Enquire Today

Category: Car Accident Claims

Case Study – Excessive Credit Hire Rates halved in Ireland with Basic Hire Rate Reports.

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

Recent Success in Challenging Excessive Credit Hire Rates in Ireland

 

Last month, our firm reported recent success with a  successful outcome at Letterkenny Courthouse, where the Court agreed with our arguments that the rate charged by a Credit Hire Organisation was excessive. We’re pleased to share another win for our Irish insurers in contesting inflated credit hire charges.

 

Case Summary

 

The Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident with the Defendant, and liability was accepted by the Defendant’s insurer. After the accident, the Claimant entered into a credit hire agreement with an Accident Management Company (AMC), which provided a replacement vehicle on a credit hire basis. The Claimant’s original vehicle was written off, and payment was made by our instructing insurers for the pre-accident value (PAV) of the vehicle.

Once the PAV had been settled, the credit hire period ended, and the Claimant’s representatives submitted an invoice to our instructing insurer for payment. The total amount claimed for the hire of the replacement vehicle over 76 days was £26,343.46 (STG). The Credit Hire Organisation later offered to accept £20,000 (STG) to settle the matter, and avoid Circuit Court costs in Dublin.

 

Initial Assessment by Lacey Solicitors 

 

Our instructing insurers sought a preliminary opinion from Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, given his dual qualifications and extensive experience in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in handling credit hire claims. They specifically asked whether the reduced figure of £20,000 should be accepted and had two primary concerns:

  1. Mitigation of Losses: Could it be argued that the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses by not using their comprehensive insurance policy? Under  34(2)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 1961. Claimants in Ireland have a statutory duty to mitigate their losses. While this argument is common in credit hire cases, we advised that at this early stage of the proceedings, it would be best to focus on other arguments.
  2. Reasonableness of the Hire Rate: Was the daily rate charged for a replacement Range Rover reasonable? Given the specifics of the case, the hire period was appropriate, and the replacement vehicle was ‘like for like’. However, the insurer rightly questioned the reasonableness of the hire rate which seemed excessive.

 

Challenging the Credit Hire Rate

 

We outlined that the burden of proof lies in these cases lies with the Defendant to demonstrate that there was a more reasonable rate available.   Prima facie, the Plaintiff is entitled to the rate claimed.  It is for the Defendant to demonstrate a suitable alternative rate.  To support this, our office commissioned a Basic Hire Rate (BHR) report from ‘BHR Assist’ to challenge the excessive charges.

The BHR report revealed that a comparable replacement vehicle could have been hired from a car hire company located just 10 miles from the Claimant’s home for a total of £10,876.55, a significant difference from the £26,343.46 claimed.

 

Settlement and Conclusion

 

We advised that our instructing insurers should offer £12,500.00 (STG) in settlement, which included the £10,876.55 for hire, plus additional costs for storage and recovery. The insurers successfully negotiated a settlement at this amount, avoiding formal court proceedings and saving substantial legal costs in the process.

 

Key Takeaways

 

  • While credit hire claims are relatively rare in the Republic of Ireland, they are becoming more frequent.
  • Claims handlers should aim to quickly recognise cases where Credit Hire is ongoing and take steps to ensure that repairs are authorised or payments raised in a timely fashion to avoid any significant delays.
  • When the daily hire rate appears excessive, it’s essential to challenge the charges with Basic Hire Rate evidence, as long as the Claimant is not relying on impecuniosity.

 

At Lacey Solicitors, we specialise in navigating the complexities of insurance law across both jurisdictions. Our team of experienced professionals is dedicated to providing clear, effective legal advice and representation to our insurance clients. Whether you’re dealing with credit hire claims, liability disputes, or policy interpretation, we understand the intricacies of insurance law and work tirelessly to achieve cost effective outcomes quickly. With a reputation for excellence and a deep understanding of the industry, our firm is committed to delivering trusted, reliable legal solutions in the ever-evolving world of insurance in Ireland.

Understanding Liability in James v Halliday [2024] IEHC 281

Posted on by Maria Adams

The recent Irish High Court decision in James v Halliday [2024] IEHC 281 has sparked discussions about road safety and liability apportionment in accidents involving agricultural vehicles. This case, decided on May 8, 2024, addressed a tragic collision between Darren James (the Plaintiff), a delivery driver, and a tractor driven by the deceased William Wilson (the Defendant).

