment and didn't tell the OP that by following their lawyer’s advice they would end up with a huge bill.

Yes, the OP should have read the terms more carefully. Yes the OP should have asked for the advice in writing. But not everybody is clued up on such things, and if a lawyer tells you that you have a case and they will make a claim for you, then many people will believe the advice an expert gives them.

What is wrong here is that there is insufficient transparency in no win no fee agreements, and mealy mouthed law firms are getting away with appalling professional standards. There needs to be more regulation to enhance transparency. We aren’t being asked to comment on whether the OP had a case, and none of us know whether they do or not. It isn’t asking a lot that such firms must clearly and openly advise people from the start of the consequences of them pulling out and the circumstances in which they would become liable for fees, and that firms should be forced to prove that they have done so, and not depend on the small print that most people never actually read.