Accident involving the police

[Lancashire74]

Hi, I’m really hoping someone can help as we feel like we’ve completely run out of options.
We were involved in a road traffic accident with a police vehicle in April 2023, and we are now approaching the 3-year limitation deadline (April 2026).

Out of the blue, our solicitors have now told us they will not act for us or issue proceedings unless we fund it privately, which has left us in a very difficult position with very little time left.

We are extremely concerned this has been left far too late.

Background of the accident:
We were at traffic lights turning right from a main road into a side road.
We could hear sirens but there was no visible emergency vehicle.
My husband committed to the turn, and a police car came around a blind bend at speed and collided with the passenger side of our vehicle, pushing us approximately 8 feet sideways.

Issues we’ve faced:

• The police have been very difficult to deal with and have not responded properly to requests for information
• We have been given conflicting accounts of what happened
• The police version states we turned out in front of them and should have seen them this is not correct
• We were told the police said my husband was not at fault, which contradicts what is now being argued
• We requested telematics/vehicle data from the police car our solicitors said they requested it, but when we contacted the police directly, we were told it had only been passed to their insurer

Concerns about our solicitors:

• Very poor communication throughout the case
• Multiple emails ignored
• Two formal complaints made both upheld
• We were only recently told (very close to limitation) that they do not believe the case has sufficient prospects
• They are now refusing to issue proceedings unless we pay privately
• Key evidence (like telematics data) has still not been obtained

SAR issue:
We submitted a Subject Access Request to our solicitors to understand what has happened, but they have only provided:

• 2 medical reports

They have refused to provide:

• emails
• file notes
• internal discussions

They are saying they don’t have to provide this.

Where we are now:
We feel like we have been backed into a corner just before the 3-year deadline, and that the case has not been properly investigated.
This has had a significant impact on my husband’s health, and I’ve had to take over dealing with everything.

We would really appreciate advice on:

1. Can a solicitor refuse to issue proceedings this late in the case?
2. Should they have obtained key evidence (like police vehicle data) earlier?
3. Do we have any options to protect the claim before the limitation deadline?
4. Does this sound like potential negligence by the solicitors?
5. Has anyone dealt with accidents involving police vehicles and similar issues?

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this any advice would be really appreciated as we feel completely stuck at this point.

[PallasAthena]

Sorry I have no experience of this situation but one question. Was the driver of the police vehicle prosecuted and if so with what outcome?

You are being asked to pay the solicitor privately. Who has been paying the solicitor up to now?

[Lancashire74]

Sorry I have no experience of this situation but one question. Was the driver of the police vehicle prosecuted and if so with what outcome?

You are being asked to pay the solicitor privately. Who has been paying the solicitor up to now?

Hi Thank you for responding to me. We have no idea if they were prosecuted or any outcome without a fight we were not even given his name or the reg number of the police car we weren't in a fit state to get it at the scene. Luckily someone took photos so we have them. The car insurance company have been paying as we had legal cover with them. Yes the solicitor wants us to pay privately and they are now saying we need to find a new solicitor. We have contacted so many and they are saying we don't have time to sort in out before the 3 years. I just feel we will loose the case and my husband wont get any compensation for the injuries he received. I do also want to say I have been asking them to go for an extension on the case since last January and they said they would but it wasn't the right time yet. I knew it was because my solicitors has applied for an extension.

[PallasAthena]

If your insurance company have stopped paying your legal costs they should contact you to explain why. If they haven't then ask them why. Your policy might give you the right to ask for the decision to cease funding to be reviewed.

But if your insurers are entitled to stop paying your legal costs then the solicitor will ask you to take over payment of their fees. Who, other than you, would pay if the insurers won't?

A conviction against the police driver would clearly be relevant to the question of liability. Worth you doing some online research to see if a prosecution has been reported in the media. Magistrates court prosecutions of police drivers are often reported in local newspapers. Also ask your insurers if they know. It's information I'd expect them to ask when assessing the chance of success.

[atticus]

Have you had an appraisal of the chances of success? A common reason for insurers stopping funding is that they have been advised that the chances of success are less than 50%.

This type of case is outside my experience, so I will give such answers to your 5 questions as I can.

q1. See the terms of the solicitor's engagement. The answer to your question is likely to be 'yes'.
q3. You can issue a court claim yourself. But read as much as you can about the process. See the guides and resources thread - link in my signature (below).
q4. Unlikely. Again, see the terms of the solicitor's engagement.

