Car accidents can escalate quickly – even when you’re certain the incident wasn’t your fault. Disputes over liability in car accidents are extremely common, and without the right evidence, you could find yourself in a lengthy court battle.

At Lacey Solicitors, with offices in Belfast and Dublin, we are trusted by major insurers to defend policyholders against unfounded or exaggerated claims. From minor bumps to high-value road traffic accidents, our role is to ensure the facts are presented clearly and effectively so you are not held liable for something you didn’t cause.

---

Why Liability Disputes Are So Common

 

After a collision, drivers often remember events differently. Sometimes this is due to shock or stress but in other cases, it’s because one party is consciously trying to shift blame.

Too often we hear “it’s obvious” or  “the facts speak for themselves,” but courtrooms rely on evidence, not assumptions. If it becomes one driver’s word against another’s, the risk of being found partially or fully at fault increases significantly.

---

The Actions That Can Make or Break Your Defence

 

Our experience is that the groundwork for a successful defence starts immediately after the accident. Whether it’s a roundabout accident in Dublin city centre or a accident on a country road in rural Ballymena, the steps you take in the hours after an incident can determine whether your case is an open-and-shut defence – or a drawn-out legal battle.

Early preparation can:

• Shorten the claims process
• Prevent unfair liability findings
• Identify the true cause of the accident
• Reduce the risk of ongoing or repeat incidents

---

How Technology Can Protect You Before and After an Accident

 

Modern tools like dashcams, GPS telematics, and driver-monitoring systems are game-changers for defending against disputed claims.

Telematics – Hard Data That Wins Cases

Vehicle tracking systems can provide:

• Exact location and time of impact
• Vehicle speed before the collision
• Braking and acceleration patterns showing evasive action
• Force and direction of impact, clarifying fault

This objective data often carries more weight than witness testimony in court.

Case Study: Amazon Vehicle Crash and Telematics Data

We recently defended a well-known Northern Ireland logistics company delivering Amazon parcels. Their van collided with another vehicle on a narrow country road. Both drivers insisted they had stopped before the collision and blamed the other.

Without independent witnesses, such cases are often settled on a “split liability” basis to avoid risk. However, telematics from our client’s van told a different story – showing the vehicle was completely stationary for several seconds before the impact.

At Laganside Courthouse in Belfast, the judge accepted our telematics evidence, dismissed the claim, and cleared our client of all liability.

---

Dashcams – Visual Proof That Speaks for Itself

 

While telematics give numerical data, dashcams provide visual confirmation. Useful features include:

• Front-facing cameras for events ahead
• Rear-facing units for incidents from behind
• Driver-facing cameras to show attentiveness
• AI-enabled alerts for distraction or fatigue

Dual-lens systems that also video the driver can also help us if an allegation was made that our driver indicated misleadingly or flashed another driver out, which might otherwise be difficult to contest.

---

Taking Photos at the Scene – And Why Geo Data Matters

 

If it’s safe to do so, taking photographs at the scene of an accident is one of the most effective ways to protect yourself in a liability dispute. Photos can capture road layout, positioning, registration numbers, vehicle damage, weather conditions, and even skid marks.

What many people don’t realise is that modern smartphones attach ‘geo data’ to every picture taken. This hidden metadata often includes:

• Exact GPS location
• Date and time the image was taken
• Device information

This embedded information can be as valuable as the image itself in clarifying the circumstances of an accident.

Disputes Over Liability in Car Accidents and Geo Data

In a recent case, our opposition supplied images of their client’s vehicle allegedly taken by their client a day or two after the accident, showing no visible damage. The defendant used these images to deny liability.

However, when we examined the geo data, it revealed the photos had actually been taken eight months after the accident – well after repairs had been carried out. When we inspected the vehicle in person, it was clear that the panels had been replaced.

The court accepted that the photographs had been misleading, and our client’s defence was significantly strengthened.

---

Reporting the Matter to the Police – Why It May Help Later

 

In  Northern Ireland, the police will generally only attend a road traffic collision where someone is injured or there is a risk to other road users. However, even if the police are not required at the scene, reporting the incident can be invaluable if a legal dispute arises later.

When you report a collision, you will be given a crime or incident reference number. While this may seem a small detail at the time, it can become a crucial piece of evidence in court proceedings or insurance disputes.

There are many situations where police involvement becomes important further down the line.

Having a formal record with the police strengthens your position, showing you acted transparently and responsibly from the outset.

---

Fast FNOL Reporting – Why Speed Matters

 

First Notification of Loss (FNOL) means informing your insurer as soon as a collision happens. Quick reporting helps:

• Preserve fresh evidence
• Stop the other side controlling the narrative
• Begin cover assessment immediately
• Launch the claims process without delay

Some telematics systems can automatically alert your insurer within minutes, ensuring they can act before the other party’s allegations gain ground.