Central to the judgment was the question of negligence and how liability should be divided between the parties.

 

Case Background and Circumstances

 

The accident occurred on January 12, 2018, on the N14 road between Lifford and Letterkenny in Ireland. The Plaintiff was driving at speeds of 60–70 mph on a wet and winding road.  The tractor, operated by the Defendant, lacked a legally mandated amber flashing beacon.

The collision unfortunately resulted in the Defendant’s death and significant injuries to the Plaintiff.

 

Principles of Liability

 

The Court in determining liability, outlined the well-established principles of negligence:

  • Duty of Care: Both parties owed a duty of care to operate their vehicles safely and in accordance with traffic regulations.
  • Breach of Duty:
    • The defendant breached this duty by failing to comply with lighting regulations, which are critical for ensuring visibility.
    • The plaintiff breached his duty by not adapting his driving speed to the road and weather conditions.
  • Causation: Both breaches contributed directly to the collision.

The Court opted to apportion liability having reference to the relative severity and impact of each parties actions.

The High Court determined the following;

 

Negligence by the Defendant:

 

The court held the estate of the Defendant, 75% liable for the accident in circumstances where the Defendant’s failure to illuminate his tractor with a yellow flashing beacon was deemed a “severe breach of duty.”

 

Contributory Negligence of the Plaintiff:

 

The Plaintiff was found 25% liable for driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions, even though he was within the legal limit.  The court noted that the road’s wet and winding nature required greater caution, which the Plaintiff failed to exercise

The role of Yellow Beacons

 

This case highlights the significance of S.I. No. 354/2015 – Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) Regulations.

The purpose of these beacons as outlined by the Revised standards of the Road Safety Authority for Agricultural Vehicles are to warn other road users that they are approaching a slow-moving or large vehicle.

These beacons enhance visibility, particularly in low-light or adverse conditions. The failure to use this safety feature was a critical factor in the court’s decision, as it significantly reduced the tractor’s visibility, making the accident foreseeable and preventable.

 

Considerations for future Liability Disputes

 

This judgment sets a clear precedent for how courts may handle liability in similar cases:

  1. Enhanced Scrutiny on Agricultural Vehicles: Operators of such vehicles must comply with all safety regulations, knowing that non-compliance can result in substantial findings of liability.
  2. Reinforcement of Contributory Negligence Principles: Drivers of other vehicles are also expected to adapt their behaviour to prevailing conditions, even if they are not the primary cause of an accident.
  3. Judicial Focus on Safety Standards: The court’s decision underscores the importance of ongoing regulatory compliance as a cornerstone of road safety.

 

Conclusion

 

The High Court’s ruling in James v Halliday serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities shared by all road users. The decision emphasises that adherence to safety regulations, such as the use of yellow beacons, is not merely a legal formality but a vital measure to prevent accidents. By apportioning liability between the parties, the court sent a clear message: negligence on the part of one does not absolve others from their duty to exercise caution.

This case will likely influence future legal considerations in Ireland, reinforcing the critical link between compliance, visibility, and liability in road traffic law.

 

Court of Appeal Ruling: Claim for Credit Hire Can Proceed Despite Expired MOT

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

In the case of Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP. Zoo [2024] EWCA Civ 1479, the Court of Appeal delivered a crucial judgment that has wide implications for claims involving credit hire costs, particularly when the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident.

This case addresses the legal complexities around the principle of mitigation and whether the failure to renew an MOT certificate should prevent a Plaintiff from recovering credit hire charges.

MOT delays in Northern Ireland

 

MOT delays were already prevalent in NI prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In 2020 BBC NI highlighted that faults had been found on 48 out of 55 lifts and that MOT tests were due to be cancelled.

This, coupled with an increasing population, a higher proportion of households with access to a vehicle as well as older vehicles on the road all has resulted in significant delays in MOT testing in NI. Infrastructure Minister for NI Mr John O’Dowd in 2024 outlined an increasingly high demand for MOT tests and confirmed that 1.1 million tests had been carried out in 2023/24.  The highest numbers ever recorded.

MOT, Credit Hire and the position in Northern Ireland.

 

Insurers in Northern Ireland are therefore well used to these cases where the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT at the time of the collision but the Plaintiff sought to recover Credit Hire charges.  Morgan v Bryson Recycling Limited and Magill v Donnelly are two cases that come to mind.

