Aviva's Successful Low Speed Impact Fraud Challenges

LEADERS IN DEFENDING LSI CLAIMS FEBRUARY 2015

Jared Mallinson
Partner
Horwich Farrelly Solicitors

Welcome to the latest edition of For the Record detailing Aviva’s Low Severity Impact Trial outcomes from January, and what a start to the year it was! No less than 55 claimants pressed on to trial and 40 came unstuck! With 37 losing their claims at trial, 2 discontinuing their and a final claimant accepting a nominal small claims offer made a long time ago, meaning, in reality that they will not see their damages and their solicitors will receive no costs. A pleasing start to the year with a 73% success record.

We have seen some fantastic results in the cases governed by QOWCS and it appears that Judges are more open to arguments regarding fundamental dishonesty. Just last month there were a further two findings in the cases of Eric Ojo v Christopher Eade (Woolwich CC, 8 January 2015) and Usman Younis v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Huddersfield CC, 23 January 2015). Details can be found below.

To add to the record, we continue to receive positive feedback from satisfied customers, impressed with our professional yet personable approach. For full details of feedback in the cases of Adam Leighton & Michael Molyneux v Nick Owsianka & Aviva Insurance Ltd (Bolton CC, 19 January 2015) and Chris Mellor v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Lincoln CC, 7 January 2015), please see below.
For details of the cases that went to trial and some useful hints for handling LSI claims in future, please read on, and should you need further details of any of the cases, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0161 214 5762 or email jared.mallinson@horwichfarrelly.co.uk

Jared Mallinson
Partner

Chris Mellor v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Lincoln County Court, 7 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: UK Law Nationwide
This incident occurred as the defendant was reversing out of a parking bay and the claimant drove, without warning, into the rear of his vehicle. It was the claimant’s case that he was already parked when the defendant reversed into him and as a result of the impact, he suffered injury.

Eric Ojo v Christopher Eade (Woolwich County Court, 8 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Scott Rees
This incident occurred whilst the defendant was performing a parallel parking manoeuvre. His parking sensors had led him to error, as they had been set to the manufacturer’s settings, which did not take into account his tow bar. Therefore, as he was reversing his tow bar pierced the claimant’s front bumper and when he pulled away, it removed the front bumper of the claimant’s vehicle. In contrast, it was the claimant’s case that when the contact occurred; his head went back onto the head rest and bounced forwards causing him personal injury.

Salma Younis v Nationwide Direct Couriers Ltd (Walsall County Court, 12 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Eden & Co.
The defendant approached a roundabout and upon seeing that it was clear, he pulled onto the roundabout, and moved into the inside lane. Just before he reached the exit, he checked his mirrors and indicated left in order to merge into the outside lane. It was at this point that the claimant’s vehicle attempted to undertake him, making contact with the rear offside corner of his vehicle. It was the claimant’s case however, that the defendant had driven into collision with her vehicle having failed to give way at the roundabout. She sought to rely on evidence from her 3 passengers to support her case. Liability was therefore disputed.

Mary Thomason v Ann Black (Birkenhead County Court, 12 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
This was both a liability, and causation dispute. It was the claimant’s case that she was stationary when the defendant reversed into her as she attempted to park her vehicle. The defendant’s case was that she checked her mirrors to see whether the coast was clear for her to begin her manoeuvre. She said that she did not see the claimant until she was 3/4 of the way into the car parking space which was when the contact occurred.

Christopher Hallsworth & Samantha Moody v Claire Linfoot (13 January 2015, Telford County Court)
Claimant Solicitor: Carpenters Solicitors
The parties were in stop/start traffic on the approach to a junction when the claimants’ vehicle came to a stop in line with the traffic. It was the defendant’s case that, although she applied her brakes; her vehicle did not come to a complete stop in time with the result that her vehicle came into minor contact with the rear of the claimants’ vehicle. She described the accident as incredibly minor and could not accept that either claimant was injured. The claimants said that they were jolted forwards upon contact and began to immediately feel pain.