---

Standing Firm Against Fraud

 

False or exaggerated claims are a constant issue for insurers. Clear video, photographic, and tracking data can:

• Expose fraudulent allegations
• Speed up dispute resolution
• Avoid unnecessary payouts

This is why insurers across Ireland turn to Lacey Solicitors when they need an insurance defence solicitor who understands both the law and the latest technology.

---

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for Disputes Over Liability in Car Accidents

 

When your reputation, finances, and driving record are on the line, you need more than just legal knowledge – you need decisive action backed by evidence. We:

• Secure and analyse crucial evidence without delay
• Use modern technology to strengthen your defence
• Protect you from legal and financial harm

If you’re facing legal proceedings after a road traffic accident in Ireland or Northern Ireland, contact Lacey Solicitors today using our Online Portal. We’ll ensure the facts are heard and your case is defended appropriately.

 

 

Credit hire claims – where a claimant hires a replacement vehicle on credit after an accident – remain relatively uncommon in the Republic of Ireland, though they volume of these claims is undoubtedly growing. Insurers in Ireland must be vigilant and prepared. A structured, proactive defence can save costs and minimise exposure. Credit hire cases often involve large daily charges that accumulate quickly, so early intervention is crucial.

Below is a detailed, step-by-step guide to defending credit hire claims in Ireland.

---

Step 1: Early Identification and Referral

• Identify potential credit hire claims immediately – at the first notice of loss (FNOL) or during initial discussions with the claimant or their representatives.
• Refer the case internally to a dedicated credit hire handler or team trained to manage such claims.  Early specialist involvement means the claim is defensively handled from the outset and early identification prevents costs from spiralling if the case ends up in litigation.
• Request key details without delay:
  • The circumstances of the accident to investigate liabilty quickly.
  • The daily rate of hire and type of vehicle being hired.  This will give some idea of quantum.
  • The initial repair estimate or motor assessor’s report relating to the damage.
• Obtain a desktop engineering report by forwarding the estimate to an independent engineer.
• If the engineer recommends inspection, arrange inspection facilities quickly.
• If no inspection is required, confirm this in writing to bring any ongoing storage costs to an end.
• If the vehicle is repairable, request updates on:
  • Repair progress.
  • Anticipated delays (e.g. due to the current global parts shortage).
  • Offer assistance sourcing parts, if possible.
• If the vehicle is a total loss, the plaintiff will typically seek the pre-accident value less any salvage.
  • Raise the payment promptly, ideally by bank transfer, to avoid prolonged hire.

🛠️ Why this matters: Credit hire is a continuing cost. Fast, coordinated action at this early stage helps limit duration and mitigate unnecessary expense.

---

Step 2: Use of Intervention Letters

• Copley v Lawn: This is a UK case which confirms the position on letters from insurers offering their own services.  If the case is litigated, Defence practitioners can suggest that in refusing the services, they failed to mitigate their own losses.
• A valid intervention letter (offering a replacement vehicle) must clearly state the cost to the insurer. If the offer is vague or threatening in tone, it will likely be considered non-compliant, and the claimant cannot be criticised for refusing it.
• Mitigation of damages: A valid intervention letter allows insurers to argue the claimant had access to a cheaper alternative. Even if rejected, the insurer may only be liable for Basic Hire Rate (BHR)—if they can show what a reasonable alternative would have cost.
• Timing: Courts are fairly strict and so it is key that the letter is sent at FNOL stage before hire begins.
• Tone and clarity: The offer must be:
  • Reasonably drafted and ‘copley’ compliant
  • Non-aggressive.
  • Clearly priced.
• Practical tip: Always issue intervention letters early and retain proof of delivery.  Insurers are now considering new and practical means of delivery such as email, texts and even a bouquet of flowers!

✉️ Well-drafted intervention letters are a practical, court-recognised tool for controlling credit hire exposure from the outset.

---

Step 3: Challenge the Claimant’s Need

• The claimant has the burden of proving they required a hire car due to the accident.
• The insurer can rebut this by showing:
  • Access to another vehicle.
  • Use of a courtesy car from their own insurer.
  • Alternative transport (e.g. public transit) was reasonably available.

🚗 Example: If the claimant had a motor trade policy, they may have had a access to a number of vehicles and insurers should query whether they had another working car they could use, then a credit hire may be deemed unnecessary.

---

Step 4: Assess the Reasonableness of the Hire

4.1 Duration

• Was the length of hire proportionate to the repair duration?
• Were there delays that could have been avoided or reduced?

4.2 Type of Vehicle

• Was the hire vehicle a ‘like for like’ replacement, based on the size and specification of the original?

