Joneseys Blog

I hope everyone had a great Christmas   and is planning to get away at least somewhere this year and doesn’t suffer any accident like the couple below did.

It seems that Camels don’t leave the news at the moment whether ridden by wise men or  holidaymakers.

Just before Christmas the Courts reported on a personal injury claim  by  holiday makers in India.

A couple had decided to go on a ‘camel safari’  – and were both to ride on a camel accompanied by the Holiday representative  on another camel, and it was his first time assisting with the camel safari.

None of the organisers spoke English and the Rep was the go between on everything

It seemed everything was sorted until just out of the Hotel gates when the Camel  started ‘making sidesteps in a very jaunty manner’.

Sadly the couple were thrown from the camel and both sustained a serious injury.

The couple quite properly wanted to make a compensation claim and sought advice from a solicitor to sue  the Holiday company who organised things.

I’ve blogged before on the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992.

Putting it simply, they say that you can sue the UK holiday company if the ‘whole deal’ was booked together.

In this case the couple had booked flights and accommodation separately so the Court decided  they couldn’t claim under this  law.

But the Couple also argued a further claim.

They said that the Holiday company, in providing a Holiday rep  to accompany and give instructions has assumed responsibility  for the reasonable safety of the excursion.

And the Court accepted this argument and gave them compensation.

The important thing to realise is that each of these cases is fact sensitive and it’s only be digging deeper and finding out the detail that cases like these can win.

If you have had an accident or want advice about an accident please don’t hesitate to email me or telephone me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

If you have an accident that’s not your fault and are injured in it, and then try to claim compensation,  undoubtedly you will be accused of being a scrounger and even worse if you use a solicitor to get a proper amount of compensation, even more bile will be piled upon you.

But it’s becoming more and more clear that the honest innocent  injured party, or even the solicitor they use to get their compensation,   is not likely to be the cause of  the ‘huge increase in motor premiums’.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has launched an inquiry into the effect personal injury claims have actually had on rising motor insurance premiums.

The investigation  will focus on the supply  of third party vehicle repairs and credit hire replacement vehicles to claimants.

The evidence the OFT has gathered already  suggests that private motor insurance premiums paid in the UK rose by around 12  per cent between 2009 and 2010, and by a further nine per cent in the first three quarters of 2011.

The increased cost of third party non-injury claims, which include credit hire replacement vehicle and third party vehicle repairs, are also factors which have had a notable impact and if you have read my previous articles on these issues, you will remember that many of these costs are one insurance company trying to recover monies from another.

As a result, the OFT has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are features of the UK’s private motor insurance market that restrict and distort competition relating to the provision of third party vehicle repairs and credit hire replacement vehicles to claimants.

In particular, it has found that:

• Private motor insurers responsible for meeting third party claims for credit hire replacement vehicles and/or vehicle repairs appear to have only limited control over the choice of provider and appear to find it difficult to assess the extent to which the costs claimed are reasonable.
• Rival private motor insurers, brokers and credit hire providers may therefore have the opportunity, and the incentive, to carry out practices which allow them to generate revenues through referral fees, while simultaneously inflating the costs that the third party insurer has to meet. This in turn may contribute to car owners having to pay higher premiums.
• The OFT also has concerns about the provision of motor legal protection cover to car owners and has called on the Financial Services Authority to work with private motor insurers, as soon as possible, to ensure car owners have access to appropriate information when purchasing this cover.

It’s clear that  there is a lot more to the story than the cost of road accident claims   and  that premiums actually paid have not risen nearly as much as the insurance industry claimed; that motor legal protection cover (Before the Event Insurance) is poor value for money; and that arrangements for  credit hire and vehicle repairs raise serious and quote often unnecessary cost  and expense in the claim process.

If you want any advice on  an accident claim please don’t hesitate to email me or call me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

In  the UK today there are tens of thousands of ‘off-road‘ vehicles.

Some are motorbikes, whether trail or motocross, some are go-karts and others builders trucks, cranes and forklifts.

Some are and some are not required to be insured under the Road Traffic Act (RTA).

And that’s the problem.

Whilst the Motor  Insurers Bureau (MIB) was designed to pick up ‘uninsured claims’ where the person causing  the accident  wasn’t insured, the MIB are finding ways to avoid any liability in these cases.

