Been told your nut allergy claim won’t succeed? Wondering if that rejection was justified?
A solicitor told you no. Or an insurer denied liability and the firm running your claim gave up. The rejection sits there, costing you a claim that may still be alive. Carter and Carter Solicitors reviews rejected nut allergy compensation claims across England and Wales. The firm has done so since 2007, before Natasha’s Law made the duties on restaurants explicit. Second opinions are free.
Second opinions are reviewed only where the file is closed or was never opened. Carter and Carter does not take over active claims from other solicitors. Some rejections are confirmed as correct after review. Others are overturned. Both outcomes happen regularly. The full process for how to claim for a nut allergy is set out in the cluster hub.
When Carter and Carter Can Help (And When We Can’t)
A second opinion is offered if:
- A solicitor said “no” at your first call and never opened a file
- A solicitor investigated your claim, then declined it (“no prospects of success”)
- You’ve been told “you don’t have a claim” and the file is now closed
- You haven’t instructed anyone yet and want expert advice before you do
Carter and Carter will not get involved if:
- Another solicitor is actively working your claim right now
- You want us to take over because your current solicitor is “doing a bad job”
- You’re in the middle of negotiations or court proceedings with another firm
The best route? Instruct Carter and Carter from day one. Where a rejection has already happened and the file is closed, the firm reviews the original decision honestly and explains whether it was justified.
Most Firms Rejected This. We Didn’t.
See exactly why clients choose our deliberately small firm when other solicitors said “no prospects”. This includes our track record with rejected claims and how we assess evidence differently.
What happens if your nut allergy claim is rejected or denied?
A rejected nut allergy claim is not always a dead claim. The rejection may be correct, or it may reflect the rejecting solicitor’s commercial appetite, unfamiliarity with food allergen law, or a missed evidential angle. Whether the rejection stands depends on which of three categories applies: a solicitor refusing the claim at the outset, a solicitor giving up after an insurer denial, or an insurer denying liability while a solicitor is still actively working the file.
David Healey and Chris Carter have handled nut allergy claims since 2007, before Natasha’s Law made headlines. The firm has taken on claims that other solicitors rejected and has also agreed with rejections, telling people honestly why a claim genuinely cannot succeed. Both outcomes happen regularly.
This page explains why nut allergy claims get rejected, when those rejections are justified, and what can realistically be done about each scenario.
“Carter and Carter Solicitors has taken on claims that other firms rejected and won them. The firm has also agreed with rejections and explained why a claim genuinely will not succeed. Both happen regularly.”
What is the difference between a solicitor rejection and an insurer denial?
A solicitor rejection means the law firm decides not to take a nut allergy claim on, either at the first call or after investigating; the file is closed and the claim cannot proceed unless a different solicitor disagrees with the assessment. An insurer denial is a different stage entirely. It means a solicitor is actively running the claim and the defendant’s insurer has refused to admit liability. Insurer denials are a normal, expected stage in negotiation, not the end of the claim.
Carter and Carter Solicitors only reviews rejected files where the original solicitor has formally declined the claim or never opened a file; the firm does not take over active claims that another solicitor is still working. Where a solicitor closed a file because the insurer denied liability, that closure is sometimes premature. Denial is the start of negotiation, not the final answer. The dedicated guide on rejected personal injury claims covers the broader category in full.
| Type of Rejection | What It Means | What Happens Next | Can Carter and Carter Help? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solicitor Rejection (at outset) | Law firm decides not to take your claim on. File closed or never opened. Said “no prospects of success.” | Your claim is dead unless another solicitor disagrees with the assessment. | YES. Free second opinion offered |
| Insurer Denial (during active claim) | Your solicitor IS working your claim, but the insurer has denied liability. Normal part of process. | Your solicitor fights the denial, gathers more evidence, negotiates harder. | NO. Your solicitor should handle this |
| Solicitor Gave Up After Denial | Insurer denied liability AND your solicitor closed your file saying “can’t proceed.” | Claim appears dead, but might be salvageable with different legal strategy. | YES. Carter and Carter assesses if denial was beatable |
What’s really happening behind the scenes
When an insurer denies liability, the denial often tests whether the solicitor will push back. Weak solicitors fold. Experienced solicitors fight harder. Carter and Carter has seen insurers deny claims with arguments that collapse the moment they are challenged properly.
If your solicitor closed your file because “the insurer said no,” that is often premature. A denial is not a final answer. It is the start of negotiation.
Why do nut allergy compensation claims get rejected under UK law?