4.3 Rates

• Are the hire charges in line with local market rates?  Insurers often instruct a Basic Hire Rate (BHR) report, which surveys high-street providers for like-for-like vehicles in the area. In one case defended by our office in Letterkenny, Ireland, a BHR report showed that an alternative car was available at about half the cost of the credit hire vehicle
• Could similar vehicles have been hired at a lower cost?

4.4 Duty to Mitigate

• Did the claimant take steps to limit their loss?
  • Prompt returning of hire vehicle after repairs.
  • Willingness to consider other a lesser vehicle.

⚖️ Reasonableness is judged case by case—but insurers can often limit exposure by carefully documenting excesses in rate or duration.

---

Step 5: Explore Specific Defenses

5.1 Impecuniosity

• If the claimant couldn’t afford to pay upfront without making unreasonable sacrifices, a credit hire is generally accepted.
• However, this isn’t a complete defense—insurers can still challenge need, rate and duration.

5.2 Illegality

• If the Plaintiff’s original vehicle did not have a valid NCT certificate, valid insurance or Tax, an argument of illegality can be made.

5.3 Misrepresentation

• If the hire company misled the claimant (e.g. pretending it was a “free courtesy car”), the agreement may be void or voidable.

5.4 Enforceability

• Review the terms of the hire agreement carefully.
• Clauses related to cancellation, payment obligation, and dispute resolution may be grounds for challenge.

---

Final Thoughts on Credit Hire Claims  in Ireland

A successful credit hire defense rests on:

• Quick action and early internal referral.
• Use of valid intervention letters to reduce potential liability.
• Challenging the necessity, duration, and cost of hire.
• Exploring legal technicalities of the hire agreement for further leverage.

🧠 Insurers who are proactive—not reactive—control the narrative and reduce exposure.

---

Training for Insurers

Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, regularly delivers training sessions to insurers across Ireland on the evolving legal and procedural landscape of credit hire claims. These sessions are available both in person and online, tailored to claims teams, legal departments, or senior handlers.

If your team would benefit from a practical, up-to-date session on defending credit hire claims, please use the Contact Us section of our website to arrange a training session.

After a car accident, one of the first concerns many drivers face is how to stay mobile. Credit hire services step into that gap, offering temporary replacement vehicles without upfront cost. But while this service is vital, credit hire claims after car accidents must also survive legal scrutiny.

At Lacey Solicitors, we understand that after a road traffic accident, access to a temporary replacement vehicle is often critical. Credit hire serves a legitimate need, particularly for innocent drivers who cannot afford to pay for a hire vehicle upfront. But for insurers, while the system is necessary, it must also be proportionate, evidence-based, and compliant with established legal principles.

Credit hire claims are often complex and legally contentious. Those in the trenches of credit hire litigation will often see the same core disputes surface time and time again. While each case depends on its own facts, several key issues consistently arise. These include:

• Need for hire
• Enforceability of the credit hire agreement
• Rate of hire
• Impecuniosity of the plaintiff
• Duration of hire
• General mitigation of loss

While future articles will explore enforceability of hire agreements and general mitigation arguments in more depth, this article focuses on the four most frequently contested aspects of credit hire claims: need, duration, rate, and impecuniosity.

---

What is Credit Hire?

 

Credit hire involves the provision of a like-for-like replacement vehicle by an accident management company to a non-fault driver. The cost is not paid upfront by the driver but is instead recovered from the at-fault party’s insurer.

This model has been recognised judicially as fulfilling a real societal need. In Dimond v Lovell [2000] 2 All ER 897, Lord Nicholls described credit hire as meeting a “real need” and Lord Hobhouse acknowledged its “understandable popularity.” However, their Lordships also warned that such claims must be justified under the principles of mitigation and reasonableness.

---

Key Legal Issues for Credit Hire Claims After Car Accidents

 

1. Need

A claimant must show a genuine need for a replacement vehicle. This is often the first and most fundamental issue considered in credit hire litigation.

Courts will evaluate whether:

• The claimant required a vehicle at all during the hire period
• The vehicle hired was appropriate for their circumstances
• Reasonable alternatives, such as public transport or a household vehicle, were available

Evidence such as daily mileage, access to other vehicles, work-related travel, family commitments, and geographical access to transport services is often decisive. If the need is not clearly established, the entire hire claim can collapse.

2. Duration

Even if need is proven, the length of the hire must be reasonable and justifiable.

Arguably, delays in repairs, inspections, acceptance of a pre-accident value (PAV) offer and ‘off hiring’ can undermine a claim—especially where those delays are attributable to the claimant or their representatives. The principle of mitigation of loss, as highlighted in Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142, remains crucial: claimants must take reasonable steps to keep their losses to a minimum.

