Accident claim Advice needed

Hi folks not been on for a while, because.......
anyway back in Feb. I had an accident whilst filtering past standing traffic, on the approach to road works, when a car without warning decided she would turn right into McDonalds.
Very briefly, the bike was written off and settlement made, it was then down to a personal injury claim and a solicitor was appointed through my insurance broker using my legal protection insurance.
The third party claimed to have two witnesses who failed to materialize, and claims I was overtaking standing traffic when it was dangerous to do so, I presented my solicitor with (the filtering letter) and also a copy of the case law to back it up,
up until date he has been unable to get any response from the third party,
he is now advising me that I should go 50/50 as he believes this is what a judge would decide and by getting in first would put me in the stronger position.
I have replied that I don’t believe I was in anyway liable for the accident and don’t feel that 50/50 is the correct way forward.
His reply is that, that is his advice and if I don’t take it funding by my legal protection insurance would be stopped and I would need to fund myself to continue.
He seems to be giving me no alternative than to Play it his way and offer a plea of 50/50
I am at a loss any informed suggestions would be welcome

[TamSV]

It's hard to advise you without all the details but I would say that failure to get a response from the Third Party is no good reason to cave in and start making offers at this stage. I find a summons gets a response every time.

Speak to another solicitor - one of the biking experts. They may take you on if your case is strong enough. At least you'll have a second opinion.

Some of the legal expenses insurers are a bit tight and backpeddle from anything but the simplest of stuff.

I'd call your legal protection for your insurance mate, sounds like the solisitor is not working for you like he should be and instead is working solely for him self, prehaps he needs reminding of this especially if the claim for the damage to the bike was decided that it was their fault the same judgement should be applied here.

sack the solicitior and go to a bike specific one.. someone will be along here with the best name around white dolton I think?

when i question my solicitor as to what part makes me liable, he just replies that it is their word against mine and if I had have waited in the line of traffic the accident would not have happened, therefore it must have been dangerous to overtake,

I replied so if I hadn't have gone out then it wouldn't have happened so its my fault for going out wtf.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by collis

I'd call your legal protection for your insurance mate, sounds like the solisitor is not working for you like he should be and instead is working solely for him self, prehaps he needs reminding of this especially if the claim for the damage to the bike was decided that it was their fault the same judgement should be applied here.

I assumed that the bike damages have been paid by your own insurers. If it was paid by the Third Party insurer then, yes, they should be settling the injury aspect on the same basis.

Originally Posted by 454697819

sack the solicitior and go to a bike specific one..

Agreed, but do it the other way round - get a second opinion first before you make any rash decisions.

We don't know all the facts so it's a bit early to be questioning the integrity of the solicitor. He may well be right in this case.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by theshed

when i question my solicitor as to what part makes me liable, he just replies that it is their word against mine and if I had have waited in the line of traffic the accident would not have happened, therefore it must have been dangerous to overtake,

I replied so if I hadn't have gone out then it wouldn't have happened so its my fault for going out wtf.

Thats a p*** poor explanation from a solicitor TBH. It depends what the other party is alleging. If you were barrelling down the road at 50, in the dark with your lights off then you would need to accept a large portion of the blame. However, it's pretty clear they didn't see you (presumably, or they wouldn't have pulled out) so they can't get away with saying that.

However, if I was on the side of the third party, I would be saying you shouldn't have been overtaking where there was a side road, or should have at least recognised the additional risk and have taken appropriate measures/reduced speed.

In these cases, when the car u-turns in the road in front of you it's a bit easier to lay the blame entirely on the car driver. If the biker is overtaking or undercutting at a junction it's not so straightforward.

that's what I like about this forum their is always someone there to help tamsv thank you for real unbiased advice, advice is something we don't always want to hear but if asked for you need to listen to

454697891 thanks for your input have rang white dolton who say they would be certainly interested in looking at the case for me but obviously cant guarantee they will advise different but say they see no reason to lie down just yet so they are sending me some paperwork to switch over to them
see what happens

[Dave20046]

**** off the solicitor, that's bull****.i'd go for 100% if it was your right of way they should have been using their eyes . bikers are entitled to filter. if they had of been driving with due care and attention the accident wouldn't have happened.
you can ask to be appointed another solicitor.

I doubt you will get 100%. Usually vehicle insurance claims are decided on who was majorly at fault but compensation claims are dealt with on a percentage, I believe. They will argue that you should have been expecting somebody to turn across you, so some degree of blame will lie with you. Hopefully not much. 10 to 20%, but definately not the easy 50/50 your current solicitor is settling for.