Ultimately up until Ali it was held that a court should take a broad view of the circumstances of each case and conduct a case specific inquiry in each case.  For example, a case where the MOT expired a number of years before the accident would be treated differently that a case where the MOT Certificate expired days before the accident.

Case Background: The Dispute Over Credit Hire Costs

 

Majid Ali’s vehicle was parked when it was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle.  The Plaintiff, sought to recover over £21,500 from a UK insurer – acting as claims handler for a Polish insurer.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle however did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident and the certificate had expired four and a half months earlier.

This raised the question of whether the Plaintiff was legally entitled to recover the hire costs, given that his vehicle was not roadworthy.

The usual battlegrounds for Credit Hire cases were, most helpfully, agreed by the Plaintiff and Defendant;

  • The Plaintiff needed to hire a vehicle.
  • The length of hire was reasonable.
  • The type of car hired was reasonable.
  • The Plaintiff was not impecunious.
  • The Defendant did not provide any alternative rate evidence

Furthermore, it was not in dispute that the MOT had expired four and a half months before the road traffic accident nor was there any evidence or suggestion that the Plaintiff intended to obtain a new MOT certificate.

At the County Court level, the Plaintiff’s claim for the hire costs was dismissed on the basis of causation.   That is to say, Majid Ali could not establish that the road traffic accident had, as a matter of law, caused any loss because he had lost the ability to drive a non-roadworthy vehicle only, which he was not legally permitted to use on the road.

The decision was upheld by the High Court and Ali appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The key issue on appeal was whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the claim for credit hire costs on the grounds of legal causation and the failure to mitigate loss, considering the vehicle could not have been legally driven due to the expired MOT.

The Court of Appeal’s Judgment

 

The Court of Appeal revisited and applied earlier case law, notably Hewison v Meridian Shipping [2002] EWCA Civ 1821, and concluded that the minor criminal offence of failing to maintain an MOT certificate should not bar the claimant from recovering credit hire charges.

He disagreed with the Defendant’s submissions that the Plaintiff had suffered no “loss” as a result of the accident.  He relied on Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 647 is asserting that;

A claimant’s loss is the lack of advantage and inconvenience caused by not having the use of a car ready at hand and at all hours for personal and/or family use.  [The accident] causes the claimant to be deprived of the use of an item of property, which causes inconvenience in the form of inability to use it for private transport. The fact that a claimant does not have a valid MOT certificate for the car does not alter the fact that they have been deprived of its use or the fact that this deprivation would have caused inconvenience but for the hiring.

The absence of a valid MOT certificate was irrelevant to the fact that the Plaintiff was deprived of his vehicle and required a replacement.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith acknowledged that driving without an MOT certificate is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. However, he classified this as a relatively minor infraction, which should not bar recovery of credit hire costs. He noted that the court’s role was to address the direct consequences of the defendant’s negligence – in this case, the loss of the use of the vehicle – and not the minor collateral offence of an expired MOT.

The minor nature of the illegality in this case was insufficient to prevent recovery of the hire charges. The court revisited and reapplied referenced Hewison in stating that a court should not deprive a Plaintiff of damages merely due to a collateral or insignificant illegal act, such as the expired MOT.

Thus, while I would accept that allowing the claim for hire charges in the present case may just about be said to tend towards being harmful to the integrity of the legal system, any harm is in my view strictly limited, leading clearly to the conclusion that it would be disproportionate to have refused the Claimant’s claim on the grounds of ex turpi causa.

Broader Legal Implications

 

This ruling has significant implications for both Plaintiffs and Insurers in the context of credit hire claims namely:

  1. Minor Traffic Offences Do Not Automatically Bar Claims: The court established that driving a vehicle without MOT was a relatively minor traffic violation on par with having defective windscreen wipers, or a defective lamp, or a non-conforming number plate and it should not preclude a claimant from recovering credit hire costs.
  2. Causation and Mitigation of Loss: The court clarified that the absence of a valid MOT certificate does not alter the fact that the Plaintiff’s loss – the inability to use the vehicle due to the accident – was caused by the defendant’s negligence. As a result, the claimant was entitled to recover the costs for a replacement hire vehicle.
  3. Potential for Future Cases: Although the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, it acknowledged that there may be cases in the future where more serious traffic offences – such as driving without insurance or with dangerous tyres – could potentially bar a claim or result in a reduction of damages. However, in this case, the court accepted that the failure to renew the MOT certificate was a minor offence and did not warrant a reduction in the claimant’s recovery.