NB you have not said what injuries were suffered, but it appears that the effects are continuing.

[echat11]

Look at the Terms and Conditions, it should state that you can obtain a second opinion from a 'Barrister or other expert' (you need to read the policy to
see what it states). If the second opinion states that the chances of winning the case are over 50%, you can approach the insurers again to resume funding.
You should be able to get a second opinion on a fixed fee basis. That would be reimbursed if the second opinion is different to your solicitors opinion.

If you feel the solicitors are at fault, lodge a complaint with the Legal Ombudsman Service and SRA.

[Frank1]

According to Forbes Solicitors historical court cases have shown that sirens and flashing lights don't give the drivers of emergency vehicles the right to speed or pass through red lights They have to proceed with caution and treat traffic light junctions as if there were no lights and give way to traffic that may have a right of way.
It sounds as if the police car was going much too fast approaching traffic lights after a blind bend and was clearly at fault.
If you were sitting on the passenger side you would have taken the brunt of the impact You were lucky not to be injured. A colleague of mine had to attend an inquest as a witness to an accident where a driver turned right and was hit by an oncoming car and the front seat passenger was killed.
Legal expenses insurance covers uninsured losses. Many policies cover up to £100k legal costs. The claim must have 51% or higher chance of success. The total amount of legal costs must also be in proportion to the amount claimed
Is it possible that your solicitor has been waiting to see if
your husbands medical condition has improved or got worse over time?

[Lancashire74]

If your insurance company have stopped paying your legal costs they should contact you to explain why. If they haven't then ask them why. Your policy might give you the right to ask for the decision to cease funding to be reviewed.

But if your insurers are entitled to stop paying your legal costs then the solicitor will ask you to take over payment of their fees. Who, other than you, would pay if the insurers won't?

A conviction against the police driver would clearly be relevant to the question of liability. Worth you doing some online research to see if a prosecution has been reported in the media. Magistrates court prosecutions of police drivers are often reported in local newspapers. Also ask your insurers if they know. It's information I'd expect them to ask when assessing the chance of success.

Thank you, that’s really helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

From what I understand, our insurance has been funding the legal costs under our legal cover, but it now seems they (through the solicitors) have decided the case doesn’t have strong enough prospects to continue funding but they haven't got all the information. From what I’ve since read, I understand insurers will usually only fund cases where they believe there’s a reasonable chance of success (around 50% or more), which seems to be what’s happened here .

Our concern is that this decision has been made very late, and without key evidence like the police vehicle telematics being obtained. That’s what doesn’t sit right with us.

You’re right about the costs we understand that if the insurer won’t fund it, then it would fall to us to pay privately. The issue is that we’ve only just been told this, so we’ve been left with almost no time to make that decision or find another solicitor.

That’s a really good point about checking whether the police driver was prosecuted we hadn’t thought of looking at local court reports, so we will definitely look into that and also ask the insurers if they have that information.

At the moment our main worry is whether there is anything we can still do to protect the claim before the limitation deadline, as it feels like everything has been left far too late.

Thanks again for your advice it’s really helpful.

[Lancashire74]

Have you had an appraisal of the chances of success? A common reason for insurers stopping funding is that they have been advised that the chances of success are less than 50%.

This type of case is outside my experience, so I will give such answers to your 5 questions as I can.

q1. See the terms of the solicitor's engagement. The answer to your question is likely to be 'yes'.
q3. You can issue a court claim yourself. But read as much as you can about the process. See the guides and resources thread - link in my signature (below).
q4. Unlikely. Again, see the terms of the solicitor's engagement.

NB you have not said what injuries were suffered, but it appears that the effects are continuing.

Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Yes, we have now been told that the reason funding is being withdrawn is because they believe the chances of success are below 50%. What concerns us is that this conclusion seems to have been reached without key evidence being obtained, particularly the police vehicle telematics and incident data, which we feel could be important in understanding what actually happened.

I understand your point about the solicitor’s terms and that they may be entitled to stop acting it’s just very difficult to accept given how close we are to the limitation deadline and the fact that we’ve raised concerns about this for some time.

Thank you also for the suggestion about issuing a claim ourselves. We have briefly looked into it, but it feels quite daunting given the time pressure and complexity, especially as this involves a police vehicle. I will have a look though like you suggested.