Lauren Brookes v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Birmingham County Court, 13 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Lamb & Co.
The defendant was stationary behind the claimant’s vehicle, waiting to enter a roundabout. When the claimant’s vehicle moved forwards, the defendant followed, however; the claimant suddenly braked and the defendant was unable to stop before minor contact occurred between the vehicles. The claimant said that she was thrown forwards and backwards forcefully in her seat and suffered injury as a result.

Barrie Greenhalgh v Derek Dickinson (Wigan County Court, 14 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Carpenters Solicitors
The claimant’s case was that he had travelled over a series of speed bumps and was stationary at a roundabout when the defendant drove into the rear of his vehicle, shunting him onto the roundabout. The defendant was an elderly gentleman who accepted that the parties had travelled over the series of speed bumpers before the contact occurred. However, it was his case that before the last speed bump, he had become momentarily distracted and not realised that the claimant had reduced his speed considerably. The defendant immediately applied his brakes but could not stop before minor contact occurred; before the roundabout.

Kye Waters v Pars Halal Foods (Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court, 14 January 2014)
Claimant Solicitor: Gavin Edmonson
The claimant’s case was that he was stationary, ahead of a box junction, when he noticed the defendant’s driver approaching behind him at speed. He said that the defendant’s driver failed to stop and made contact with the rear of his vehicle causing him to be jolted forward. It was the defendant’s case however, that he had managed to stop before making contact with the claimant’s stationary vehicle. Therefore, it was denied that there was any collision at all.

Georgina Atta-Afram v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Bow County Court, 15 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
The claimant was a passenger in a taxi which was directly in front of the defendant’s stationary vehicle; both were indicating to turn left. The claimant’s vehicle moved forwards and entered the road and in turn, the defendant also moved forwards. As he moved off, the defendant looked to his right to check for traffic when he felt a light touch to the front of his vehicle. It was at this point that he realised that he had made contact with the rear of the taxi which had stopped without him realising.

Barbar Arshad v Devine Building & Maintenance Limited (Manchester County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Lex Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that he was stationary, with his indicator on, intending to turn right. He had barely turned his vehicle when he was struck from behind by the claimant. Conversely, it was the claimant’s case that the defendant stopped abruptly in the road and performed a u-turn with the result that he could not avoid contact with the defendant’s vehicle. It was his case that he was moved when the collision occurred and was so shocked that he had a brief moment to compose himself before exiting his van.

Khresknik Shiqerukaj v Alexandre Miguel Costa (Dartford County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Michael Halsalls
This incident occurred at a set of traffic lights when the defendant was stationary behind the claimant’s vehicle. When the lights changed to green and the claimant set off, so did the defendant. Almost immediately, the claimant applied his brakes and the defendant could not avoid making light contact with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle. It was the claimant’s case that whilst stationary, he felt a moderate impact from behind which caused his vehicle to be shunted forwards and he was restrained by his seatbelt.

Emma Howcroft v Kevin Brown (Oldham County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Russell Worth Solicitors
The incident occurred as the defendant was passing by the claimant’s vehicle on a busy road. The only contact between the vehicles was between the wing mirrors of the vehicles and the defendant could not accept that the claimant was injury. It was the claimant’s case that the clipping of the wing mirrors caused her to swerve and hit the kerb causing injury.

Joanne Beck v Anatom Limited (Peterborough County Court, 16 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Micahel Halsalls
The claimant stated that she was stationary, in a parking space, when the defendant reversed into her, colliding with her offside wing mirror and door. The defendant was adamant that he was slowly manoeuvring into the parking space and, as the claimant nipped her vehicle into the space next to him, the vehicles came into light glancing contact. There was very minor damage to both vehicles and the defendant could not accept that the claimant could possibly have been injured.

