Mr B was a visitor to an adventure play park when he went to sit on one of the adult chairs it collapsed beneath him causing him to fall and hit his head.
Mr B wanted to claim personal injury compensation so after searching the internet for a lawyer he chose Hayward Baker Personal Injury Solicitors to act on his behalf.
The case was estimated to be below £25,000.00 so Hayward baker Solicitors ran the claim under a scheme known as the ‘Pre-action Protocol for low value personal injury claims’. in accordance with the scheme Hayward Baker sent a Claims notification Form (CNF) to the Defendant. This form provided all the necessary information to enable them to consider the matter and in particular had the following allegations as to why the defendant is deemed to be at fault for the accident.
The allegations were as quoted below:
“The reason why we are alleging fault is that you have failed to ensure that our client was reasonably safe whilst on your premises. You have negligently failed to ensure that the chair was safe and fit for its intended purpose. You allowed the defective chair to be used by visitors; you have failed to institute or enforce any or any adequate system of inspection or maintenance of furniture whereby the existence of the defective chair might have been detected and the same removed or repaired before our client’s accident.”
“As a result our client has sustained injury, loss and damage.”
The defendant insurers responded to the CNF and stated that they are investigating the claim and it was not too long before they contacted Hayward Baker Solicitors again via the on-line portal admitting liability for the accident. This meant that after Mr B is examined by a medical export and the subsequent medical report shows that the injuries were as a result of the accident then the insurers are willing to pay him compensation for his injuries sustained in the accident.
Before Mr B’s solicitor had chance to arrange a medical appointment the insurers put forward a pre-medical offer of £1500.00. The offer was made in full and final settlement of Mr B’s claim. Therefore, if he accepted it, his solicitor will not be able to obtain a medical report fully detailing his injuries. Further, Mr B would not be able to return to the insurer at a later date for further compensation.
Mr B had 21 days to accept the offer.
Mr B was asked by his solicitor to note that after the 21 days the Defendant may, any time until it is accepted, withdraw the offer or change its terms so it is less advantageous to Mr B.
Mr B’s solicitors explained that it was difficult for them to advise him upon the reasonableness of the offer without the medical evidence to confirm the exact nature and duration of the injuries that he had sustained.
It may be that his claim is worth more than the current offer once the medical report is received however there is no guarantee and it could be worth less than the current offer.
If Mr B accepted the offer the case will come to an end.
If Mr B rejects the offer then his case will continue and his solicitor will obtain medical evidence to support his injuries so that they can provide him with more advice as to the likely financial value of his claim.
It was impressed upon Mr B that if the medical evidence indicates a financial value in the region of the current offer of £1,500, he would not then be entitled to any further compensation simply on the basis that he waited for the medical evidence. The financial value of his claim is based on the injuries he sustained and how long they took to resolve, not the duration of the claim itself.
Mr B was asked to also note that if he was to proceed to issue court proceedings and at trial the court awards him a sum less than or equal to their offer, or he accepts an offer later that is less than or equal to their offer, then he may be ordered to pay some of the Defendant’s costs.
With the above in mind, Mr B was asked to sign the attached authority form stating what he wished to do take the offer or reject it.
Mr B accepted the offer and the claim came to an end.