RTA insurance is not needed to drive anything in your back garden, or on a builder’s site  or for vehicles  which are only used on private land.

But once these vehciles are used on public land, and an accident happens, then problems occur.

Having dealt with several of these injury  claims I know just how hard the MIB will fight to avoid liability.

And in the end, even if the injured party was completely innocent and wasn’t involved with the use of the off road vehicle  and simply in the  wrong place at the wrong time,  it could be that the claim fails.

If you need any advice about this sort of claim,. or any compensation claim  at all then please  email me or call me on 01623 448304.

Russell Jones

After winning the case  and getting compensation for injuries and care, many people find that the amount is reduced drastically as they try to use it to get back on track or support themselves after being injured.

If  you are on  capital assessed benefits, then the amount of compensation awarded can be taken into account when  you receive it and your benefits are reassessed.

One  way of protecting  the compensation you have received is to set up a personal injury trust.

This will allow you to retain the use of the compensation while still receiving benefits.

This might seem unfair  on the government and tax payers but compensation awarded for injuries from an accident that was not your fault is  not to take you off the benefit system but to assist you in coming to terms with the effects of the injury.

We can assist setting up these injury trusts for you and advise on the best route to preserve your compensation.

If you need any assistance with this type of scheme of any other matter relating to a personal injury please don’t hesitate to email me or call me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

It’s sometimes hard to find topical things to blog on but this morning was  one of the easier ones.

The Court of Appeal heard a case yesterday  (14 December 2011).

Miss D, who was an elderly  lady , was visiting Santa’s Grotto with her family   when sadly she had an accident.

The Grotto was in a Store and they had contracted out the running of the Grotto to another company.

Whilst visiting the Grotto,  Mrs D fell over  which caused a serious injury.

Mrs D  wanted to sue Santa for compensation saying that it  was his Elf’s fault that she slipped.

Santa said his Elf was not at fault and the first Court to hear the case believed Santa.

Mrs D went to the Court of Appeal.

It was a very dark and  cramped area and there were 8 people in a small space with 2 Christmas trees and presents lying on the floor.

Santa’s Elf had asked Mrs D to step to one side whilst photographs were being taken  and it was not for Mrs D to make sure the floor was free from tripping and slipping hazards as it was dark and very difficult to see and she was being guided to the area by the Elf.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mrs D stating that an icicle  on the floor was the cause of her accident, and she was asked by the Elf to stand in the area she slipped.

The icicle shouldn’t have been there and the Elf should have made sure the floor was safe and free from debris and defects.

The Appeal Court felt that the Lower Court had taken a very benevolent view of Santa and his Elf’s failures and awarded Mrs D compensation for her fall.

Thankfully  Santa was fully insured and therefore was freed from the Court to continue with his work.

Even though it was Santa’s Grotto once you are a lawful visitor to premises, that person has to take reasonable care for your safety and in this case the Court felt  Santa and his Elf had let Mrs D down.

If you ever have a slip or trip accident please email me for advice or call me on 01623448304

We’re almost at the longest night, and it is the season perhaps when alcohol and cars start  mixing together with disastrous consequences.

Add to that the fact that more people might be walking to and from parties and pubs late at night and you have a  dangerous cocktail.

So a recent case was an early reminder of what can happen when things go badly wrong.

A pedestrian claimed compensation  for personal injury.

He had been knocked down by a speeding motorist who was under the influence of alcohol in the early hours of the morning.

The  motorist had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving.

The problem was that driver was blaming the  pedestrian for the accident  as well.

The court heard the pedestrian had failed to  use a pedestrian crossing about 10 metres  from where he crossed the road and failed to note  the  speeding vehicle and that the traffic lights for the driver  were on green, and  not focusing to his right when crossing.

Although the Court thought that the pedestrian was partly at fault, the Court felt the  driver should bear 90% of  fault for the accident as his failings were  substantially worse than the pedestrian, having been drunk in charge of a speeding vehicle.

It’s a fight at times to get the right amount of compensation  and the  correct result and if you need assistance with any accident  please don’t hesitate to email me or call Russell Jones on 01623 448304

You’re driving down the road and the car behind drives into the back into you.

It’s obvious who’s fault it is isn’t it.

