Complex credit hire - meet the team

I thought that Credit Hire Aware would be the prime forum to celebrate and showcase the sterling work that the complex credit hire team has done over the last year and to highlight the way it has grown and achieved so much. The team is now made up of 26 people (with two more joining in the New Year) who bring a unique blend of experience, being recruited from defendant firms, claimant firms, some with an insurance background and some who have been “home grown” in that they began in our pre-litigation department. We are confident that we have the strongest, largest and most talented team.

For those readers who do not know the team, they handle (as the name says) what are to be considered the more complex claims, namely those over £25,000; appeals; and perhaps more importantly, cases of a strategic nature.

Keoghs’ approach to credit hire has always been to seek clarification in areas where there is confusion or uncertainty and to set precedent allowing insurers to move forward.

Recent areas of focus have been to clarify what is “like for like”; whether the failure to use a comprehensive policy within a reasonable time or at all represents a failure to mitigate and how credit hire is handled within the MOJ portal.

Ultimately, however, the proof is in the pudding – what have we achieved financially?

Well, the figures speak for themselves.  Savings for 2015 and 2016 are over 73% against the figures claimed, which equates to over £6 million for 2015 and year to date in 2016 is over £4.5 million.

We understand that insurers are concerned (and quite rightly so) when the credit hire bill hits that threshold over £25,000. What these figures show however, is that the overall spend can be kept low if the right arguments are deployed.

Aside from file handling, the team works hard to build relationships with our insurer clients to make sure the transition from pre-litigation to litigation is seamless and that it is the right litigation that progresses to achieve the desired result.

Set out below are some of the successes the team has had this year. I am really proud of the team and their achievements and look forward to more of the same next year.

Marius Nicolae Rentea v Robert Boyd Picken & one other
Keoghs handler: Rachael Czaja (nee Horridge)
Savings: £31924.20 (credit hire £21,859.20; storage £10,065)
The defendant collided with the claimant’s parked, accident damaged motor vehicle. There were no concerns as to the accident circumstances and the defendant admitted liability. The claimant hired a replacement vehicle for 300 days and stored his accident damaged vehicle for 295 days. Upon review of the Engineer’s Report it was noted that the claimant’s vehicle was from Romania and was insured in Romania. A vehicle from Europe can only be used for a period of six months within a 12 month period, after which the vehicle needs to be imported and taxed, MOT‘d and insured in the UK. This was raised within the Defence and we requested evidence to either show that the claimant’s accident damaged vehicle had been in the country for less than six months or alternatively if the claimant was a UK resident evidence that the vehicle had been imported. The claimant admitted that he was a UK resident and confirmed that he brought the vehicle into the country approximately one year before the index accident therefore the vehicle was not correctly imported, taxed, or MOT’d. The claimant discontinued his claim and is paying the defendant's costs back in monthly instalments.

Shinwari v Draper
Keoghs handler: Keiron Fulop/Vinanti Kerai      
Savings: £40,056.90
Liability was disputed and a counterclaim issued for £2,026.80.  After filing an AOS, Defence and Directions Questionnaire, the claimant started to miss directions and it became apparent he was not assisting the claimant’s solicitors in pursuing the claim.  We applied to strike the claim out and obtained judgment on the Counterclaim. The claimant’s solicitors came off record leaving us with the prospect of dealing with the claimant directly to pursue our outlay and costs. Believing that the CHO had been the driving force behind the proceedings, we successfully applied to have them brought into proceedings with a view to recovering costs against them.  We thereafter asked the Court to consider awarding the defendant’s costs against the CHO, Kindertons. At the hearing we were able to show that the proceedings were being run for the benefit of Kindertons and they were ordered to pay 85% of our costs.
 
Marco Acquaviva v Mr Sustanta Roy, deceased
Keoghs handler: Zachary Weaver-Shojae    
Savings: £72,383.88
We were immediately on the back foot, with a fixed-sum judgment being obtained against the policyholder, who had sadly passed away. We were successful in setting this aside and substituting the insurer into proceedings, although had to concede negligence owing to the sombre position this placed the insurer in.  The claimant was seeking £76,133.88 for credit hire, amongst other heads of damage. With hire lasting for 636 days despite a PAV of £530, the claimant’s finances were always going to play centre stage. We therefore successfully persuaded the Court to order specific disclosure in relation to the claimant’s financial means – to include a detailed Reply to Defence setting out all facts the claimant intended to rely on in relation to impecuniosity, and financial disclosure covering the hire period, three months prior to its commencement and three months following its cessation. At the same time we made a costs-protective Part 36 offer for the whole claim of £5,000. This was to place maximum pressure on the claimant from the outset, to cater for the possibility of him being unable – or unwilling – to comply with the onus placed on him by the Court’s agreement to the directions we sought.  When the Reply to Defence and Disclosure came to be due, our position and justification came to fruition: rather than being able to comply, the claimant accepted our Part 36 offer – some five months after this was made, with the usual costs consequences of late acceptance to apply, which ought to see a significant recovery of costs against the claimant.

Suresh v Chowdhury
Keoghs handler: Scott Croft    
Savings: £28,585.20 plus costs
This hire claim was dismissed in full on the basis that the claimant failed to prove a need to hire. We became aware that the claimant, who worked for Ford, also had some involvement with a company by the name of S N Autos. The claimant’s vehicle was insured under S N Autos’ policy, but he played down his involvement and advised that he had no access to any of the vehicles which S N Autos’ owned / or has access to. The initial hearing was adjourned as the Judge wanted further evidence from the claimant in terms of the Policy MID for S N Autos. The claimant solicitors said it wasn't available but we managed to obtain the same via Keoghs’ Intelligence department which showed that there were numerous vehicles registered under the policy.  The claimant had therefore failed to beat our Part 36 which was put forward early in proceedings; therefore we limited their costs to about four months post issue which look likely to be agreed in the region of £4000.  Our bill of cost for the work which was incurred following expiry of the Part 36 offeris just under £24K.

Cardinal v (1) Gary Wright, and one other
Keoghs handler: Michaela Armstrong
Savings: £14,763.00 (100% saving)
The claimant was a car dealership which also dealt with the restoration of classic vehicles. The claimant initially advised that all of the vehicles within the business were classic cars being restored for customers so were not available for his use. However, it was clear from the advertisements we found that the company also sold vehicles. The claimant’s responses in respect to these issues were that a number of the adverts were for propaganda only.  Enquiries also revealed that the claimant had three other vehicles insured on his policy which covered the date of the accident and hire period.  Finally in respect of need we noted that the repairing garage advertised that they provided courtesy cars while repairs are undertaken. The claimant confirmed in his Part 18 response that he did not make any enquiries in this respect and, we argued, had therefore failed to mitigate his loss.  At trial, the claimant's claim was dismissed on the basis of need and the Judge also confirmed that had the claimant proved need, he would have held that the claimant was pecunious and would have reduced the period to that we stated was reasonable.  The defendant was awarded their costs of the claim and given permission to enforce the same.