To dissuade you from making a claim even more, the whole personal injury sector has taken a bit of a knock in the press, of late.

The terms ‘ambulance chasers’ and ‘whiplash injury’ have been banded about so readily that the tables have turned somewhat on the industry that gave rise to them.

However, none of this alters the fact that, if you have a genuine grievance against someone who has unlawfully or through negligence caused you harm, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

Getting just compensation for your personal injury

If the injury has meant you’ve had to receive medical treatment and there’s obvious blame on another party’s part, the chances are you’re entitled to at least some compensation.

Due to the recent implementation of new ‘small claims’ laws governing compensation fees, it will more than likely transpire that your solicitor will deduct a fee if the claim is valued at less than £5,000.

The deductable figure may fluctuate depending upon the costs each individual personal injury solicitor associates with the difference between profit and loss for them.

For larger claims, however, the no win no fee caveat should still be available.

Even if your claim does fall into the ‘small claims’ bracket and the solicitor you approach is prepared to take on your case, it’s still worth pursuing.

Not only for the compensation that you’ll receive (minus the small fee), but also as a warning to the individual or business that caused you injury to brush up their act.

The next time their actions may cause a fatality and no one wants that on their conscience.

What are the criteria for a solicitor accepting my claim?

It’s not unheard of, but if a personal injury solicitor accepts your case they have a profound belief that you’re entitled to some degree of compensation.

It wouldn’t make sense for them to take on your case otherwise.

Even though the course of action may not be apparent to you, they’ll have a way of proving that you were the unnecessary victim of negligence by the perpetrator of your injury.

What should I know before approaching a personal injury solicitor?

One of the first questions they’ll ask is: when did the accident occur?

If that date’s within 3 years of you staking your claim, then you’re good to go.

If you’re below the age of 21 at the time of the injury, there are overriding rules that mean you can have someone fight your case on your behalf or for claiming at age 18, before you become 21.

Circumstances do differ. The only way you can be genuinely certain that your injury is claim-worthy is to contact a reputable personal injury solicitor.

Most offer a free 20-minute consultation. If you’ve not got all of the details to hand, don’t worry. They’ll prepare you to gather as much information as you can to support your claim.

• Was there CCTV in operation?
• If it’s a personal injury at work, has it happened before?
• Does your company have a healthy reputation or are they prone to accidents?
• Are there witnesses to the accident?

These are just a handful of questions you may be asked. To understand fully how to start your compensation claim, why not request a call back from one of our personal injury solicitors in total confidence today?

What you perhaps don’t expect to see on the triage board is your ‘man’ getting burnt through UV sunbed use or, even more worryingly, a spray-on sun tan treatment.

However, they do. And not only do they suffer the same sort of personal injury that their female counterparts do, but they are afflicted a lot more frequently with beauty treatments common to both sexes, in comparison.

In the table below, we show the top 5 personal injuries suffered by men and women following a disastrous visit to the hairdressing salon or beauty parlour for a bit of pampering.

Unsurprisingly, nail extensions don’t make the list for the guys. Conversely, leg waxing does.

For the fairer sex, they tend not to go overboard with the fake tan; instead, 15% of women suffer personal injury as a result of a facial that didn’t exactly go to plan.

The results come as little surprise for First4lawyers. Their spokesperson, Chris Rodgers, acknowledged that the male grooming market has risen beyond expectations in recent times.

Personal injury solicitors are having to fight cases for accidents that have been historically exclusive to women, yet are now finding their way into the male world.

Reading between the lines of Chris Rodgers’ descriptions of the types of injuries suffered, male bravado may be one of the underlying causes for such a difference in the percentage of injuries from beauty products where both sexes record similar treatments in their top 5.

Most beauticians and dermatologists insist on performing a test on a small, discreet part of the skin before the full treatment is undertaken.

One can only imagine how many men walk into the beauty parlour, possibly with a little Dutch courage inside them, and demand from the consultants that they ‘just get on with it’ rather than await results of a sample test.

However, being blase is not exclusively blamed for the overall underlying trend for types of personal injury recorded in the beauty industry.

True, fake tan does contain chemicals or active ingredients that can bring on an allergic reaction. If you’ve ever seen a Henna tattoo flair up, you’ll know what I mean.

Goggles either not being worn or placed over the eyes in the wrong position were associated with UV tanning injuries. Hot wax causing an initial burn and/or complications with ingrowing hair afterwards is also a problem for both sexes.

