Weekly Catch Up

From 1st June we will only be issuing a weekly update, save for any exceptional issues arising that merit an urgent announcement like, for example, the transcript in Bunting v Zurich Insurance when it is available.

News Update:

In the last week, the following News items were posted:

  1. Under a heading of ‘DAC Beachcroft 0 v Credit Hire 2’, a note on two first instance decisions where the judge either dismissed or considered the rate evidence served by DAC Beachcroft insufficient to meet their burden of proof. More will follow;

  2. Quindell and the SFO’ provided an update on the Serious Fraud Office investigation probably of interest to those that remember the impact that Quindell had on the PI and credit hire market;

  3. In ‘Brewis v Robles’, HHJ Bloom held that a deputy district judge was wrong to conclude that no damages for credit hire were recoverable on the basis of misrepresentations from a hire company about the claimant's liability to pay hire charges;

  4. There was a post highlighting that Keoghs had held a seminar for their insurer credit hire clients to discuss future litigation strategies post the Coronavirus pandemic;

  5. We published a note about DAC Beachcroft and their deployment of Which Rate evidence and some useful intelligence for those litigating hire rate claims;

  6. An update from CAPS about a 14% increase in reported claim volumes, and

  7. Finally, we introduced Lifeline – a new facility on the website for CHOs or claimant solicitors seeking assistance, whatever the issue.

Current Discussions

Updates were also made in a number of discussions in the Forum (access for which requires membership rather than just the free subscription). They included:

  1. The Forum – building on our strategic plan’ which gives an outline of our strategic objectives together with a call for five solicitors and one CHO to join the Steering Committee who will help monitor and drive the Forum initiatives. We currently have four people that have agreed to assist;

  2. A discussion relating to Keogh’s recent aggressive strategy of making applications against a third party (the CHO) to obtain copies of call recordings. Three firms of claimant solicitors that I am aware of have seen this approach and the industry should be debating the response;

  3. Keoghs – mitigation and buying a car during lockdown’ is a topic becoming increasingly relevant as Keoghs also start to argue about reasonable mitigation for those that have suffered a total loss of their own vehicle, have incurred hire charges during lockdown because they were unable to replace their car yet. The discussion offers access to a 12-page rebuttal to help respond to most of the false assertions and fallacious suggestions made by Keoghs.

In addition, there are several other topics that are still being debated: