GBB Evidence Helps Defeat Fundamentally Dishonest Claim

In a recent case at Wandsworth County Court, the Claimant claimed that a Range Rover reversed into his stationary Piaggio scooter and caused extensive damage.
 
The claim was disputed by the driver of the Range Rover who said that it was the scooter that had driven into the rear of his stationary vehicle.
 
The insurers of the Range Rover, faced with a claim of over £86,000, instructed solicitors who, in turn, instructed GBB.
 
GBB’s Ronnie Trivett, inspected the Range Rover and considered images of the Piaggo and, though he noted a number of concerns with the scooter, he could not discern between the two events: the damage could have occurred from either driver’s account.
 
An alternative expert, instructed by the representatives of the Claimant, disagreed. The expert believed variously that the damage showed the Claimant was correct and the Range Rover must have reversed into the Piaggio. A lengthy joint statement was produced: The Claiamnt’s expert being certain that the scooter was stationary and on its stand, Ronnie Trivett maintaining that either event could be correct.
 
(Interestingly, The Claimant’s expert offered an explanation that a disparity in mileages for the scooter could have been caused by a broken speedometer, a postulation he came to distance himself from when Ronnie pointed out that a broken speedometer would have rendered the scooter unfit for use!)
 
On 5th December 2017 the matter- including the forensic engineering evidence- was put before District Judge Parker sitting at Wandsworth CC. Judge Parker held that the claim was fraudulent, the claimant’s evidence having included a high degree of inconsistency and embellishment, and that the entire claim was “fundamentally dishonest”.
 
The claims were dismissed and a cost order made in favour of the Defendant. Via a non-party costs application the accident management company behind the hire claim paid the entirety of the assessed costs of the proceedings which resulted in “a very substantial recovery by the Defendant’s insurers.”