There were even some personal injuries relating to the conditions of the treatment rooms and the beds therein themselves. And obviously, scissors were apportioned with blame for nicks to neck and ears.

The advice, in all cases, is to book your appointments with renowned hairdressers and salons. And, prior to full treatment, should the therapist suggest a sample then go with the flow.

It’s unclear how many victims suffered simply due to bad haircut. When next you’re in the salon, guys and gals, be sure to Mullet over before making rash treatment decisions.

Please, don’t take this article as a get-out clause and all start jumping back behind the wheel of one of your two jags. Cycling is indeed beneficial to your health and to the environment.

And the Department of Transport, inadvertently with the affable Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London as a figurehead, is trying to reduce the amount of cycling injuries by increasing the number of cycle paths.

Video: Boris Johnson on the future of cycling in London

In and around major cities where the dual carriages and motorways reign supreme, is not so easy to dampen the risk of potential cycling injury claims.

Priority is given to the overbearing motorised transport for the local economy and no amount of lobbying by the greens or cycling activist groups is going to change that any time soon.

Preventing your cycle injury is better than curing one

Rather than jump straight into what compensation you can claim for a cycling injury in this article, it’s perhaps more prudent to look at how cyclists can avoid injury in the first instance.

If you’re riding your bike to work, especially in the winter months, make sure that you can be seen.

Check your lights regularly and that includes carrying spare batteries if you don’t have dynamo-powered lights.

Be seen. I know there have been many marketing campaigns to reduce cycling injuries by the Government, but the message cannot be spouted often enough.

In winter, the temptation is to add extra layers, understandable when it’s minus five at a quarter to six on a freezing January morning.

However, this bulk can make wearing hi-vis clothing more difficult than usual and the temptation is not to wear it.

It’s easy to say, but relying on your legwork to generate body heat, simultaneously not impeding your ability to wear your neon clothing, is preferable to a cycling accident because you couldn’t fit your hi-vis vest over your thick jacket.

Even with visible outerwear, remember that the slim profile of a bicycle can still be difficult to spot, especially on dark mornings.

Around busy ring roads, drivers can be more concerned about the artic bearing down on them in the rear-view mirror than the cyclist twenty yards ahead of them.

Be very aware of your position in the road and stay in the cycle lanes, even if it means dismounting to follow a course around large islands.

And of course, never mount up without your helmet up top.  It could be the difference between a little concussion and something much more serious.

With 19,000+ annual accidents, cycling injury claims are inevitable

To give you some idea, there were over 19,000 reported cycling injuries in the UK last year. Of that figure, there were over 100 fatalities and 3,000 serious injuries.

If you do fall foul of an erroneous driver, you can make injury claims for cycling accidents. The level of compensation will, inevitably, vary depending upon blame and severity.

But it’s worth knowing what is covered in a cycling injury claim so that you get just recompense for being on the wrong end of a bicycle accident.

The award will compensate for your physical injuries, but the inconvenience during recovery or of repair should also betaken into consideration.

If you have to use public transport or another method of getting to and from work, that should contribute to your cycling claim. These can be claimed whilst your bike’s being repaired, which you can also be compensated for.

If the injuries suffered result in time off work to which you’re not entitled to full pay, make sure that’s documented, too. It will form part of the compensation for your cycling injury.

If your treatment requires services outside of normal NHS parameters, you can also claim for the cost of specialist treatment. This could include physiotherapy or osteotherapy or similar specialised courses of treatment administered often in private practise.

If your injury or circumstance isn’t mentioned above but you think you may have a case for a cycling personal injury claim, request a call back and one our specialist injury lawyers will appraise your unique situation accordingly.

The personal injury claims industry has plenty of critics and detractors, but there are plenty of times that the legal system works just as it’s supposed to.

This is exactly what has happened over the past week, as the news has been filled with excellent examples of how those in need of personal injury compensation have been awarded damages and how those looking to pull a fast one on the legal industry have been caught red-handed. In regards to the former instance, one man that had been injured in a particularly gruesome head-on road traffic accident a handful of years ago has recently been awarded damages for the massive injuries he suffered in the incident.

Adam Wright, 35 years old today, had been in the wrong place at the wrong time when his vehicle was struck by a transit van that lost control, causing a large accident that left the man in a two-week long coma. Mr Wright suffered a wide range of injuries, but between serious crush injuries to his legs and severe injuries to his head he was left unable to return to work in the wake of the incident.

