Court Reassigns Impact Damage Claim to Band 3 Under the Fixed Recoverable Costs Regime

Since its implementation in October 2023, the Fixed Recoverable Costs (‘FRC’) regime has provided a fertile ground for satellite litigation, given the lack of clarity as to what parties can expect to recover in any given situation. While the present position is contrary to the intended outcome of the FRC regime, some trends are becoming clearer as decisions are handed down.

A recent decision concerning an impact damage claim has provided useful clarification on the appropriate categorisation of claims where property damage has been caused by a vehicle impact within the Fast Track complexity bands under the FRCs.

Although the matter was initially allocated to Band 1, the court ultimately agreed to reassign it to Band 3, following an application advanced by Keoghs on behalf of the claimant.

Background

The claim arose from impact damage from a motor vehicle to private property. With losses over £30,000 the usual track for the claim would have been the intermediate track. At initial allocation, the court allocated the matter to Fast Track Band 1, which is intended for straightforward, low‑complexity claims, most notably standard road traffic accident (‘bent metal’) disputes involving vehicle damage only.

Keoghs challenged the initial banding decision, submitting that Band 1 was inappropriate in this context and that the case should instead be reassigned to either Band 3 (as an ‘other money claim’) or Band 4 (as a ‘property or building dispute’).

The Claimant’s Arguments for Band Reallocation

Keoghs advanced several key submissions:

   1. Banding depends on the category of claim, not its complexity

Under the FRC regime, Fast Track banding should primarily be determined by the type of claim rather than a subjective assessment of the factual or legal complexity involved.

Keoghs emphasised that the court should focus on the appropriate classification of the claim, not how difficult the issues are stated or perceived to be. The court needed to decide if the claim type was suited to the definitions within the respective bands, as opposed to weighing issues of complexity.

   2. That vehicle impact to private property is not a ‘Road Traffic Accident’ within CPR 26

CPR Part 26 defines a “road traffic accident” as:

an accident resulting in bodily injury to any person caused by, or arising out of, the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place in England and Wales.

As the claim involved no personal injury, nor did it occur on a road or other public place, Keoghs argued that it fell outside the intended scope of the “road traffic accident, non‑personal injury” description used to categorise Band 1 type claims for FRC purposes.

   3. The matter was a “property and buildings” dispute

Keoghs submitted that the claim was more accurately characterised as a “property and building dispute”, as it centred on damage to property and the reasonable cost of reinstatement. Even though the rules do not expressly define this category, their ordinary meaning should encompass precisely this type of claim.

In the alternative, if the court found the case fell within neither a road traffic nor a property‑related category, Keoghs argued that it should be allocated to “other claim for a sum of money”, which should be assigned to Band 3.

   4. Jackson’s 2017 FRC Review supports a narrow interpretation of Band 1

Keoghs relied on Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Supplemental Report – Fixed Recoverable Costs (31 July 2017), which made clear that Band 1 was specifically designed for simple “bent metal claims” – namely, vehicle to vehicle damage arising from road traffic accidents. The present matter, involving structural property damage, did not fall within that intention.

The Defendant’s Position

The defendant argued that the matter was correctly categorised as a “road traffic accident, non‑personal injury” claim, and on that basis Band 1 remained appropriate – arguing that “road traffic accident related” should be interpreted widely and should encompass any claim involving a motor vehicle.

The Court’s Decision

After hearing submissions, the court rejected the defendant’s characterisation of the case as a road‑traffic‑related non‑injury claim. The judge held that the matter more appropriately fell within the “other claims for a sum of money” category, which corresponds to Band 3 of the Fast Track.

This outcome confirms that not all damage caused by vehicles should automatically be treated as an RTA claim for FRC purposes. The focus should remain on the statutory definition and the underlying nature of the dispute/claim type.

Conclusion

The decision provides helpful guidance on categorisation within the FRC Fast Track. It reinforces:

• that classification is category‑driven, not complexity‑driven; and
• that property damage claims are not always appropriate for RTA categories merely because a motor vehicle was involved.

For practitioners, the case highlights the need to scrutinise carefully how non‑injury damage claims are categorised, especially where impact damage to property is concerned.

If you would like to know more about how we can assist with recoveries, please get in touch.

Thomas Chapman

CILEX - Lead Lawyer – Property Risks & Coverage

TChapman@keoghs.co.uk