Nut allergy compensation claims are commonly rejected for six reasons under England and Wales personal injury law: insufficient medical evidence linking the reaction to the defendant’s food, disputed causation where multiple meals were eaten on the same day, contributory negligence arguments alleging the person did not disclose their allergy, time limits expired beyond the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980, low claim value below a firm’s economic threshold, and outright denial of liability by the defendant business.
Not every rejection reflects the strength of the claim itself. Some reflect the rejecting firm’s commercial appetite or unfamiliarity with the Food Information Regulations 2014 and Natasha’s Law (the UK Food Information Amendment Act, October 2021). Carter and Carter Solicitors assesses each rejection against the specific legal pathway involved. Restaurant or hospitality, food manufacturer or retailer, or employer canteen. Before agreeing or disagreeing with the original decision. Each pathway carries different evidential thresholds and statutory duties; a rejection that is correct on one pathway may be wrong on another.
To win a nut allergy compensation claim in England and Wales, three elements must be proved:
1. The business owed you a duty of care. Restaurants, cafés, supermarkets and manufacturers have a legal duty under the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Food Information Regulations 2014 to inform consumers about allergens. Since October 2021, Natasha’s Law has required full ingredient lists on pre-packed for direct sale food. Carter and Carter applies this statutory framework as the starting point of every assessment. Claims rejected without reference to the regulations are routinely re-examined.
2. The business breached that duty. They failed to warn. The allergen information was wrong, missing, or unclear. Staff said “it’s fine” when it was not. The “may contain nuts” warning was not displayed. Cross-contamination occurred despite explicit warning.
3. The breach caused your injury. The allergic reaction followed from the failure. Not because nuts were eaten knowingly, not because the allergy was undisclosed, but because the business got it wrong.
Common Rejection Reasons for Nut Allergy Claims
Insufficient Evidence
No medical records linking reaction to their food. No witnesses. No photos. Packaging discarded.
Disputed Causation
Multiple meals eaten that day. Insurer argues it could have been something else, not their food.
Contributory Negligence
Defendant argues the allergy was not clearly stated, or an obvious risk was taken. Where businesses deny being told about allergies, this is one of the most common rejection reasons.
Time Limits Passed
More than three years have passed since the reaction. Claim is legally time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980.
Low Claim Value
Mild reaction, brief symptoms. Compensation too small to make claim economically viable for some firms.
Denied Liability
Business claims they took all reasonable precautions. Says the fault lies elsewhere.
Some of these are genuine barriers. Others are misunderstandings that can be overcome with better evidence or a different legal approach. Carter and Carter assesses each rejection against the specific category before agreeing or disagreeing.
Next: What a proper second opinion involves, why some rejections are correct (and should be accepted), and when it’s worth reassessing the evidence and legal arguments. To speak directly, call 0800 652 0586 and ask for David Healey.
How do I know if my nut allergy claim was rightly rejected?
A nut allergy claim rejection is justified when the rejecting solicitor identified a genuine barrier. Insufficient evidence that cannot be obtained. Expired limitation under the Limitation Act 1980. Clear contributory conduct. Or a defendant who can prove they discharged their duty under the Food Information Regulations 2014. In those situations, Carter and Carter confirms the original rejection and explains exactly why.
A rejection is questionable when other factors are at play:
Did Not Understand the Law
Solicitor does not specialise in food allergen law. Missed the Food Information Regulations 2014 angle. Focused on wrong legal framework entirely.
Missed Key Evidence
Did not ask the right questions. Did not check whether CCTV exists. Did not obtain A&E notes. Did not look for FSA inspection reports.
Too Busy or Low Value
Claim value too small for the firm’s business model. Too busy with bigger claims. Specialist allergen complexity declined.
Scared Off by Denial
Insurer’s denial letter was aggressive. Solicitor did not want to fight. Folded too easily when push-back was warranted.
When Carter and Carter reviews a rejected nut allergy claim, the opponent’s arguments are tested for substance: are they actually strong, or are they bluffing? The firm has seen insurers deny liability based on arguments that collapse the moment they are challenged properly.
Available evidence is also reassessed. The absence of evidence today does not mean evidence cannot be obtained tomorrow. The rejection may have been premature. Or it may have been entirely correct.
“The absence of evidence today does not mean evidence cannot be obtained. CCTV may still exist. Food Standards Agency reports may show previous complaints. Carter and Carter knows where to look.”
Can I get a second opinion on a rejected nut allergy claim?