If unnecessary delays occur, insurers will quite rightly look to dispute part or all of the hire duration.

3. Rate

In credit hire cases, one of the key issues often contested is the hire rate claimed. Courts generally award basic hire rates (BHR) unless the claimant can demonstrate impecuniosity—meaning they could not afford to pay for the vehicle hire upfront—in which case full credit hire rates may be allowed.

However, if the defendant does not provide evidence of BHR, courts may by default award credit hire rates even if impecuniosity is not proven. This places an important evidential burden on defendants to produce credible BHR evidence to challenge higher credit hire charges. Without such evidence, the court has limited means to assess whether the credit hire rates claimed are reasonable compared to market rates.

When courts do consider BHR, they look for the lowest reasonable rates available from mainstream or reputable local suppliers in the claimant’s geographical area. The assessment is fact-sensitive and courts generally avoid overly technical disputes about exact pricing, focusing instead on a reasonable approximation of market rates as seen in Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 93. Additionally, if credit hire agreements include extras such as “nil excess” cover that basic hire rates do not provide or provide inadequately, the court may treat these costs separately and allow appropriate adjustments. Overall, rate challenges aim to ensure claims reflect fair market costs rather than inflated charges, balancing the claimant’s legitimate needs against the defendant’s right to avoid overpayment.

Claimants are generally only entitled to recover the Basic Hire Rate (BHR) unless they can establish ‘impecuniosity.’

4. Impecuniosity

Impecuniosity, a pivotal issue in credit hire claims, refers to a claimant’s inability to afford upfront car hire charges following an accident. It forms part of the broader duty to mitigate losses—a principle that claimants must act reasonably to limit financial damage. Courts have established that where a claimant cannot afford to hire a vehicle without making unreasonable sacrifices, credit hire charges may be recoverable.

As outlined in South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust v Flannagan and Capper Trading Ltd [2015] NIQB 30, Horner J explained:

“An individual who is not penniless can still be impecunious, because as a question of priorities he is unable to pay car hire charges without making sacrifices he could not reasonably be expected to make.”

Key case law, including Lagden v O’Connor and Zurich Insurance Plc v Umerji, illustrates that impecuniosity not only impacts the rate of hire but also the duration. The burden initially lies with the claimant to prove their financial position, and once sufficient evidence is provided, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant.

The assessment of hire charges and duration differs based on whether the claimant is impecunious. If so, they may claim the full credit hire rate and extend the hire period until the defendant provides compensation for repairs or vehicle replacement. For pecunious claimants, courts consider what is reasonable under the circumstances, such as waiting for an engineer’s report or the defendant’s inspection. In cases where repairs or replacements are delayed without justification, courts assess the claimant’s efforts to mitigate losses. Ultimately, reasonable conduct, timely communication, and evidence of financial status are central to determining recoverable credit hire damages.

Courts expect robust documentary evidence—bank statements, income proof, credit history, and essential outgoings—to support any claim of impecuniosity. Vague assertions or anecdotal claims won’t meet the required threshold.

---

Real-World Case: High Charges, But Still Recoverable?

 

A recent example reported by the BBC involved a nurse who was charged £50,000 for hiring a Tesla Model 3 for over three months. While the judge acknowledged that the hire costs were three times higher than standard and the hire period 75 days longer than necessary, he still ruled that the insurer was liable for the full amount.

The reasoning was based on the fact that the claimant followed her employer’s fleet management advice and acted in good faith. While the result may appear controversial, it highlights how the factual context and procedural conduct of the parties can significantly influence judicial outcomes—even where rate and duration are contentious.

---

Industry Improvements for Credit Hire Claims After Car Accidents

 

Not all credit hire claims are problematic. In fact, recent industry data suggests that:

• Average hire durations are decreasing
• Legal costs associated with credit hire have dropped by nearly 50% since 2023

This reflects greater cooperation between insurers, defendant law firms, and accident management companies. However, careful legal oversight remains essential.

---

Conclusion: Necessary Service, But Not a Carte Blanche

 

Credit hire is necessary and beneficial—but it must be fair, reasonable, and subject to evidential and legal discipline. Defence solicitors and insurers have a duty to:

• Insist on proper proof of rate, need, and duration
• Demand full impecuniosity disclosure where higher-than-market rates are claimed
• Resist excessive or unjustified claims, while still acting proportionately and fairly

At Lacey Solicitors, we are uniquely positioned to assist clients—whether insurers, fleet managers, or individuals—with the nuances of credit hire claims after car accidents. With a deep understanding of both claimant and defence perspectives, we provide balanced, evidence-based legal strategies in this ever-evolving area of personal injury law.

Need advice or representation in a credit hire dispute? Contact Lacey Solicitors today.