Adam Leighton & Michael Molyneux v Nick Owsianka & Aviva Insurance Ltd (Bolton County Court, 19 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Curtis Law
This was a case where the defendant was travelling behind the claimants’ van in slow moving traffic on a slip road. His sat nav fell into the foot well so he bent down to pick it up and when he looked up, he realised that the claimants’ van had come to a stop in front of him. He braked and swerved, almost managing to miss the claimants’ van altogether but clipped the rear driver’s side corner. It was the claimants’ case that the collision was so severe that it pushed them into the hard shoulder.

Rajinder Ashta v Harminder Singh (Birmingham County Court, 20 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Armstrongs Solicitors
The claimant’s case was that he had slowed to turn into a petrol station and as he was waiting to turn, the defendant collided with the rear of his vehicle. The defendant’s said that he was travelling behind the claimant’s vehicle and noticed that the claimant was driving in an odd manner; braking for no reason. The claimant then suddenly applied the brakes at the entrance to the petrol station and although the defendant braked, he wasn’t quite able to bring his car to a stop and made minor contact with the rear of the claimant’s vehicle.

Abbie Kelly v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Liverpool County Court, 20 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Paul Crowley
In this case, the defendant accepted that, as the claimant was turning into a T-junction, she pulled out and misjudged the space she had. As such, minor contact occurred between the front driver’s side corner of the defendant’s vehicle and the rear driver’s side corner of the claimant’s vehicle. Given that the incident occurred at such a slow speed, the defendant could not accept that the claimant was injured.

James Southall v Parveen Kumar (Walsall County Court, 20 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Distinctly Legal
This incident occurred as the defendant was attempting to take a right hand turn from a stationary position. It was his case that the claimant jumped a red light in the opposite direction and drove directly into his path whilst he was beginning to perform his right hand turn. He applied his brakes but he was unable to stop and his wheel scuffed the rear bumper of the claimant’s vehicle. The claimant’s case was that he was stationary, intending to turn right, when the defendant hit him from behind.

Mark Symons & 4 others v Stephanie Moody (Liverpool County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Paul Crowley
The defendant was behind the claimants’ vehicle in bumper to bumper traffic. The traffic flow was stilted and the defendant was slowly moving forwards and stopping quite frequently; as was the claimants’ vehicle. Surprisingly, the driver of the claimants’ vehicle got out and approached the defendant, claiming that she had made contact with the rear of his vehicle. The contact was so minor that the defendant had not even realised that there had been any but did accept she may have touched the claimant’s vehicle.

Chen Meng v Joanna Dascaloudi (Willesden County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Silverbeck Rymer
This was a case where the claimant was stationary at a set of traffic lights and as the defendant drove past, in the right hand lane, she accidentally made minor contact with his vehicle. As a result of the contact, the claimant said he was jolted and injured.

Dora Buzi & 3 others v Colin Mills (Edmonton County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Horwich Cohen Coghlan
The defendant was waiting to put petrol in his vehicle but as the vehicle ahead of him was taking too long, he decided to reverse and move to a petrol pump that was free. The defendant looked over both shoulders and in his rear view mirror and could not see any vehicles; he therefore eased slightly on the accelerator and steered his vehicle to the left. The defendant had reversed only a short distance when he felt slight resistance to his rear and realised that he had made contact with a vehicle occupied by the claimant and her children. The first claimant suggested that the defendant reversed at 30mph and that the impact was severe enough to move her within her seat.

Daniel Pascal v Marie Lindsell (Lambeth County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Camps Solicitors
The defendant was behind the claimant’s van in bumper to bumper traffic and was crawling forwards with the traffic flow when she failed to stop in time and made light contact with the rear of the claimant’s van. It was the claimant’s case that, as a result of the contact, his van was shunted forwards approximately 2 metres. The defendant could not accept this, or that the claimant was injured.

Anthony Finnigan & Sarah Pidgeon v Ridha Ben Abdeljelil (Hammersmith County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Winn Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that he was parked on the side of the road with the intention to do a 3 point turn. He tuned his steering wheel to the right and drove towards the middle of the road; he then put his vehicle into reverse and began to move slowly back, towards the kerb. As he was reversing, he made contact with the claimants’ vehicle which was parked at the side of the road where he had originally been positioned. The claimants stated that they were both thrown sideways by the impact. However, the defendant described the impact as gentle and disputed that the claimants were injured as alleged.