A second opinion can succeed where the first solicitor rejected a nut allergy claim if the rejection was based on factors that can be reassessed. Missed legal angles such as the Food Information Regulations 2014. Evidence that exists but was not gathered. Or commercial reluctance rather than genuine merit. Different solicitors apply different prospects-of-success thresholds. Some firms only accept claims with near-certainty. Specialists will take claims at 60–70% prospects where the injury is serious.
Carter and Carter Solicitors handles nut allergy claims as a specialist practice and has taken on claims that other firms declined; the firm has also confirmed the original rejection on claims where the claim genuinely had no prospects. The second opinion costs nothing whether the firm proceeds or not, and any claim taken on operates on a No Win No Fee basis. The detailed guide on evidence required for nut allergy claims sets out what specialist firms look for at second opinion stage.
Carter and Carter has handled nut allergy claims since 2007
From the pre-Natasha’s Law era through to the current strict allergen regulations, the firm has tracked the full evolution of food allergen liability. What wins, what does not, and which rejections fall apart on closer review. That depth of cluster experience is what allows Carter and Carter to assess a rejected claim differently from a generalist personal injury firm.
A second opinion review at Carter and Carter follows four stages:
Detailed factual questioning. Not just “what happened?” but “what exactly was said to the server?” and “how did they respond?” and “what does the medical record say about timing?” The difference between “I think I mentioned my allergy” and “I specifically said ‘I have a severe nut allergy, please check the ingredients'” can be the difference between a viable claim and a lost one.
Review of all rejection correspondence. Where the rejecting solicitor or insurer gave reasons in writing, those reasons are examined for substance. Some are solid. Others rest on misunderstandings or incorrect legal interpretations. Claims involving historical claims outside normal time limits are often rejected prematurely and can sometimes proceed with discretionary extension.
Evidence gap assessment. The evidence required for nut allergy claims is specific. Carter and Carter identifies what is held, what is missing, and whether the gaps can realistically be filled before the limitation period expires.
Honest prospects assessment. Not “we will definitely win.” Not “this is hopeless.” A genuine professional opinion based on 19 years of handling nut allergy claims through every stage of the regulatory evolution.
“Carter and Carter does not give false hope. Where a claim genuinely has poor prospects, the firm says so. Taking on unwinnable claims helps nobody.”
Been Told Your Claim Won’t Succeed?
What evidence can still be gathered after a nut allergy claim is rejected?
Evidence gathering after a nut allergy claim rejection depends on how much time has passed since the reaction. Time-stable evidence remains available indefinitely: GP and A&E medical records, Food Standards Agency inspection reports, online customer reviews documenting similar incidents, Trading Standards complaint records, and any photos or receipts the person preserved. Time-sensitive evidence degrades fast. CCTV footage is typically deleted after 30 days under standard data retention policies, food samples deteriorate within weeks, and staff witnesses move on within months.
Where a previous solicitor rejected the claim citing insufficient evidence, Carter and Carter Solicitors examines whether evidence genuinely does not exist or whether it was simply not searched for. FSA inspection reports showing previous allergen breaches at the same business are public records and frequently strengthen a rejected claim that the original solicitor treated as evidentially weak. The full making a nut allergy compensation claim evidence guide details what is available and what is gone.
How fast evidence disappears
ACT NOW
- CCTV still exists
- Staff remember details clearly
- Food sample testable if preserved
- Witnesses easily contactable
- Medical records fresh and detailed
URGENT
- CCTV may be automatically deleted (Day 30 typical)
- Staff memories less precise
- Food sample degraded but possibly testable
- Witnesses harder to locate
- Medical follow-ups may not be recorded yet
CRISIS
- CCTV definitely deleted
- Staff left or forgotten details
- Food sample useless
- Witnesses moved on or lost interest
- Medical records the only remaining evidence
DIFFICULT
Nearly all physical evidence gone. Claim depends entirely on documentary evidence (medical records, menus if preserved, business inspection history). Many solicitors will not touch claims this old even if viable.
Despite this degradation, some evidence remains obtainable even months later:
✓ Time-Stable Evidence
Available even months/years later
- Medical records. GP and A&E notes are permanent
- FSA inspection reports. Public records of business breaches
- Online reviews. Other customers’ similar experiences
- Trading Standards complaints. Pattern of problems
- Personal photos and receipts. If preserved
- Social media posts. Immediate reactions posted online
⏰ Time-Sensitive Evidence
Get this immediately or lose it forever
- CCTV footage. Typically deleted after 30 days
- Staff witness statements. People move on, memories fade
- Food samples. Deteriorate rapidly, become untestable
- Customer witnesses. Harder to trace as time passes
- Menu and packaging. Businesses update these regularly
- Staff training records. May be destroyed after incidents
None of this is guaranteed to exist. But where a claim was rejected for “insufficient evidence,” it is worth checking whether the evidence actually does not exist. Or whether it was simply not searched for.
