Psychological Overlay, and Stress levels

Psychological Overlay,  Clients and Stress levels


Two and a half years ago a client contacted me, they were in quite a state, their body was rather twisted,  and they were obsessive about the party who they considered had caused their mental and physical state, and personal hygiene was very limited.  The client had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which had initially meant she suffered with some orthopedic injuries but these had now turned into a serious case of Psychological Overlay.

My client had initially been informed by the party who had injured her that they would deal with any rehabilitation she needed, and she had been more than happy to engage with this process, sadly the defendants had been woefully lacking in fulfilling their promise leading to her feeling totally abandoned and neglected.   This feeling was compounded by the fact that though the Defendant's own consultant had stated that the client needed three months intensive rehabilitative physiotherapy rather than proceeding and giving her the treatment they had literally dumped him.

Upon returning to her GP her records had been lost. This ongoing delay made her psychological condition worse, the problem was she wouldn't accept. that she had a psychological condition.   The client had thereafter been refused assistance by 30  possible legal representatives and turned up with two days to go before limitation had expired on her claim.   She had about four bits of paper on her but I made the decision to take on the case, on the understanding that the client would issue their own claim form.  I explained what needed to be done and the client did not follow my instructions, in fact limitation expired and I had to almost scream at the client to make her go and issue the claim form.  She eventually managed it but we were now two days out of time.

I then asked for the normal forms of authority for release of her medical records etc and the battle commenced to obtain her documents prior to the period for service or proceedings expiring.  I had four months.   I kept the defendants informed and in the loop, but, could I get her medical notes it was an uphill battle and I didn't really get them until two weeks before they had to be served.   They were copious and I didn't truly have time to really thoroughly assess them prior to getting the Particulars of Claim and Schedule of Special Damages prepared, I did manage to assess that she had pre-existing problems but noted they were on the other side of her body to the one that was damaged. The Defendants were unimpressed that we were slightly late issuing proceedings but eventually decided not to take the point.

The client throughout the process was helpful but very difficult, manipulative and very very dramatic, often threatening to take drastic action against the Defendants.  At times she was impossible to reason with and  she was exhausting to deal with.   Despite this I managed to obtain very good lay witness evidence and more importantly good medical evidence supporting her claim though would you believe it, despite initially accepting the evidence I managed to obtain she decided at a later date that she didn't agree with it.    I felt a bit like Atlas with the world on my shoulders.

I obtained superb Counsel and between us all we built up a really solid case.   The client fought with us all the way, first accepting our advice and giving us sensible instructions and then withdrawing them a couple of days later.  To give you some idea of how difficult it was I sent a copy of the client's Statement to her 4 weeks in advance of it being signed but she still turned up at the office to sign the document and something that should have taken no more than 20 minutes took 7hours and 15 mins.

We were offered a substantial amount of money by the other side and initially rejected it. At the very last hurdle I found that the client had lied to me and badly and the impact of those lies was to almost decimate the case, the client would not accept, despite, written proof that they had lied and that they could lose everything, and after a very difficult 10 days when the client was insistent that the matter should proceed to Court they finally agreed and the case was settled for a substantial figure.

Would I take on another similar case.  I have always dealt with difficult clients but in 20 years I have never had such a manipulative, difficult, damaged client so I need a bit a break but I more than likely will because despite everything justice was done and my persistence has changed my client's life and that did make it worth it.

Deborah E Aloba

BACK TO BASICS - WHAT DO YOU NEED TO INCLUDE WHEN PREPARING A STATEMENT IF YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

·      Name, address, date of birth and occupation.

 
·      When and where was the accident etc.  Give details of time, date and exact location.

·      If you had any passengers what were their names, where were they sitting?

·     Give details of the third party involved including name, address, registration number, insurance details exchanged.

·    What was the purpose of you being at the specific place of the accident i.e. was it a regular journey, did you know the area well?

·      Give as detailed a description of the accident circumstances as possible.