Finally, after years of litigation, Mr Wright has been awarded with a compensation award understood to be in the millions of pounds. The injured man absolutely needs it, considering how he has vision, memory, and mobility impairments stemming from his injuries, and now he can both ensure that he gets the medical care he needs but also provide for his two young children as well.

Yes, this is all well and good you might say, but what about people who don’t deserve compensation awards such as fraudsters and scammers – don’t they get away with murder all the time? Well, not this week; news broke that a gang of particularly inept would-be insurance fraudsters were caught with their hands in the cookie jar after their scam was exposed.

Called ‘ham-fisted’ by investigators, the scam, hatched by five co-conspirators, unraveled after it was discovered that the car accident that was being claimed – a rear-end prang between a couple that claimed to not know one another, yet actually lived together and had a child – was completely false.

Perhaps it’s just me but it seems like you need to be particularly stupid to try to organise a bit of personal injury fraud with the mother of your child. The harder it is to trace back to you, the better – but apparently this pair just didn’t get the memo, now did they?

It is named the “Fee for Intervention” (FFI) scheme, and applies when a “material breach” has been undertaken which requires the necessity for a written notice to be issued which highlights the contravention and a notice indicating that prosecution will take place.

If an inspector simply offers a verbal caution, or a written one that does not indicate any contravention, then the fee will not apply.

The amount firms are charged depends on the number of hours the HSE takes to draw a conclusion and instigate action on the contravention.

FFI will be implemented when there is clear evidence of a health risk, or where employees have been exposed to harmful contaminants such as chemicals, fumes, dust, vibration or noise. Also, if there are any hazards that could lead to serious injuries such as the proximity of a person to a moving piece of machinery or vehicles and obvious risks associated with protecting employees who are working at a height.

There are also certain basic human rights, such as access to potable drinking water and washing and lavatory facilities, that are overseen by the HSE and lack of provision of these services will also mean an FFI be implemented when an inspection and report have been completed.

The costs of FFI start from the time the HSE officer enters the premises to the time that the person leaves, as well as time taken up writing a report, preparing compliance notices, follow up inspections, obtaining specialist help when undergoing inspections, assessing, recording and concluding any findings.

There is no specified length of time designated to the completion of inspection tasks as every case has its own sets of complexities which may take shorter or longer periods of time to assess and finalise.

In the event that the HSE fails in a prosecution bid, then any money already paid by the alleged offender will be repaid without question.

Agnes, who attends Cheltenham Ladies College, was injured in Gloucestershire on a stretch of the A436.

Agnes’ mother, a teacher, was fatally injured in the same accident, while her older brother Rufus, was inflicted with a severe head injury, but has now recovered.

Agnes’s father, who is an investment banker named Dominic Collier, along with Jannene, her stepmother, attended London’s High Court where the damages award was approved. The driver who was at fault was Anthony Norton and the accident was caused when he drove from a side road into the main road and Ms Hood was struck by an approaching lorry.

Norton, who comes from Andoversford in Gloucestershire, admitted that he was guilty and had driven without proper care and attention which resulted in the fatality. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison, which was suspended for 12 months, and also prohibited from being behind a vehicle for one and half years and instructed to do community work for 300 hours without payment.

Agnes has returned to school despite her disabilities but as she gets tired easily and has to use a scribe, it is unlikely she will do well enough to secure a university place that was her preferred choice. The QC for the insurance company said that the whole incident was a tragedy for all concerned, a fatality and serious injuries that were the worst that anyone would ever want to be inflicted with. He also said that the family would have had an incredibly difficult time coping with Agnes and the horrific injuries when they were first inflicted.

The compensation payment, worth £23 million, would be spread over the rest of Agnes’s life. The lump sum would be £7.25 million, along with yearly amounts of £270,000. This amount is considered to be the greatest personal injury payment ever made.

Between 2011 and 2012, dropping down from a height made up one of the four most common fatal injuries amongst workers. Other serious workplace injuries involve being caught by a structure that has collapsed or hit by a vehicle or a mobile object.

However, falling from a height, which is reported almost every day, is of particular concern in workplaces today. There are strict requirements regarding risk assessment and monetary penalties are frequently imposed in the courts.

According to the HSE, the message regarding safety precautions for workers is simply not getting across to some employers or it could be that some employers are deliberately evading taking responsibility for these types of hazards.

A recent incident when a worker fell off a wooden potato crate secured to a forklift as a temporary platform was a typical example of the employer failing to recognise or implement safe working practices.