“Evidence disappears fast. Every month that passes makes the claim harder to prove. Even where the liability is clear.”
Can a different legal strategy save a rejected nut allergy claim?
A different legal strategy can save a rejected nut allergy claim where the evidence is sound but the original legal framing was weak. Nut allergy claims sit across multiple areas of law: common law negligence, the Food Safety Act 1990, the Food Information Regulations 2014, Natasha’s Law (the UK Food Information Amendment Act, October 2021), and product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where a manufactured item is involved. A solicitor who does not specialise in food allergen law may focus on the wrong angle entirely.
For example: a claim framed as simple negligence (“the restaurant was careless”) may be a clearer case under the Food Information Regulations (“they breached a statutory duty to provide accurate allergen information”). The regulations are strict. There is less room for the defendant to argue they “tried their best.” Same evidence. Stronger legal position.
Different legal angles produce different outcomes
| Legal Angle | Strength | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Simple Negligence “They were careless” |
WEAKER | Business can argue “tried their best” or “made reasonable efforts.” More subjective. Easier to defend. |
| Food Information Regulations 2014 Breach “They broke the law” |
STRONGER | Statutory duty is strict. Less room for “we tried” defences. Regulations are clear about what is required. |
| Natasha’s Law Violation “Pre-packed food mislabelled” |
STRONGEST | October 2021 onwards. Full ingredient lists mandatory on pre-packed for direct sale. Black-and-white breach. |
| Cross-Contamination After Warning “You told them, they promised safety” |
STRONGER | Higher duty when explicitly warned. Allergen control breach. Specific promise broken. |
Carter and Carter has taken over claims rejected by other solicitors where the facts were fine but the legal arguments were weak. Different framing, same evidence, better outcome.
How is compensation calculated in nut allergy claims?
Compensation in a successful nut allergy claim is calculated under two heads: general damages and special damages. General damages cover non-financial losses: pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and psychological distress including anxiety following the reaction, fear of future allergen exposure, and any diagnosed PTSD. The Judicial College Guidelines 17th Edition (April 2024) provides the bracket framework for general damages valuations in personal injury claims across England and Wales.
Special damages cover quantifiable financial losses: lost earnings during recovery, prescription costs including replacement EpiPen adrenaline auto-injectors, travel to GP and follow-up appointments, and any private medical treatment costs. Carter and Carter Solicitors values each rejected claim against both heads before deciding whether the total compensation justifies the legal effort. Claims with severe anaphylactic reactions and meaningful financial loss frequently exceed the value thresholds that smaller firms decline to take on.
General Damages
Source: Judicial College Guidelines 17th Edition (April 2024)
- Pain and suffering during the reaction
- Loss of amenity (impact on daily life)
- Psychological distress and anxiety
- Fear of future allergen exposure
- Diagnosed PTSD where applicable
- Long-term lifestyle restriction
Special Damages
Quantifiable financial losses
- Lost earnings during recovery
- Replacement EpiPen prescription costs
- GP and hospital appointment travel
- Private medical treatment costs
- Care and assistance costs
- Future care or medication needs
Detailed compensation brackets for nut allergy reactions are set out in the cluster guide on nut allergy claims solicitors. This includes how anaphylaxis severity, hospitalisation, and ongoing psychological impact each affect valuation.
Can I appeal a nut allergy claim that I lost in court?
Appealing a nut allergy claim that was lost at trial is technically possible but realistically rare. Appeals require permission from a higher court and succeed only where there was a serious error of law. Or an unreasonable decision on the evidence. Or procedural unfairness. Most applications for permission are refused. The costs are high and the success rate is low.
Carter and Carter does not handle court appeals on nut allergy claims. The firm’s focus is on getting claims right at the outset and on giving second opinions before the claim has gone to trial. While there is still room to reassess evidence, change legal framing, and pursue the claim properly.
Appeals are different from second opinions. The latter applies to claims rejected at the outset or denied during negotiation, before any judicial decision has been made.
Appeals are different from second opinions
This page covers second opinions on rejected claims. Solicitor refusals at the outset and insurer denials during negotiation. Those situations differ fundamentally from appeals. The claim has not been to court yet. There is still room to reassess, gather evidence, and pursue the claim properly.
