What we can do for our clients

We only work for cycle injury clients. This is fairly unique within UK law firms and the fact that we concentrate solely on this type of claims means that we have built up a wealth of experience within this field.

Cycle injury claims are a very specific type of claim, very different from any other type of claim, and therefore require a different perspective when dealing with the claim process. This is our specialism.

The Cycle Legal team are keen cyclists themselves, involved in many cyclist related campaigns to improve the whole cycling experience for cyclists – we know and understand the everyday situations cyclists face and we know the cycle injury claims legal process inside out to gain the best compensation for you.

Below is an example of how we fight tooth and nail for our clients, to gain them the results that go some way to rectify the injuries suffered in cycle accidents. The below resulted in an substantially increased offer for our client.

————————

Correspondence between Cycle Legal and the Third Party Solicitors

Subject: [__________] v [_________] Cycle Injury Claim

Dear [__________],

I write in connection with the defendant’s part 36 offer of £120,000 net of the liability split. While the claimant recognises the increase from the previous offer, the sum of £120,000 is unacceptable, particularly in light of the updated orthopaedic evidence and the joint statement.

The updated schedule is not due to be served until 28th October but we enclose a draft herewith so you can see how the claim will be presented at trial which we note is listed for 2 days from __/___/__. We are pleased that there is agreement, while you await firm instructions, that the orthopaedic experts attend trial. There is considerable disagreement between them.

Mr [__________]’s evidence , in our view, is much more likely to be preferred to Mr [__________]. Mr [__________] has been conservative in his estimates for osteoarthritis while the claimant still uses a walking aid, four and a half years post accident. [__________] incidentally that he brought his stick to his appointment with Mr [__________],so does not follow at all that Mr [__________] makes this crucial factual inaccuracy. He hotly disputes that it is used mostly for confidence; his girlfriend will testify that it is used everywhere, indoors as well as out, and it is likely to remain for the foreseeable future.

We cannot see how Mr [__________] does not see the claimant as disabled. We have no doubt that [__________] matches the ‘triple lock’ definition of being disabled. Mr [__________] (para 12 of [__]) “agrees that there are residual symptoms and those symptoms should be considered permanent.” He goes on to say that [__________] can do most domestic tasks when [__________]’s clear evidence is that he cannot. Most domestic tasks cannot be performed while carrying a stick; indeed, almost none can.
Ultimately of course, the question of whether [__________] is disabled is a matter for the trial judge as it was in Billet v MOD. If the Court of Appeal found Mr Billet to be disabled, which they did of course, they would certainly take less time in reaching the same conclusion with [__________] a finding would instinctively steer the court towards [__________] and away from [__________].

We consider that [__________] would make a very honest witness and one whom a court would be very keen to compensate. He would attract considerable credit for saving your client many thousands of pounds, indeed tens of thousands, in public transport costs and also at the same time assisting his low impact rehabilitation by continuing to cycle to and from work across London. He is very positive about continuing this in the future, at least in reasonable weather.

We certainly consider that an Ogden type calculation applies in this case. We accept there would be a reduction for the fact that [__________] remains able to do clerical work but,if placed on the labour market, he would be extremely limited in his options because of his disability. He has previously done manual and security roles which would bring the Ogden calculation into sharp focus at trial. Mr [__________] himself states at the end of the joint statement:
“Mr [__________] agreed that the claimant had some difficulties with heavy lifting and carrying due to the feeling of weakness in his leg.”

Similarly, on care, [__________] and his girlfriend will give clear evidence at trial as to the past and ongoing needs,and the burden this has placed on their relationship. Paragraph 5 i) of the joint statement.

On the future surgery ,these sums would need to be added to the schedule before it is served, Mr [__________] has given costings in para 3.4 of his report of [__/___/___]. [__________] has to contemplate a considerable risk of total knee replacement surgery in BOTH knees, lengthy periods of recuperation and modifying his accommodation and lifestyle still further. We will need to ask Mr [__________] about revisions to these replacements and the cost of these as well since the claimant is only in his early 40’s.

Without Prejudice

The Claimant has given instructions that he would accept the net sum of £167,500 in full and final settlement (ie, after the liability deduction of 85/15) of his case.
As always, settlement is subject to the claimant’s reasonable costs being met on the standard basis.

We shall make this as a Part 36 proposal in the event that it is not agreed and we shall of course make some necessary amendments to the schedule before it is served. The claimant’s net current salary has been increased to £[_____] and so this would account for some small upward revision in the schedule.

Yours Sincerely
Kevin O’Sullivan
Cycle Legal