So, as expected, DAC have launched their Nightingale service in association with Bridgetech Group. You can see the marketing spiel at:
It doesn’t really say a lot but they say:
“Our all-new credit hire automation tool is an automated solution for the analysis of credit hire payment packs in GTA and non-GTA claims.
An automated platform which will transform the way that claims handlers can process incoming credit hire invoice packs. Intelligent automation, true machine learning and artificial intelligence will take what is currently a highly manual, time-consuming process and convert it into a technology driven workflow. Nightingale will assess the hire pack and will generate the final strategy position for the handler to consider, along with the proposed offer. It also provides all the case law and reasons for the reduction, acting as a training tool for your handlers. Nightingale will drive efficiency gains of 55 minutes per claim and improve in-house settlements.”
I note that they intend to use it to process both GTA and non-GTA claims.
My understanding is that they will use an OCR utility that can extract from a GTA payment pack the length of hire, vehicle group, daily rate, postcode, and additional charges. They will have the base information from their insurer client relating to the age and type of the claimant’s own car and will then compare their analysis to the data provided by Bridgetech Group. The aim is to determine if the rate claimed is above BHR. It’s not really rocket science; they are just saving themselves the grunt of doing this exercise manually. I still think the weak link is the Arbitrate data from Bridgetech Group and would urge everyone to do their own BHR research at the start of hire and print out the online quote and append it to the claim. Not only will this allow you to assess the validity of any offer, it will also build up a data set that will allow you to expose any ‘accidental’ exclusion by Bridgetech of quotes that don’t help their client’s case.
I suspect that DAC may decide to set other parameters in respect of GTA claims. I think that analysing the length of hire or total hire charges where they exceed a set amount might lead them to recommend non-payment of the hire charges where the GTA rate is higher than BHR. This is certainly one to watch. It also accords with something that I have heard Keoghs are now doing.
Apparently, they aren’t making the same song and dance about it but have created a step in their settlement process where, for non GTA claims, they will make an immediate offer of the BHR rate and then decline to negotiate or improve on their offer. Instead, they leave the CHO to litigate. There are clearly potential cost consequences associated with ignoring their BHR offer, and I expect that this tactic is aided by the appalling delays in the civil justice system. Those delays give Keoghs an ability to impact a CHOs cash flow and/or, at the same time, to deliver a cost saving to their insurer client.
I’ve been asked by one CHO to look at the difference between the updated GTA rate and the BHR to understand whether the approach is likely to bite against those litigating cases where the claimant is not impecunious. I’ll report the results in a week or so.