Mohammed Laleh v Natasha Menton (Milton Keynes County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Integrity Legal
The defendant was in the process of parking in a parking bay and as she pulled forwards to straighten up, she made minor contact with the side of the claimant’s vehicle. It was the defendant’s case that the contact was extremely minor. The claimant said that the impact jolted him to the right, causing him to be shocked, shaken and injured.

Jennifer Winckle v Aftab Ahmad (Birkenhead County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Camps Solicitors
The defendant conceded that he failed to notice that the claimant’s vehicle, which had begun to reverse from a parking space behind him, as he was slowly reversing from his parking space. Contact occurred and, as the defendant accepted that the claimant’s vehicle may have been stationary when contact occurred, liability was admitted. However, causation was firmly in dispute as the defendant said he was travelling slowly and hardly felt the contact. It was the claimant’s case that she was jolted and injured as a result of the impact.

Cardale Tobias-Dalphinis v Daniel Tonna (Lambeth County Court, 22 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: JC & A Solicitors
The claimant’s case was that the defendant entered his lane and collided with the driver’s side of his vehicle, as they exited a roundabout. However, it was the defendant’s case that he saw the claimant approaching quickly in the left hand lane but he remained correctly positioned in the right hand lane and exited the roundabout. The claimant also exited the roundabout but as he did so, he made glancing contact with the passenger side of the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant disputed both liability and causation of injury.

Usman Younis v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Huddersfield County Court, 23 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Middleton Solicitors
This was a case which was initially successfully defended at trial on 13 October 2014. Liability was accepted but causation was in dispute, as the defendant could not accept that the incident was severe enough to cause personal injury to the claimant. Following the trial, the Judge ordered that costs be dealt with at a further hearing as the matter was governed by the QOWCS regime.

Brian Maggs v Penny Giles (Bath County Court, 23 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Carpenter Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that she was reversing slowly from her drive way when she made minor contact with the claimant’s vehicle, which was been parked on the cul-de-sac where she lived. The defendant was adamant that the contact was incapable of causing injury to the claimant. It was the claimant’s case that the defendant reversed at considerable speed off her drive way causing a severe jolt to his vehicle.

Roya Seyed & Mehrdad Kia v Valerie Robinson (Halifax County Court, 23 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Ramsdens Solicitors
It was the claimants’ case that they were passengers in a taxi that was hit in the rear, at speed, and shunted forwards. The defendant’s case was that she was proceeding along in a ‘stop start’ fashion behind the taxi when suddenly, the taxi braked. The defendant also braked but could not avoid making minor contact with the rear of the vehicle.

Agnieska Weranis v JKL Heaters (Slough County Court, 26 January 2014)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
Both parties entered onto a roundabout, manoeuvred around it and exited at the same time. As they were exiting the roundabout, glancing contact occurred. The claimant said that she sustained injury as a result; however, the defendant maintained that the contact was of a glancing nature and he could not accept that the claimant was injured.

Gary Fleetwood v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Birmingham County Court, 26 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Minster Law
The defendant’s case was that he was in the process of changing lanes when the claimant, who was travelling behind him, tried to overtake him. This caused the nearside of the claimant’s vehicle to come into contact with the offside of the defendant’s vehicle. The claimant, who was a police officer, denied the allegation made by the defendant and stated that he was correctly established in his lane when suddenly, and without warning, the defendant attempted to change lanes and drove into a collision with his vehicle. Both liability and causation were in dispute.

Maria McDonald & 4 others v James Tierney (Liverpool County Court, 27 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: PNM Law
This was a case where we were faced with 5 claimants; 2 adults and 3 minors under 10. The defendant accepted that he was distracted by someone behind him sounding their horn and as a result, he failed to notice that the claimants’ vehicle had come to a stop in front of him. Very minor contact occurred between the vehicles; however, the defendant denied that the claimants could have been injured.