·      What were the traffic conditions i.e. heavy slow moving traffic, free flowing traffic?

·      Was the road surface wet, dry?  Was it a sunny or dull day?  Was visibility poor?

·     Give details of any emergency services called to the scene, to include any police reference numbers exchanged.

·      Did you attend hospital?  If so give details.

 

·      Did you attend your GP?  If so when and give details.

·      Give names, addresses, phone numbers, registration numbers etc. of any witnesses to the accident.

·      How did you react immediately after the accident?

·      What were your injuries?  Were your passengers injured?

 

·      How did your injuries affect your daily/home life? 

·      Was the car in a drivable condition?  If not, what did you do?   

·      Did you hire a replacement vehicle? 

·      Have you fully recovered from your injuries, if not please explain what difficulties you are still having.


This article is for information purposes only

Mums and Dads have you got the right safety seat for your child, if you haven't and your child is in a car accident the Courts could find you are 25% responsible for any injuries to your child as can be seen from a recent case on this subject.

In Williams v Williams [2013] EWCA Civ 455 Louise Williams placed her Emma her 3 year daughter, on a booster seat securing her with an adult seatbelt, sh...e believed Emma would be safe. Unfortunately they were involved in an accident that was entirely the fault of Dwayne Williams (unrelated to them) when he crossed onto the wrong side of the road and collided with their car. Emma was too young and short to be travelling on the booster seat and, according to manufacturers' guidelines and expert evidence, should have been secured in a car seat with a five point harness. Her mother had without realising it placed her daughter in the wrong type of safety equipment. The Court of Appeal upheld a first instance finding that Miss Williams was 25% responsible for her daughter's injuries.

This article is for information purposes only

DAMP AND DISREPAIR IN YOUR RENTED PROPERTY

 

Landlords remember it could be an expensive lesson if you do not deal with your Tenant’s reasonable request to deal with any disrepairs at the property you are letting. 

In the case of Woolf v North London Homes at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, 19 April 2012, a landlord’s obligation in respect of dealing with disrepair was considered.

The claimant was an assured shorthold tenant of a two-bedroom flat in the attic of house from28 November 2008, but left in January 2011.     She complained of disrepair from the  commencement of the tenancy, including a leak to the bath, a leaking toilet and a burst pipe, and an intermittent hot water supply.   These defects were remedied, but from 2009  onwards there was a bad smell of damp, the front door would not lock properly, the bathroom window was rotten and a pane fell out, the roof was leaking and the building suffered from subsidence. The defects were confirmed by the evidence of an environmental health officer and the tenant’s surveyor. The landlords defended the claim on the basis that the tenant had refused access and made various allegations against her, including that she was an alcoholic, had deliberately damaged the property, kept dogs at the property, left vast quantities of nappies outside the premises and had caused the attendance of the police.      All of these allegations were rejected by the judge, who found that there was significant disrepair from the time when the claimant moved in, which worsened over time until March 2010 when the claimant’s surveyor inspected. During 2009, the premises had defective windows and were subject to damp. The judge awarded damages at 20 per cent of the rent of £1,450 per month for the 15 months from the beginning of the tenancy until March 2010, and 30 per cent of the rent for the eight months thereafter, making a total of £7,830 for disrepair. She also awarded £2,500 in respect of special damages on the basis that the claimant had suffered some loss; however, the Judge she did not accept some of the more exotic items in the schedule of special damages for which the claimant had no receipts. Total damages awarded were, therefore, £10,330.

Originally reported by Beatrice Prevatt’s in the December 2012 Legal Action,

This article in for information purposes only

Deborah Aloba

Affordable Law For You Limited 

Are you suffering as a result of a Nuisance at your rented property

Landlord’s remember if you are undertaking work regarding  removing infestations at your tenant’s home then make sure that you pay a bit extra and get a thorough job done or you could be bitten  with a claim for damages resulting from nuisance as can be seen from the below mentioned case.

