Advice No Win No Fee Solicitors Manchester - Expert Legal Help When You Need It Most

The client was a pedestrian involved in a serious road traffic accident.

The client was a pedestrian when the Defendant deliberately drove into them, causing serious injuries.

The circumstances of the incident led to criminal proceedings against the driver.

The client suffered multiple fractures requiring surgery, along with psychological trauma.

These injuries had a significant impact on their recovery and overall wellbeing.

Investigations confirmed the Defendant was responsible for the incident.

The matter was also dealt with through the criminal courts, supporting the claim.

As no insurer was immediately identified, the claim was initially pursued through the Motor Insurers' Bureau.

Our team took proactive steps to progress the case, including:

• Obtaining key evidence to support the circumstances of the incident

• Securing official reports to strengthen the claim

• Carrying out investigations to identify the responsible insurer

Once an insurer was located, we:

• Presented detailed evidence of the incident and the injuries sustained

• Engaged in negotiations to ensure the claim was properly valued

Despite the seriousness of the injuries, no early offers were made, meaning it was necessary to continue pursuing the claim to secure a fair outcome.

We remained committed to achieving the best possible result for the client, ensuring that the full impact of the incident was reflected in the final settlement.

The claimant was carrying out their usual work duties when an incident occurred, resulting in a significant arm injury.

The incident happened during the course of the claimant’s employment while carrying out a work-related task.

During the incident, the claimant sustained a serious injury to their arm. Concerns were later raised regarding workplace safety arrangements and the measures in place at the time.

The claimant suffered a serious arm injury involving a severed tendon.

The injury caused significant pain, reduced strength, and restricted movement, affecting the claimant’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities and work-related tasks during recovery. Medical treatment and rehabilitation were required following the injury.

Liability for the accident was admitted.

However, there were disputes concerning the value of the claim and the overall impact the injury had on the claimant.

Although liability was admitted, an initial settlement offer of £17,500 was made.

After reviewing the evidence, we advised the claimant that the offer did not fully reflect the extent of the injury and associated losses.

As a result:

• Court proceedings were issued

• Further negotiations took place

• Additional evidence was considered in support of the claim

The claimant was travelling as a passenger on public transport when an unexpected incident occurred, resulting in injury and emotional distress.

During the journey, an incident developed which caused significant concern among passengers and led to an emergency situation.

The claimant was affected during the incident and later experienced physical and psychological symptoms.

The claimant suffered a chest injury together with psychological trauma following the incident.

These injuries affected their wellbeing and required a period of recovery.

Liability was disputed throughout the claim.

However, investigations and supporting evidence helped strengthen the claimant’s position regarding the circumstances of the incident and its impact.

We carried out detailed investigations to support the case.

This included:

• Obtaining relevant reports and documentation

• Reviewing available evidence relating to the circumstances of the incident

• Gathering supporting material to strengthen the claim

As liability remained disputed, court proceedings were issued.

The client attended a salon for a routine hair treatment.

During the appointment, the client's hair was overprocessed, resulting in significant damage.

This caused both physical damage to the hair and associated financial losses.

The client experienced damage to their hair due to overprocessing, which required time to recover and impacted their confidence.

Liability was denied throughout the claim by the Defendant.

Despite this, evidence supported that the treatment had not been carried out to an acceptable standard.

To support the case, we:

• Obtained independent medical evidence

• Gathered photographic evidence showing the condition and recovery of the hair

As no settlement offers were made initially, the claim progressed towards a trial hearing.