BHR Redefined

Most of you will know Craig Budsworth, and I am writing to let you know about a free Teams session he has arranged for Friday 13 February at 1.00pm, which he has asked me to open up to members of the Credit Hire Forum.

Craig’s email address is craig@caseflowautomation.co.uk, and he is happy for any Forum member to contact him directly to obtain a link for the session.

The webinar will focus on basic hire rate (BHR) evidence, and in particular on the output from some work Craig has been doing with BHR Compare, following discussions that a number of us were involved in last year.

Those of you who attended earlier Forum sessions will recall the concern that has been expressed, from time to time, about the way in which BHR evidence is generated and relied upon. One recurring issue was that BHR reports rarely identify how far in advance of the intended hire start date a quotation was obtained, notwithstanding the widely held understanding that rates tend to increase and availability may diminish as the hire start date approaches.

The work Craig will be discussing explores that issue in more detail. In particular, BHR Compare have now tested searches run on the day of hire, as opposed to several days beforehand, and have identified that — at least on their sample data — rates obtained on the day of hire may be materially higher (Craig indicates figures of upwards of 13%), and that issues of availability may also become more apparent.

Without expressing any concluded view, those developments raise an important point of consistency.

If rates and availability assessed at the start of hire differ materially from those obtained earlier, there may be a tension between the results produced by this revised methodology and some of the standardised assertions about contemporaneity, reliability and representativeness that frequently appear in templated BHR witness statements currently being relied upon in litigation.

I am not suggesting impropriety, but experience teaches that where new evidence or methodologies emerge, it is important for the industry to pause and consider whether existing forms of evidence continue to say more than they properly can. That is particularly so where courts are routinely invited to rely on such statements as a foundation for resolving disputed claims, often by reference to the scale of underlying data rather than by direct examination of the methodology or source material.

Craig’s session is intended to explain the technical changes, the data outputs, and the practical implications, leaving it to attendees to decide what, if anything, they wish to take from it in their own cases and going forward.

I think it is definitely worth an hour of your time even though it is being held on Friday 13^th. If you would like to attend, you should contact Craig directly at craig@caseflowautomation.co.uk to obtain joining details.