I reported previously that DAC Beachcroft have been engaged on their recurring round of Credit Hire and Vehicle Damage roadshows. Yesterday, they posted an update about their successes and plans for dealing with the challenges of credit hire claims. They also published details of a few cases where they had been successful in court.
They have clearly had the marketing team hard at work. They came up with “The Hire Way” as their catchy branding for these communications. For those of you that have not had the pleasure, I set out below the key points reported in the November edition.
The most newsworthy element of the release is their intention to focus on specific challenges in workshops to be held in November, January, and February. Those workshops will focus on BHR in November, Credit Hire Fraud in January, and Intervention in February. They are advertising these sessions as ‘Bitesize Refreshers’ (more input from marketing) and they will last no more than an hour and take place remotely. I think, on that basis, it is fair to assume that DAC are not bringing anything particularly innovative or fresh to the debate, but I do think that it is interesting that BHR is on their radar. It can’t be long before the BHR experts are incapable of evidencing that the BHR was lower than the commercial rate charged by CHOs where those CHOs have invested in some market intelligence to get their pricing right.
In other news, DAC report on recent industry developments. One of those is the proposed extension to Fixed Recoverable Costs. You can access their feature at https://sites-dacb.vuturevx.com/59/7421/landing-pages/extension-of-fixed-recoverable-costs-to-most-civil-cases-up-to-the-value-of-£100-000.asp
Of more interest to CHOs is their summary of harnessing technology to address credit hire fraud (https://sites-dacb.vuturevx.com/59/7421/landing-pages/harnessing-technology-to-successfully-defend-credit-hire-claims.asp) where they focus on Fundamental Dishonesty and the deployment of ANPR evidence. Their article does not advance matters much, but CHOs would be advised to give it the two minutes reading time it deserves.
The third issue they address is the evolving judicial response to Hussein v EUI  (https://sites-dacb.vuturevx.com/59/7421/landing-pages/hussain-v-eui--2019----2-years-on--are-we-really-seeing-a-difference-.asp) and the fourth is a section that really isn’t worth two minutes of your time. It is their self-serving article on collaborative innovation within their Vehicle Hire and Damage team (https://sites-dacb.vuturevx.com/59/7421/landing-pages/vehicle-hire-and-damage-team--collaborative-innovation.asp)
As regards their report of recent successes at trial, it seems that there is healthy competition between Keoghs and DAC Beachcroft and some serious work from the marketeers who decided to polish some turds to suggest there might be some evidence of legal and intellectual storm trooping when the reality is that they’ve been involved in a case where somebody at the CHO may have dropped the process ball. The six cases they report (and their summary) are repeated below for your convenience: