My experience with this is that I was left under prepared for the online court experience.
Ask to be given examples of the type of questions the other party’s barrister will ask you.
On the day, don’t be swayed to deviate from what you are asserting due to the other party’s barrister couching your actions in terms that sound unusual in an effort to make you say otherwise.
Be prepared for other party to try to butter up the judge talking about ‘the wife not being happy’ and all that sexist baloney. In my case, the judge indulged him. Be prepared for other irrelevant matters to be discussed to curry favour.
My insurers had assured me, and reassured me that it would be extremely likely I would win.
The other party had shunted me from behind.
It looked like a chance to allow justice prevail. Oh, the naivety on my part!
My experience has left me extremely sceptical of the process.
My Insurers didn’t anticipate key issues and had shown what can only be described as incompetence in other areas.
The case came down to the weight of evidence and it was not the job of the judge to examine the accuracy of that evidence but it was his job to question the vast discrepancy between the other party’s and mine.
Something was clearly amiss, but alas, the judge wanted to wrap it up within a day without having properly looked at video evidence.
Add to that the fact that my insurers unfortunately did not request the cctv footage within 30 days despite it being clear from the outset on my witness statement that there were cctv cameras over the location. That was a major oversight.
They didn’t send any loss adjuster down to the scene, ‘too expensive nowadays’, you see.
Over the two years before it went to court, the insurers ignored submitting many of my diagrams, which were Google Map photos with coloured lines displaying the other motorist’s position vs mine, to . Extremely clear. There was an important landmark in the photos that supported my photo of other party’s vehicle directly after the accident meaning that what the other motorist claimed about his position when the accident happened was not correct.
This was not shown nor explained during the case.
So, view your ‘exhibits’ carefully.
If you think something should be submitted, justify why you think it should be and stick to your guns.
The other party’s evidence contained lies.
Other party had taken a photo of my car AFTER we had spoken and I had set off and moved much further along, claiming that was where the accident had happened!
My barrister and the judge did not ask for the timestamp of that photo that would have easily established it was a lie.
Despite there being no indents or scratches on my car and certainly none on his vehicle (which I filmed around a number of times and submitted to evidence) his insurer sent his vehicle to a place where a colossal list of repairs covering two sides of A4 was claimed!!
The said garage has overwhelming reviews strongly suggesting that they appear to be a questionable setup to benefit themselves and claimants. My insurer wasn’t interested in listening, which seemed strange. It was like reading a list of repairs for another vehicle in an entirely other accident.
I’m sorry to say too, that the barrister representing me was inexperienced and seemed to me, fawning towards the judge.
The other party’s was matter of fact and direct.
My barrister was reluctant to speak up to remonstrate that my video evidence had not yet been viewed. You know, the evidence that showed, no indents - anywhere. Filmed in sunlight.
He waffled on with polite platitudes, wasting time, instead of getting to the point and highlighting said discrepancies between other party’s evidence and mine.
So when my video evidence was viewed, with weak justification from my barrister, he did so almost apologetically because he didn’t want to ruffle any feathers. He didn’t want to take up the judge’s time but didn’t mind wasting mine.
It was the end of the day and I got the short straw.
And it has to be said, the judge was almost pathetically in awe of the vehicle of the other party, reflected in the way he described it in summary. If I repeat what he said, it can probably be searched but I was incredulous. I think you would be too.
He was not usually called upon to judge RTAs, but it was under Covid circumstances but still, it was not appropriate.
The Judge’s statement about the vehicle was focused on its aesthetics, the other party’s ‘freedom’ (yes, you are reading that correctly) with wording charged with what I considered to be sexist connotations. It reminded me of scene from the Fast Show, with Swiss Tony.
Uncomfortable for a woman to hear in the 21st Century.
That was unwarranted respect from the Judge towards the other party despite having seen him mouthing and mimicking me as I attempted to give evidence.
If you saw him you would think he had been shouting obscenities at a rival team on a football terrace rather than presenting himself before a civil judicial system.
This was a repeat of his behaviour on the day of the RTA when he had stood across the door of my car leaning through my car window whilst exchanging insurance details after the collision, aggressively telling me he didn’t want me filming him (I did so in order to protect myself).
Yet in court he claimed he had lost ‘confidence’ on the road. That seemed at odds with the aggressive arrogance I was witnessing.
It hadn’t stopped him from driving a similar vehicle at the courtesy of my insurers for many months until it came to court!
And whilst he was mouthing all this at me in front of the online court, I remember thinking, ‘his poor wife’ must bear the brunt of that horrific intimidation at home.
Nobody said a word until I remonstrated that it was extremely distracting, not to mention intimidating, which was its purpose, of course.
He was then asked to switch his screen off.
Later, I too was asked to switch my screen off when the judge could see I was unhappy with the outcome and he commented “I can see you’re unhappy”, because I was shaking my head, he waited for a reply to which I responded, “I am”, at which point he instructed me to switch my screen off - why ask me, in that case?!
Anyway, I lost the case. He was awarded compensation.
I doubt it was the first or last time for him.
Remember, this was despite the fact he had shunted me from behind.
Insurers had told me it was all likely to be fine.
If they can produce a repair bill to make it look like it’s all your fault, I would not recommend going to court.
Particularly not, if the insurer’s barrister can only be bothered to introduce themselves just before the court appearance. You want great communication with them, for at least a week before.
For anyone reading this who is ever involved in a Road Traffic Accident, there are SIX things you must do that will help protect you:
-
Call the Police immediately before moving vehicles. Actually, I would call them and refuse to speak to the other party until they arrive. Remain in your car. When they arrive, swap your details with them present.
-
Get one or two witnesses at the time.
-
Call the insurers, every day to ensure they get a copy of any cctv footage. It expires within 30 days.
-
Buy a dashcam, front and back.
But don’t be surprised if your insurers are ‘not able to view’ video evidence you send them. It can seemlike a delaying game so then don’t have to do anything with it. Send it in different formats.
-
And if it goes to court, make sure your photo and video evidence is not squeezed into the end of the day. Ask how many minutes will be allocated to it.
-
Ensure the barrister used to represent you has already explained to you before the case why your case should win. If you don’t sound convinced, neither will they be! Ask for another one.