Whiplash victim defies dishonest accusations to win claim

A whiplash victim from London, who was subjected to relentless accusations of dishonesty, won his claim when the defence realised that he had photo evidence that supported his case.

Scott Rees & Co wins whiplash claim despite false fraud allegation

Claim for Road Traffic Accident

Sahin Ahmed’s was a passenger in an accident that occurred in 2012.  The car he was travelling in was waiting at a junction to make a right turn into a petrol station when it was struck by the third party’s vehicle..

Following the collision, the Mr Ahmed suffered whiplash and a soft tissue injury as a result of the accident, for which he instructed us to manage his personal injury claim.

Upon beginning claim proceedings, what Mr Ahmed was not expecting was having to face allegations that he was making an opportunistic and fraudulent claim for his injury. The defendant even alleged that he had not even been in the vehicle when the accident took place.

What they hadn’t realised was that immediately following the accident, the claimant had got out of the car and had taken photos of the damage to the vehicle he was travelling in. These photos were then brought forward as proof that Mr Ahmed had been at the scene of the accident and was in the car when it took place.

As the possibility of court proceedings being issued got closer, the Mr Ahmed made a reasonable Part 36 offer to the defendant side of £2,850. Unfortunately, the defendant remained stubborn in his insistence that the Mr Ahmed was making a fraudulent claim and immediately rejected the offer. The defendant decide continued to make allegations of fraud against the claimant, until they became aware of the photo evidence that Mr Ahmed had prepare to submit in court.

The judgement

With just two days remaining before trial, it dawned on the defendant that despite his allegations of fraud, which were completely unfounded, he had no proof to back up his claims. This, added with the fact that the claimant had produced photographs disproving his theory, forced him to make an offer for costs and damages to the claimant.

Upon receiving this offer, despite the unacceptable attempts to defame his character, Mr Ahmed replied saying that he was still agreeable to the terms offered earlier in the part 36 offer and the claim was settled for £2,850.

Filed under: All