This has been quite the hobby horse for Dacre et al for a while now. Today's strung-together load of shit is the tale of a man who lied about his injury, then changed his mind, and was charged the solicitor's costs.

The driver being sued for £1,100 because he REFUSED to make a fraudulent whiplash claim...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/a ... claim.html

Needless to say, he's being sued because he DID make a fraudulent claim, then backed out of it. Of course, the commentariat are mostly calling for the government to step in, and make sure only the wealthy can gain redress.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

He is being sued by the solicitors who took on his claim based on his fraudulent statement and undertook work on his behalf. He might have a point about the fees they want him to pay but he just ends up looking like a right eejit by whining to the press. I wouldn't have thought a solicitor would start work without a contract so he's not likely to succeed in court.

I'm absolutely sure he signed up to something under which he agreed to pay the costs if he pulled out.

I don't see what his problem was with going to the doctor. He only had to turn up, tell him the truth, and allow himself to be examined. He probably was entitled to something by way of damages for the original injury - there's nothing saying you can only claim if the problems are long term - but it would have been up to the solicitors to decide whether it was worth continuing with the claim. If it was they who advised it wasn't worth pursuing, he could have walked away without owing them anything.

What Dacre conveniently forgets with his anti-CFA hobbyhorse is that they were brought in as a replacement for legal aid for personal injury claims, despite the fact that everyone pointed out that the US precedent demonstrated that the result would be precisely what it has been. And the pressure to take away legal aid came in large part from papers like the Mail.

I get about a text a month saying I could get £3250 compensation for my accident, which is news to me. The accident, that is. It is a corrupt industry.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

Picture posed by models.

Years ago we bought a two seater garden swing with an overhead canopy. Mrs Mayle always fancied herself as a Southern Belle possibly sipping on a julep and definitely eyeing-up passing 17 year old boys. Anyway, I digress, she was lying on the swing with the customary drink in her in hand, the other supporting her head when one of the metal poles that attached the swing to the pole above snapped. The drop was about 10 inches but the impact travelled through her elbow, to her hand and then into her neck, the equivalent of a relaxed way to snap your spine.

She was in a lot of pain and required physiotherapy that cost us about £400 and we wrote to B&Q from whom we bought the Killer Swing to ask for recompense. They passed it on to the manufacturer who admitted liability but said that their insurance only covered £250 and anything in excess of that will have to be contested. We were mighty peeved at that and thought sod 'em and went to a solicitor. To cut a long story short Mrs M had to see a barrister, surgeon and another physiotherapist specialist over an 18-month period and at the end of it the insurance company paid us £7800 and fuck knows how much to the various professionals.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, she didn't spill a drop when the swing collapsed. Thassa m'gal.

I had someone shunt my car from behind a few months ago. Though it was a hell of a bang, the only damage was a few scratches and dents round the back bumper, I was quite impressed that my trusty Toyota was that tough. I had a slightly stiff neck for a couple of days but not bad enough even to shlep round to the GP. Other driver put his hands up and ultimately coughed up for the car damage without going through his insurer, which is probably what saved me the pestering from claims management companies. I nearly had second thoughts, though, when he accompanied his cheque with a pseudo-legalese letter all about how banking the cheque meant that I was accepting it in full and final settlement and would make no further claims, and I couldn't resist replying pointing out that his letter had no force whatsoever in law. However, I felt he had been punished enough at the time of the accident; I had no. 2 son with me, the 6' tall heavy metal fan who was at the time wearing full leathers and the hefty boots with the 2" soles, and he said that the look of terror on the other driver's face when he loomed out of the car was a treat to behold.