In terms of injuries, my husband suffered whiplash and torn muscles in his neck ongoing issues which have affected him quite significantly since the accident, which is another reason we are so worried about losing the claim entirely. I have ended up with complex PTSD I was badly bruised and I also had a broken shoulder and welts. All in all it wasn't to bad injury wise. The sergeant who attended tsaid I was lucky to be alive.

At the moment our main concern is whether there is anything we can still do to protect the claim before the limitation deadline, even if we need to seek new representation or take some initial steps ourselves.

Thanks again for your advice, it’s really appreciated.

[Lancashire74]

Look at the Terms and Conditions, it should state that you can obtain a second opinion from a 'Barrister or other expert' (you need to read the policy to
see what it states). If the second opinion states that the chances of winning the case are over 50%, you can approach the insurers again to resume funding.
You should be able to get a second opinion on a fixed fee basis. That would be reimbursed if the second opinion is different to your solicitors opinion.

If you feel the solicitors are at fault, lodge a complaint with the Legal Ombudsman Service and SRA.

Thank you, that’s really helpful and something we hadn’t fully considered.

I will go back and check the terms of the policy to see whether we have the right to obtain a second opinion, as you’ve suggested. If that is an option, it sounds like it could be really important at this stage, especially if it allows us to challenge the decision to stop funding.

Our concern is that the current view on prospects seems to have been reached without key evidence being obtained, particularly the police vehicle telematics and incident data, so a second opinion based on a fuller review would make sense.

Time is obviously a big issue for us now with the limitation deadline so close, but we will look into whether we can arrange this on a fixed fee basis as a matter of urgency.

We have also already started the process of raising complaints due to the way the case has been handled, including contacting the Legal Ombudsman and the ICO, as we have had ongoing concerns about communication, delays, and lack of transparency.

Thank you again for pointing this out, it’s really helpful and gives us something practical to look into.

[Lancashire74]

According to Forbes Solicitors historical court cases have shown that sirens and flashing lights don't give the drivers of emergency vehicles the right to speed or pass through red lights They have to proceed with caution and treat traffic light junctions as if there were no lights and give way to traffic that may have a right of way.
It sounds as if the police car was going much too fast approaching traffic lights after a blind bend and was clearly at fault.
If you were sitting on the passenger side you would have taken the brunt of the impact You were lucky not to be injured. A colleague of mine had to attend an inquest as a witness to an accident where a driver turned right and was hit by an oncoming car and the front seat passenger was killed.
Legal expenses insurance covers uninsured losses. Many policies cover up to £100k legal costs. The claim must have 51% or higher chance of success. The total amount of legal costs must also be in proportion to the amount claimed
Is it possible that your solicitor has been waiting to see if
your husbands medical condition has improved or got worse over time?

Thank you, I really appreciate your response and the information you’ve shared.

That’s interesting regarding emergency vehicles that’s very much how we’ve been looking at it as well. Our concern has always been the speed of the police vehicle, especially coming around a blind bend towards a junction, which is why we’ve been pushing for the telematics and incident data to be obtained.

Just to clarify, I was in the passenger seat and I was injured in the collision. I suffered a broken shoulder, welts, whiplash and have since been diagnosed with complex PTSD, which has had an ongoing impact on me.

My husband, who was driving, suffered torn muscles in his neck and whiplash. We were initially told by a doctor that he would recover within 6 months, but this did not happen. After that, he was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon, who advised a further 12 months recovery.

When we approached the end of that period, I raised concerns with the solicitor as my husband was still not improving. However, we were told that because the orthopaedic surgeon had previously stated 12 months, they would not take any further action or obtain updated medical evidence.

I would also add that the accident itself was extremely traumatic. At the moment of impact, I was looking at my husband and genuinely believed he had died. The force of the collision threw him around significantly despite both of us wearing seatbelts. This has had a lasting psychological impact on me.

In addition, despite the level of pain my husband has experienced, he was not given an X-ray at the hospital and has never had one since. He has repeatedly been advised simply to take painkillers, which is another ongoing concern.

Thank you also for explaining the legal expenses side that does seem to align with what we’re now being told about the prospects needing to be over 50% for funding to continue.

Our main concern is that the decision to stop funding and not proceed has come very late, and appears to have been made without key evidence being obtained, particularly the police vehicle data.

At this stage, we’re really trying to understand whether there is anything we can still do to protect the claim before the limitation deadline.

Thanks again for your input, it’s really helpful.