Siveter v Wandsworth LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 351,16 February 2012

The claimant was a council tenant. Her home was rendered uninhabitable by an infestation of 

poultry mites. She claimed that the mites had spread from a pigeon’s nest resting on a cupboard outside her flat, into the cupboard and through an opening into her flat. The council had arranged to have the nest removed, but the cupboard itself had not been inspected or sprayed. The judge rejected a claim that the landlord was liable for compensation on the basis that the council had acted reasonably in removing the nest and spraying the area even though it had not sprayed inside the cupboard. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and remitted the case to the county court for the assessment of quantum. The expert evidence was that, in addition to the nest removal, the cupboard should have at least been inspected and, probably, treated. It was inevitable and foreseeable that if left uninspected and untreated, the infestation would migrate from the cupboard and throughout the flat.

Originally reported by Beatrice Prevatt’s in the December 2012 Legal Action.

This article is for information purposes only.

Deborah Aloba

Affordable Law For You Limited

NON CO-OPERATION WITH A CLAIMANT OR DEFENDANT'S SOLICITOR COULD END UP COSTING YOU MONEY

You could find it an expensive mistake if you  refuse to co-operate with the Claimant’s/Defendant’s solicitors.  In the case of Street & Anor v Larkins & Anor (2013) Ch D (Gaunt J QC), 08.03.13 a Wasted costs order was made against the claimant because they unreasonably refused to consent to an adjournment of a trial date where it was virtually impossible to have the case prepared in time.

The Circumstances of the case are that directions were given in June 2012 for the preparation of a joint expert report. The trial was listed for 04.03.13. An expert was not instructed until December 2012 and his report was due by 22.02.13. On 08.02.13 the Defendant's solicitors wrote to the claimant suggesting the trial date be re-fixed to allow time for consideration of the report. They chased for a response on 15.02.13. The claimant consented on 26.02.13.     The claimant accepted that the defendant had adopted a reasonable position in requesting an adjournment and that, at the time of the chaser letter on 15.02.13, it was virtually impossible to prepare the case in time for trial. The claimant's refusal to consent to the earlier request for an adjournment was unreasonable. The claimant was therefore ordered to pay the wasted costs between 16.02.13 and 26.02.13.

The moral of the story is try to be as reasonable as possible when dealing with the representatives on the other side of your case and make a detailed note of all conversations between you and them.  Don't do this and you could end up with an expensive costs order against you.

This is for information purposes only

Deborah Aloba 

Affordable Law For You Limied

IF YOU BRING A FRAUDALENT CLAIM YOU COULD END UP BEHIND BARS

We have warned about the consequences of being dishonest in personal claim matters on various occasions but thought you could be aware that Insurers are not messing around and they are now bring committal proceedings pursuant to the new CPR 81  against Claimants who they believe have been dishonest.

In the case of RSA v Kosky (2013) QBD (Sir Raymond Jack) 07.03.13 the first application of its kind made pursuant to the new CPR Part 81, the applicant insurer applied for permission to commence committal proceedings for contempt of court against the respondent because she  caused her solicitors to sign a statement of truth in the Particulars of Claim knowing that it contained false statements (made by her). The particulars of claim did not reveal the respondent's relevant medical history. Further, the Schedule of Loss included claims for items that the respondent had already been compensated for in a previous claim arising from a previous injury.  Though in this instance the Insurers were refused permission to bring the committal proceedings the Court did express its view that the case demonstrated the need for an applicant to identify precisely the allegedly false statements upon which reliance was placed and state in what way the statements were said to be untrue.

The Insurers are not going to allow this to lie and I am sure will ensure that next time they do identify precisely the allegedly false statements upon which reliance was placed before bringing  a similar application before the Court. So Claimants BEWARE, if you lie, and it can be proved and the insurers can identify precisely the alleged false statements made by you, an application for a committal hearing could be successful, and, you might be facing imprisonment

This article is for information purposes only

Deborah Aloba - Affordable Law For You Limited