Once a judge has made a decision after a full trial, that is effectively the end of the road for most claims. Carter and Carter focuses on getting claims right the first time around. Which is why instructing the firm from day one is the strongest route.
When should I accept a nut allergy claim rejection and when should I fight it?
A nut allergy claim rejection should be accepted when multiple factors point to genuinely poor prospects: the allergy was never disclosed to staff, no medical evidence documents the reaction, more than three years have passed since the incident, the reaction was self-treated at home with no GP or A&E record, multiple independent solicitors have all reached the same conclusion, or the food was knowingly consumed despite a clear allergen warning.
Conversely, the rejection is worth challenging when the allergy was clearly disclosed, medical records link the reaction to the defendant’s food, the incident occurred within the past three years, the reaction required hospital treatment, and the rejecting solicitor was not a food allergen specialist. Carter and Carter Solicitors assesses every second opinion against this framework before agreeing or disagreeing with the original outcome. False hope is not offered.
Where does your rejected claim stand?
Strong Second Opinion Case
- Allergy was clearly disclosed to staff
- Medical records link reaction to their food
- Under three years since reaction
- Reaction was serious (A&E treatment)
- First solicitor was not an allergy specialist
- Insurer’s denial seems weak or generic
Could Go Either Way
- “Think” allergy was mentioned but not certain
- Some medical evidence but gaps
- 1–2 years since reaction (time pressure building)
- Moderate reaction (GP treatment, few days off)
- Missing key evidence but might be obtainable
- Multiple solicitors gave different answers
Rejection Probably Correct
- Allergy was never mentioned to staff
- No medical evidence at all
- Over three years since reaction
- Very mild reaction (self-treated at home)
- Multiple independent solicitors said “no”
- Food was knowingly consumed containing nuts
For green-zone or amber-zone claims, contact Carter and Carter directly. Speak to David Healey on 0800 652 0586 or Chris Carter on 0800 652 0586. The firm reviews the situation properly. If the rejection was correct, the firm explains why. If it was not, the firm explains what can be done about it.
Sometimes the first “no” is the final answer. Sometimes it is just the wrong solicitor saying it.
“Carter and Carter focuses on getting claims right the first time around. That is why the firm spends time on evidence from day one. Not months later when it has disappeared.”
What should I do immediately after my nut allergy claim is rejected?
After a nut allergy claim rejection, take five concrete actions while evidence is still recoverable and the limitation period is still running. Each step is time-sensitive. Delay reduces the chance that a second opinion can succeed.
Get Everything in Writing
Request written confirmation of the rejection and the specific reasons given. Verbal rejections are insufficient. Written reasons identify exactly what the rejecting solicitor or insurer relied on. “Insufficient evidence” is uninformative. “No medical records linking the reaction to the defendant’s food” identifies what is missing.
Preserve All Evidence and Documentation
Keep packaging, photos, text messages sent at the time, receipts, menus, and any correspondence with the business. What one solicitor dismissed as irrelevant may be exactly what a specialist firm needs. Nothing should be discarded until the limitation period has expired.
Document Your Recollection While Fresh
Write down what was said to the server, what they said back, what was ordered, what arrived, when symptoms started, what was done, and who saw it. Memory degrades within weeks. A contemporaneous written account, even months after the event, is stronger than reconstruction at trial.
Obtain Your Medical Records
Request copies from your GP and from A&E if attended. Patients are entitled to their records under data protection law. Detail in the medical notes (timing, symptoms, treating clinician’s view of cause) frequently strengthens claims that the original solicitor treated as evidentially weak.
Act Within the Limitation Period ⚠️
The limitation period for personal injury claims in England and Wales is three years from the date of injury under the Limitation Act 1980. The closer the deadline approaches, the more solicitors decline to take new instructions even on viable claims. After year two, many firms refuse instructions altogether because there is insufficient time to prepare. Contact Carter and Carter as soon as the rejection arrives.
Evidence degrades regardless of the limitation period. CCTV is typically deleted after 30 days. Staff leave. Witnesses forget. Food samples deteriorate. Every month that passes makes the claim harder to prove, even where liability is clear.
If a rejection seems wrong, contact Carter and Carter. Speak to David Healey on 0800 652 0586 or Chris Carter on 0800 652 0586. The firm asks the right questions, examines what is held, and gives an honest assessment.
The conversation costs nothing. What it might cost is letting a wrong rejection become a final answer.
