1. Credit Hire – Defendants fighting back Gavin Clark 5 th September 2013

2. Agenda  Ramirez -v- EUI Ltd  Bicycle Credit Hire  Recovery and Storage  Intervention  What does the future hold?

3. Pre-issue advice  Is liability disputed?  Settle non-contentious heads  Consider hire Issues on locus standi, enforceability, need? Make admission to ensure balance is below SCT limit and discharge by way of interim payment Ramirez -v- EUI Ltd

4.  The claim comprised:- Repairs of £1,588.65. Hire charges of £5,907.60. Miscellaneous expenses of £50.  Liability not disputed  Repairs were admitted  Admission made of £3,459.60 for hire  An interim cheque issued leaving a balance of £2,498. Background

5.  Issued for the full amount.  No credit given for the interims.  We admitted liability, quantum for repairs and the claim for hire up to the admission i.e. £3,459.60.  We put the claimant to proof as to the balance and argued that this was a SCT matter. Proceedings

6.  The admission was not accepted by the claimant and therefore the whole of the claim for hire charges was disputed.  This was a clever ploy to deprive a claimant of his costs and to put pressure on claimants to under settle claims  This was a FT matter.  No issues re locus standi, enforceability or need and therefore the issues were not at all complex.  By virtue of the admission the amount in dispute was just £2498.00.  If the claimant was awarded less than the admission we would not seek repayment of the balance.  This was a SCT matter. The arguments CLAIMANTDEFENDANT

7.  DJ Wakem cited the explanatory note in Part 14 “It follows from these provisions that if in relation to a claim the value of which is above the small claims track limit of £5,000, the defendant makes before allocation, an admission that reduces the amount in dispute to a figure below £5,000 the normal track for the claim will be the small claims track”.  Matter allocated SCT but gave permission to appeal.  NB – the claimant did not apply for costs Judgment

8.  When considering allocation the court must consider:- – Any amount for which the defendant does not admit liability is in dispute. – Any sum in respect of an item for which judgment has been entered is not in dispute. – Any specific sum claimed as a distinct item and which the defendant admits he is liable to pay is not in dispute. – Any sum offered by the defendant which has been accepted by the claimant in satisfaction of any item which forms a distinct part of the claim is not in dispute.  As to recovery of pre-allocation costs, the claimant can, before allocation, apply for judgment with costs on the amount of the claim that has been admitted The appeal

9. Court of Appeal  Withdrawn at eleventh hour  Appeal marked as dismissed  Appellant to pay costs  But is this the end?

10. Pre-allocation -£1160 + VAT + 20% Post-allocation - £1880 + VAT + 20% Pre-listing - £2655 + VAT + 20% Potential saving - £1495 + VAT Benefits  Cost savings  Pre-August – £1000s  Post August  Willingness to negotiate  More favourable outcomes?

11.  Cycle Accident Management Services (CAMS)  Agreements typically claim charges in the region of £35.00 plus VAT together with an additional daily amount of £5.00 plus VAT for CDW.  Also claimed are charges for delivery and collection.  Charges are often grossly disproportionate to the value of the bicycle. The new battleground

12. How to defeat these claims  Enforceability  Need  Higher threshold?  Alternatives  Period  Rate  Impecuniosity  Londonbicyle.com (£50.00 p/week)  Intervention?  Johnston -v- Loizou

13. Recovery & Storage Charges  Increase in frequency of Recovery & Storage  The arguments: – Enforceability Valid credit agreement? Regulations 2008 – Need – Mitigation  Hasnath -v- Shahid

14. Intervention - Prevention is better than cure  ABI/GTA restrictions  A successful intervention: – Telephone calls – Telephone transcripts – Copley compliant letter  Smith -v- Currier

15. What does the future hold? Post-LASPO  The referral fee ban  Closer cooperation between CHOs & solicitors  Increase in the small claims limit to £10k

16. The future of the ABI GTA  Office of Fair Trading & Competition Commission  GTA mediation  The GTA Portal  Hire rate reviews

17. Office of Fair Trading – report May 2012  Inflating the costs of replacement vehicle.  Estimated increased cost - £560.00/hire  Remedies: – Reforming the GTA – An extension of the referral fee ban – The at fault insurer to have first option of supplying a vehicle – The introduction of a first party insurance model  Referral to the Competition Commission

18. Competition Commission Possible Remedies  Improvements to the GTA.  An extension of the referral fee ban  Non fault insurer having first option of intervention  Each insurer deals with its own policyholder.  An independent monitoring and rate setting scheme for non fault claims.  http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/our- work/private-motor-insurance-market-investigation

19. Summary  Ramirez -v- EUI Limited  Bicycle Credit Hire  Recovery and Storage  Intervention  Credit Hire - Post LASPO  What does the future hold?

20. Any Questions