Credit hire—disputes on quantum
Produced in partnership with Andrew Wilson
Credit hire—disputes on quantum

The following PI & Clinical Negligence guidance note Produced in partnership with Andrew Wilson provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Credit hire—disputes on quantum
  • Need/type of replacement
  • Rate and period of hire

Defendant insurers commonly raise issues going to the quantum of the claim for hire charges. The common areas of dispute are:

  1. need/type

  2. period, and

  3. rate

For further guidance on credit hire claims, see Practice Notes: Credit hire—an introduction and Credit hire—common liability issues.

Need/type of replacement

Unless the claimant has access to an alternative vehicle, were too injured to drive following the accident or were on holiday for the period of vehicle hire, it is usually fairly easy for the claimant to evidence they needed a replacement vehicle.

Disputes may arise where claimants have hired, as a replacement for their own vehicle, an expensive or prestige model. The need to hire such a costly type of vehicle rather than a standard model may be disputed.

The principles applied to the question of need are also applied to the type of car hired. The claimant has a duty to mitigate their loss and one component of that duty is to avoid unreasonable steps which increase loss.

Again, the duty is not a demanding one and the burden lies with the defendant to show that the claimant has failed to mitigate loss.

Provided, the claimant has hired an equivalent model of their own damaged vehicle, the court will tend to base the recoverable rate on that particular model unless there is good evidence to indicate that another