Door closed on recovery for fundamentally dishonest cyclist

A cyclist who tried to sue the Council after being accidentally knocked off his bike by a Council worker, has been ordered to pay nearly £7,000 in costs after the court found his claim to be Fundamentally Dishonest.

It was admitted that the employee caused the accident when he opened the door of his vehicle without looking, causing the cyclist to fall.  The extent of the injuries claimed to have been caused however, was considered to be exaggerated.

It was the cyclist’s case that, whilst riding along a designated cycle path, the door of a Council vehicle suddenly opened and collided with him and he was then thrown into a nearby wall which caused him to suffer a significant shoulder injury. Vehicle tracker information proved where the vehicle was located when the incident occurred, that there was no wall in the vicinity; instead the cyclist landed on a flat pavement.

The Claimant was examined by a medical expert and claimed that the injuries he suffered were significant and debilitating.  This contrasted with the evidence of the Council workers who went to check that the cyclist was okay and as they helped him to his feet, he confirmed that he was uninjured, got back on his bike and cycled away.

Both Council operatives gave evidence to confirm that about an hour after the incident, the cyclist returned to the scene pushing his bicycle, whilst filming them with his mobile phone.

Eighteen months after his accident, the cyclist claimed that he was still suffering significant symptoms to his left shoulder from the accident.  The Claimant, however, attended A&E later the day of the accident but mentioned a right shoulder injury.

The attendance at A&E on day of the accident was the cyclist’s only attendance for medical treatment, yet he told his medical expert that his pain had been ‘10 out to 10’ for a number of months following the accident, that it had affected his sleep for a considerable time afterwards and had prevented him for carrying out household chores which he required help with from family members.

Having heard the evidence at trial, the Judge found that there was ‘extreme inconsistency’ in the presentation of the evidence and found that the Claimant’s case was Fundamentally Dishonest. The Judge overturned QOCS and ordered that the Claimant pay the Council’s costs.

Forbes comment 

It is as important now as it has ever been that public funds are protected and used for their rightful purpose.  We work in close partnership with our public sector clients, their insurers and other partner agencies to ensure that fraudulent and exaggerated claims are thoroughly investigated and robustly defended.