Been told your nut allergy claim won’t succeed?
Get a free second opinion from solicitors who specialise in allergy claims. Carter and Carter will say honestly whether the rejection was justified. Or whether the claim was misjudged.
Call David Healey: 0800 652 0586
Call Chris Carter: 0800 652 0586
Or email dhealey@candcsolicitors.co.uk
People also ask about rejected nut allergy claims
Can I get a second opinion if a solicitor rejected my nut allergy claim?
What should I do if my nut allergy claim was denied by the insurer?
How long do I have to make a nut allergy claim after being rejected?
Can I still claim if I do not have much evidence?
Frequently asked questions about rejected claims
Will Carter and Carter take on claims that other solicitors have refused?
My claim was rejected because I have no witnesses. Is it definitely over?
The insurer says I never told them about my allergy. Can I still claim?
How much does a second opinion cost?
Can Carter and Carter help if I am unhappy with how my current solicitor is handling my claim?
What if my claim was rejected because the compensation would be too small?
My claim was rejected two years ago. Is it too late now?
Does Carter and Carter cover England and Wales?
Still have questions about your rejected claim?
Talk to Chris or David directly. Carter and Carter gives straight answers.
Why people choose Carter and Carter for second opinions
Direct access to experience
Chris Carter (qualified 1993) or David Healey (qualified 2005) personally. Never passed to juniors. With 54 years combined experience, the firm has seen claims rejected for wrong reasons and right reasons.
Honest assessment
Carter and Carter does not tell people what they want to hear. Where the rejection was right, the firm explains why. Where it was wrong, the firm explains what can be done. No false hope. No sales pressure.
Allergy law specialists
The firm has handled nut allergy claims since 2007, before Natasha’s Law. The Food Information Regulations 2014, cross-contamination law, and exactly what evidence wins these claims are core practice areas.
Zero financial risk
Second opinions are free. Where Carter and Carter takes the claim on, it operates on No Win No Fee terms. No upfront costs. No hidden charges.
See what clients say:
Related essential guides
Understanding rejected claims is one piece of the puzzle. These guides cover the rest of the nut allergy compensation framework.
Nut allergy evidence guide
Medical records, witness statements, packaging, photos. What proves a nut allergy claim and how to gather it properly.
Why work with Carter and Carter
Specialist reassessment of “no prospects” decisions and evidence chains that salvage supposedly dead claims. Why clients choose solicitors who take on difficult claims.
Nut allergy compensation amounts
Typical compensation ranges for nut allergy reactions, what affects valuation, and how the Judicial College Guidelines 17th Edition apply.
Nut allergy claims process timeline
From first call to receiving compensation. The complete timeline and what to expect at each stage.
When a business denies you told them about your allergy
One of the most common rejection reasons. How to prove allergen disclosure even when the defendant denies it.
Rejected personal injury claims. Broader guidance
Cross-claim guidance for rejected personal injury claims of all types. Options, rights, and when to seek a second opinion.
Or return to the main nut allergy claims hub for the complete cluster guide.
Your solicitors
Every nut allergy claim at Carter and Carter is handled personally by Chris or David. Never passed to junior staff. People get direct access to senior-level expertise from day one. Combined, the firm carries 54 years of personal injury practice.
Chris Carter
Managing Solicitor, qualified 1993
Chris qualified in 1993. Thirty-three years on, he has seen the patterns insurers run against rejected nut allergy claims more times than he can count. The disputed-causation defence when more than one meal was eaten that day. The “no allergen disclosure” argument when the disclosure was clear at the time. The commercial decision dressed up as legal advice. He founded Carter and Carter to give people a different option. Senior solicitors who answer the phone, on a published 10% fee when the claim settles without court proceedings.
Phone: 0800 652 0586
Email: chris@candcsolicitors.co.uk
David Healey
Senior Solicitor, qualified 2005
David qualified in 2005. Twenty-one years of personal injury practice means he reads insurer denial letters quickly. Some say nothing the original solicitor could not have rebutted with a stronger reply. Others raise legal points the original solicitor missed. The difference matters when deciding whether a rejected claim is genuinely dead or simply mishandled. David runs workplace and public liability claims at Carter and Carter and supports the allergy team on procedural and evidential questions.
Phone: 0800 652 0586
Email: dhealey@candcsolicitors.co.uk
“I would like to thank Mr Carter for the successful outcome and damages awarded. I was turned down by another solicitor who thought the claim would not be successful.
P Hicks ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