Well apparently not always.

The Court of Appeal held that an earlier  judge had got it wrong  in dismissing the claimant’s personal injury compensation claim.

Mr D had run into the back of Mr A’s car, and on the face of it Mr D was in the wrong.

But further investigation  before  the first Judge showed that Mr A  had in fact braked in an excessive and unnecessary fashion  and it was Mr A’s act that had caused the accident.

Although Mr D had been driving too close behind  Mr A’s car, Mr A was wholly responsible for braking for no good reason and causing a rear-end collision.

In the Appeal,  they held that the accident could have been avoided if the Mr D had kept a greater distance from  Mr A’s car  and driven with more care.

They also held that Mr A  was partially at fault in braking sharply for no good reason.  However, in driving too close to the rear of the car in front of him,  Mr D  should bear the larger share of fault and they shared the blame 60:40 in Mr A’s  favour.

If you are involved in any type of accident and need help in getting compensation please email me or telephone me on 01623 448304

It always seems to be a war between cars and cyclists and it gets more difficult in these work days when it’s dark going to and from work.

A recent case had a difficult decision to  make in a very serious accident producing very nasty injuries.

The court was required to determine whether a taxi driver (T) was at fault  for injuring a  cyclist (C).

T was involved in a collision with C who  suffered serious injury, and had no recall of the accident.

The accident occurred  early one morning, with T having  proceeded through a T-junction,  and C, travelling from the left, collided with the front left hand section of T’s vehicle.

On T (and his passenger’s) version, T had had a green light in his favour and had braked as soon as he saw C.

T advised  that C  had been at fault  in wearing dark clothing; keeping his head down and not keeping a proper lookout; running a red light; failing to wear a hi-visibility vest and helmet and in failing to apply his brakes soon enough  to avoid a collision.

Experts  called by both sides agreed that T had been travelling between 41-50 mph immediately before the collision and also agreed on all other factual conclusions.

The Court had to decide  on several matters including T’s speed,  and whether fault should be shared between the parties.

The Court found that it was a 30 mph speed limit, but if C had  obeyed the red light against him, the accident would not have happened.

On the other hand if T had been travelling at the speed limit or just above it then the accident may have been avoidable.

In the end the Court decided that C  should get compensation, but reduced by80% for his own actions.

These cases are always difficult and fact sensitive.

If you would like advice on any such case then please contact me   by email or on 01623 448304

Legal help insurance is the bolt on you can get, sometimes paid for and sometimes for free, from insurers such as your motor insurance or Home contents insurance, and others.

It’s sold on the basis that you can get free legal advice if you need it and I have blogged on this a while ago - http://fidler.co.uk/blogs/jonesey/?p=152

What isn’t often promoted at the point of sale, is that this insurance often tries to steer you to ‘choose’ the insurance provider’s solicitor.

As I have said before you have a right to choose your own solicitor and one you have a relationship with already.

And it seems that the Courts are now catching up with this.

In a case called  Webster Dixon & ors v Equity Syndicate & ors the Court  held that

1) it was contrary to European and domestic law for an insurer to refuse a clients’ request for a non-panel solicitor and,

2) that in appropriate cases the policy holder also had the right to change lawyers.

So there you go.

Once you have this insurance cover you can choose whichever solicitor you want to go to.

If you have a need for legal advice, whether on an accident case, injury compensation or any other legal problem, please don’t hesitate to contact  by email or on 01623 448304

A change to European law means that British holidaymakers who are seriously injured whilst abroad could now receive lower compensation.

If your accident happened before January 2009, you would normally have been able to bring your claim for compensation in the UK.

It’s now been decided by the European Court that  they will now be considered under the law of the country in which the injury occurred, if they happened after January 2009.

According to the Foreign Office almost 4,000 Britons received hospital treatment and help from their consulate in 2010-11.  A third of these were in Spain and there were hundreds also in Greece, France and Thailand.

In many serious injury cases this will mean victims recover only a small part of the compensation that they would be entitled to under English law – compensation which may be  essential to fund  day to day living expenses, the cost of rehabilitation, medical treatment, adaptations to a  home, and care and assistance they needed as a result of the accident”

If you are injured abroad or want to know anything about an injury claim please contact me by email or  by phone on 01623 448304.