[Lancashire74]

According to Forbes Solicitors historical court cases have shown that sirens and flashing lights don't give the drivers of emergency vehicles the right to speed or pass through red lights They have to proceed with caution and treat traffic light junctions as if there were no lights and give way to traffic that may have a right of way.
It sounds as if the police car was going much too fast approaching traffic lights after a blind bend and was clearly at fault.
If you were sitting on the passenger side you would have taken the brunt of the impact You were lucky not to be injured. A colleague of mine had to attend an inquest as a witness to an accident where a driver turned right and was hit by an oncoming car and the front seat passenger was killed.
Legal expenses insurance covers uninsured losses. Many policies cover up to £100k legal costs. The claim must have 51% or higher chance of success. The total amount of legal costs must also be in proportion to the amount claimed
Is it possible that your solicitor has been waiting to see if
your husbands medical condition has improved or got worse over time?

Thank you, I really appreciate your response and the information you’ve shared.

That’s interesting regarding emergency vehicles that’s very much how we’ve been looking at it as well. Our concern has always been the speed of the police vehicle, especially coming around a blind bend towards a junction, which is why we’ve been pushing for the telematics and incident data to be obtained.

Just to clarify, I was in the passenger seat and I was injured in the collision. I suffered a broken shoulder, welts, whiplash and have since been diagnosed with complex PTSD, which has had an ongoing impact on me.

My husband, who was driving, suffered torn muscles in his neck and whiplash. We were initially told by a doctor that he would recover within 6 months, but this did not happen. After that, he was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon, who advised a further 12 months recovery.

When we approached the end of that period, I raised concerns with the solicitor as my husband was still not improving. However, we were told that because the orthopaedic surgeon had previously stated 12 months, they would not take any further action or obtain updated medical evidence.

I would also add that the accident itself was extremely traumatic. At the moment of impact, I was looking at my husband and genuinely believed he had died. The force of the collision threw him around significantly despite both of us wearing seatbelts. This has had a lasting psychological impact on me.

In addition, despite the level of pain my husband has experienced, he was not given an X-ray at the hospital and has never had one since. He has repeatedly been advised simply to take painkillers, which is another ongoing concern.

Thank you also for explaining the legal expenses side that does seem to align with what we’re now being told about the prospects needing to be over 50% for funding to continue.

Our main concern is that the decision to stop funding and not proceed has come very late, and appears to have been made without key evidence being obtained, particularly the police vehicle data.

At this stage, we’re really trying to understand whether there is anything we can still do to protect the claim before the limitation deadline.

Thanks again for your input, it’s really helpful.

[atticus]

Yes, we have now been told that the reason funding is being withdrawn is because they believe the chances of success are below 50%. What concerns us is that this conclusion seems to have been reached without key evidence being obtained, particularly the police vehicle telematics and incident data, which we feel could be important in understanding what actually happened.

I would want to see the reasons for that advice about the chances of success. Have you been given those reasons, and if not did you ask? The question is whether the "key evidence" you mention might affect those reasons.

[Lancashire74]

I would want to see the reasons for that advice about the chances of success. Have you been given those reasons, and if not did you ask? The question is whether the "key evidence" you mention might affect those reasons.

Thank you, that’s exactly where our concern lies.

Our solicitors keep saying this is not based solely on the police account, but the reasoning they’ve given appears to reflect it very closely, and there are key points within that account that are simply incorrect.

For example, it has been stated that:

• we had a very large labradoodle in the car causing a distraction this is completely untrue
• we pulled out from a side road into their path this is also incorrect, as we were on a main road turning right
• the implication is that we moved into them, whereas the actual impact was to the side of our vehicle (wheel arch, passenger door, and sliding door), which does not align with that version of events

These inconsistencies are exactly why we have been asking for objective evidence such as telematics and incident data. We feel this is critical in establishing what actually happened, rather than relying on disputed accounts.

This is also why we submitted a Subject Access Request to our solicitors, as we wanted to understand how these conclusions had been reached. However, they have refused to provide full information and have only sent two medical reports, which they say constitutes their complete SAR response. This has added to our concerns around transparency and how the case has been handled.

At the moment, it feels like conclusions are being drawn despite these clear differences in accounts and without that evidence being properly obtained or considered.

[atticus]

The solicitors appear to be suggesting a large element of contributory negligence. Can you show that the factual assumptions (which you have listed) are incorrect?

I suggest that you request an extremely urgent review.