Martin Andrews, CHO Director General, said:
“The Court of Appeal’s judgment on Clayton and McBride provides clarification over the basis by which credit hire companies can recover their daily rental charges and also how charges for nil excess insurance products can be recovered.
“Credit hire companies have spent many years adapting their business models in the face of insurance industry litigation, and most if not all of our members have already changed their operating procedures in light of the original Stevens vs Equity 2015 judgment, and they will continue to provide mobility to non-fault customers in their hour of need.
“The clarifications given in the Clayton and McBride appeals will have a more material impact on claims involving top end prestige vehicles. The vast majority of credit hire claims involve lower value mainstream vehicles where the issues argued in Clayton and McBride are less relevant.
“Most prestige vehicle credit hire claims not currently settled within the GTA * or other bilateral agreement will now probably involve arguments over client impecuniosity (their financial status). While this will impose a considerable inconvenience on our non-fault customers, the basic fact is that most consumers just do not have the financial resources to rent a replacement vehicle other than on credit hire terms.
“Looking ahead, it is our belief that the GTA, a collaborative approach for claims settlement between credit hire companies and insurers will continue. We believe this approach is supported by ministers and regulators.”
* The GTA is an existing voluntary protocol already used by most insurers and credit hire companies (CHCs) to manage replacement vehicle motor claims