Just an update for all,
Following numerous letters of complaint to the solicitors who were supposed to represent me. They now want to know how they can put things right for me, but I really needed to spell things out to them. A copy of my final letter of complaint is below, just in case any of the members find themselves in the same predicament, as I was informed that the case law is used regularly by other solicitors.
Regarding some of your replies to my complaint, you first state that the documentation I originally received was the case law Grace v Tanner, your firm was also aware that I was unhappy with the conclusion, yet It wasn’t until I found the actual case that you informed me that the case you supplied was a summary.
You now claim that my insurers specifically instructed your firm to make my claim a 50/50 settlement, and then you provided the case law. In your correspondence dated 15th July 2004 you state, “We have contacted your insurers and explained the accident circumstances in full and the position that the third party insurers are holding. Your insurers have advised that they are in agreement with our advices in accepting the 50/50 settlement offer and should this is rejected they are not willing to fund proceedings in the small claims court”
Apart from the above contradictions, why on earth did you feel the need to take my case to the small claims court?
You will note in the case “Unfortunately the motorcyclist, wishing to continue down the A23 and rightly assuming that the car also wished to do that but not realising that the driver of the car did not realise that the dual carriageway between 10 and 11 o'clock was in truth the A23,”
What other possible reason was there to make such an assumption other than the position and movements of Tanner’s vehicle, as described by Lord Justice Sheimann?
I have previously pointed out the following “The defendant had taken up position in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway which would certainly have given the clear impression to any vehicles observing her that, whatever else she was going to do, she was not going to turn to her right.”
When Certainly = undoubtedly / definitely, Clear = free from doubt and Impression = an effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience. Then it is fare to say that I would be legally correct to definitely have the feeling of no doubt, that the 3rd parties vehicle was not going to turn right.
Lord Justice Scheimann goes on to describe, “she failed to appreciate the potential danger she presented to traffic which was or which might have been coming off the dual carriageway and using the roundabout, and which would have been lulled into the belief, from the position and movements of her car, that she, too, would be continuing down the dual carriageway”
When lulled = to deceive into trustfulness. Then it is fare to say that the 3rd parties driver was indicating the trust that he also was going to take the A192 exit, which was at the 12 o’clock positioned
Which exit did Tanner maintain, throughout the case, she wanted to take?
Regarding your firm using this case to find me negligent of rule 163 of the Highways Code and vehicles being incorrectly positioned. Lord Justice Scheimann explains that I would be free from doubt and was deceived into trustfulness.
Your firm has insisted that there is doubt and you have ignored the fact that I was deceived into trustfulness by the 3rd parties driver. Your firm has also shown no respect to the Health and Safety at Work Act even though it can be proven that the 3rd parties driver made a dangerous manoeuvre.
You will also note in the case the words by Lord Justice Scheimann “I add words of my own simply because we are disagreeing with the judge's conclusion”
Your firm put me in this predicament so I feel it is the responsibility of your firm to contact my insurers and put this right. Failure to acknowledge and act on the words of Lord Justice Scheimann will leave me no choice but to take my complaint elsewhere.