Rosemary Ennis & Kyle Ennis v Gail Jonathon & Aviva Insurance Ltd (Huddersfield County Court, 27 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Whitestones Solicitors
The claimants were passengers in the policy holder’s vehicle. They had been travelling along a road when they pulled up behind a parked car to allow a vehicle pass in the other direction. As the policy holder pulled out, she failed to notice a motorbike travelling along the road and the vehicles came into light glancing contact. When a claim was received from the motorcyclist, initially the policyholder denied liability and confirmed no injuries could have been sustained. However, it was clear that the policyholder was at fault for the accident so liability was admitted and the motorcyclists claim settled. Despite the policy holder advising initially that no one was injured and the incident was very minor, her passenger’s intimated claims. As such indemnity was withdrawn from the policyholder and the claims defended.

Raja Khan v Islam Hussain (Newcastle County Court, 28 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Easthams Solicitors
It was the defendant’s case that, after being stationary at a set of traffic lights, he realised he needed to move into the lane to his left. As he began to change lanes, his front nearside door brushed past the front offside of the claimant’s vehicle. He had only moved a short distance and was travelling slowly when contact occurred. As such, he could not accept that the claimant could have been injured as a result of the incident. The claimant described a much more serious version of events, rating the force of the impact as 6-7 out of 10.

Stephen Ashcroft, Sharon Hughes & Kain Trotter v June Wilson (Wigan County Court, 28 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Bollin Legal
It was the defendant’s case that she was travelling behind the claimants’ vehicle in stop start traffic, when she became distracted and made light contact with the rear of their vehicle. The claimants’ case was that the defendant had failed to stop and just collided with the rear of their vehicle causing them to be jolted and injured.

Janet Barnes & Alan Barnes v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Hastings County court, 28 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Hampson Hughes Solicitors
The claimants’ case was that they were stationary on a main road when the defendant ‘ploughed’ into the rear of their vehicle, causing them injury. It was the defendant’s case that he was slowly proceeding behind the claimant’s vehicle on his scooter. The traffic was heavy and the weather conditions were wet. Suddenly, the claimants’ vehicle braked, so he braked too, but owing to the wet road surface, his scooter continued to slide forwards. He put out his hand in a bid to stop himself and leant on the windscreen of the claimant’s vehicle. However, he was unable to avoid his scooter making minor contact with the rear of the claimants’ vehicle.

Parveen Khan v Aviva Insurance Ltd (Manchester County Court, 29 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Lopian Wagner Solicitors
The claimant was a passenger on a bus when the defendant’s insured collided with the front offside bumper. It was the claimant’s case, that as a result of the contact, she was thrown forwards and had to put her arm out to save her daughter from falling from her seat. The defendant obtained CCTV footage and relied on this evidence only at trial.

Neville Tucker v Manjit Singh (Doncaster County Court, 29 January 2015)
Claimant Solicitor: Ralli Solicitors legal
This was both a liability and a causation dispute. It was the claimant’s case that he a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle when the defendant performed an emergency stop which caused him to be moved in his seat and injured. It was the defendant’s case, that whilst he had a vague memory of the journey, he denied could not recall any incident which would have caused him to brake so suddenly.

Disclaimer & Copyright Notice
The contents of this document are considered accurate at the time of delivery. The information provided does not constitute specific legal advice. You should always consult a suitably qualified solicitor about any individual legal matter. Horwich Farrelly Solicitors accepts no liability for errors or omissions in this document.

All rights reserved. This material provided is for personal use only. No part may be distributed to any other party without the prior written permission of Horwich Farrelly Solicitors or the copyright holder. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical photocopying, microfilming, recording, scanning or otherwise for commercial purposes without the written permission of Horwich Farrelly or the copyright holder.

Aviva’s Successful Low Speed Impact Fraud Challenges

Our Location

Our Awards