This particular employee was employed by a Leicester firm which fitted doors. At the particular time of the accident, he was trying to fit a motor to a wall for a roller shutter door. The crate, without warning, tilted violently and he was subsequently tossed 5 metres on to the ground below. He broke one of his wrists as well as a heel, an ankle and an elbow and spent 3 months recovering after an operation.

Accidents were a real probability in this type of arrangement with potentially very serious consequences for the workers involved. The HSE ensured the company would see the inside of a court room for breaching 8(b) of the 2005 Work at Height Regulations. The company was eventually fined the sum of £ 2,870.

The HSE reported that, in 2011 and 2012, nearly half a million work days were lost due to a non-fatal injury.

Gemma, born in 1989 at Colchester maternity hospital, weighed in at less than four kilos. As a result of the way she was handled, she was inflicted with speech and mobility problems.
The lawyers for the family argued that Amanda, Miss Crabbe’s mother, had been given an overdose of a drug used to control elevated blood pressure while she was pregnant and this drug harmed the baby while she was still in the womb.

It was revealed that drugs had also been utilised to induce labour at the hospital, so Gemma was delivered far too fast. This only worsened the health problems that were a result of her birth.

The lump sum that Miss Crabbe will be in receipt of is index-linked and will not be taxed nor will the yearly amount that she will receive so that her care costs are covered for the remainder of her life.

It was revealed to the High Court that Miss Crabbe will never have the chance to be completely independent.

Despite her disability, however, she does participate in the community around her, even though she often has problems carrying out daily activities that others have no difficulty with.
Richard Mumford, who was counsel for the trust, commented that Gemma’s prospects were something that no one would ever want, but the family has had to cope with it.
Mr Justice Macduff commended Gemma’s parents on how well they had handled the difficult situation.

Midlands & East NHS was happy that a settlement had been reached and wished the family the best for the future.

The construction firm, Peak Construction Ltd was undertaking work on a large dwelling in an outer suburb of Bristol, with the intention of converting the upper storeys into residential homes, as well as building two new floors constructed of timber further up the building.

While the construction work was in progress, Health and Safety Executive inspectors visited it between the months of August to October 2011, after they had been alerted of concerns that had been passed onto them by the public, identifying unsafe and dangerous work practices.

The magistrate in Bristol heard that when the inspectors visited the site, they discovered a number of bad practices that were overlooked by the company in relation to unsafe working at height. This included the operation of a portable work platform which was in use without appropriate worker harnesses. There was also a lack of protection around the edges, which would normally help to prevent falls. Badly constructed scaffolding was in use and substantial risk from materials dropping down off the roof.

Inspectors highlighted substantial fire risks as well, which included no plan present in the event of a fire, no availability of fire extinguishers no way of activating an alarm, no clearly labelled emergency escape exits and the utilisation of an open flamed gas torch within the wooden roof area, with no precautions in place in case of an emergency.
The Blakeley Green, Essex, construction firm was ordered to stop work immediately but failed to do so and continued on working in dangerous situations. When summons to court the company entered a guilty plea for breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations and was fined £10,000 with costs amounting to £4,629.

Once the hearing was over, Steve Frain, an HSE inspector, said that falling from a great height was the single most important reason for fatalities and severe injuries within the UK construction industry.

It appears evident that many companies are not providing a suitable method which prevents their workers from falling down from dangerous heights.

Abaris Holdings Ltd was found to be guilty by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), not long after the accident took place.

The 56-year-old employee from Lancaster had been attempting to release a piece of material trapped in of the rollers by making use of a plastic tool when the machine was in use.
As he started to move away, his right hand touched the rollers and both his arm and hand became trapped in the machine.

He still had the ability to pull an emergency cord, but the whole machine had to be taken apart so as to release him. He suffered a fractured hand and thumb, a swollen up elbow and required 4 stitches to his thumb.

An HSE assessment discovered that there were no preventative guards or other devices to stop employees getting access to the rollers when the machine was in motion.
Abaris Holdings Ltd entered a guilty plea under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. It was fined £10,000 with associated costs of almost £4,000.
HSE Inspector Matthew Tinsley stated that accidents similar to this one are common in manufacturing industries, but it is the legal duty of an employer to provide safety rails to prevent access to moving equipment.

Even though the employee should be on the lookout for a potential workplace hazard often when keeping to the job is the workers main concern hazardous situations are often difficult to avoid. The easy solution is to eliminate the hazard so that no one is at risk of injury.