Conclusion

 

The Ali v HSF Logistics case draws a conclusion under the long history of this case and similar cases involving a lack of MOT. However, “yet another skirmish battle in the overall “secular war” between the credit hire industry and defendants’ insurers” continues.

Contact Ruaidhri Austin, Partner in charge of Lacey Solicitors Credit Hire team if you have any questions or require legal advice in any similar cases.

 

Case Study – Credit Hire success for Insurers in Ireland

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

Facts

 

The Claimant, a resident of Northern Ireland was involved in a road traffic accident with the Respondent in Co Donegal and subsequently entered into a credit agreement with an  Accident Management Company (AMC) who assisted the Plaintiff with the recovery, storage and inspection of the damaged vehicle as well as a replacement vehicle on a Credit Hire basis.

The Claimant’s motor vehicle was written off following the accident and a timely payment was made by our instructing insurers in relation to the pre-accident value (PAV) of the Claimant’s vehicle.

Hire came to an end and all invoices, to include the claim for credit hire were presented to our instructing insurers who challenged the daily rate claimed in respect of the hire vehicle.

A Claim Notice was filed and proceedings were issued in Letterkenny, Ireland.

 

Lacey Solicitors Insurance Lawyers are appointed

 

Credit hire is not a common phenomenon within Ireland, when compared to Northern Ireland, where Credit Hire is so prevalent after road traffic accidents.

Our instructing Insurers had been, until this point, spared any real experience with these claims.  Ruaidhri Austin, Partner, was appointed to Defend the matter having regard to our offices position as an ‘all-island’ Insurance Law Firm, and his status as a dual qualified solicitor with considerable credit hire experience in both NI and ROI.

 

Challenging the Credit Hire Rate

 

Our initial assessment of the claim was that it was reasonable for the claimant to hire a replacement vehicle and that the vehicle hired was like for like.  Furthermore the period of hire was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.  The daily rate for the hire vehicle however, appeared to be excessive.

We advised our Irish Insurers of the law surrounding Credit Hire in NI and the UK on the issue of Credit Hire Rates.  We advised that simply stating ‘excessive‘ or ‘economic folly’ in the absence of evidence, would not suffice.

We clarified the position in NI and the UK, namely that the burden of proof rests with the Defendant to demonstrate, by evidence (known as Basic Hire Rate evidence) that there was an alternative rate available and that there was a difference between these two rates.

If we failed to provide any evidence of any evidence of alternative daily rates in the form of Basic Hire Rate evidence, then prima facie, the Claimant would be entitled to recover the whole of the Credit Hire rate claimed.

Alternatively, we clarified, if the Plaintiff alleged, that they could not afford to have opted to use any of the high street hire vehicle providers outlined in the BHR evidence, in circumstances where they were impecunious  then they would likely recover the whole of the credit hire rate claimed.

Ruaidhrí Austin wrote appropriately to the Plaintiff’s representatives asking them whether they intended to rely on impecuniosity.  The position of course being that if they did seek to rely on impecuniosity, that they should Plead and Prove same.

Receiving no response, we instructed VeriRate (formerly Surveyorship) to prepare a Basic Hire Rate Report.

The report confirmed that;

  1. At the time of the accident;

  2. There were like for like vehicles available;

  3. In the Plaintiff’s geographical area in NI;

  4. With a cheaper daily rate.

One high street provider confirmed that their total cost of hire, for the entire period of hire, would have been half the total cost of the hire vehicle provided on a credit basis.

A Tender was made on the basis of this report at the lowest rate.

The Tender was refused and when we confirmed to the Claimant’s representatives that no increase would be made to the Tender the matter proceeded to hearing.

 

The Hearing

 

Ruaidhrí Austin attended the hearing of the action in Letterkenny Courthouse.  We secured the attendance of the author of the Basic Hire Rate report from VeriRate to give evidence.  Bearing in mind the likelihood of a court being unfamiliar with the case law from NI and the UK, our office had a number of Judgments on hand to assist the court.

The Plaintiff sought, during the course of the trial, to allege that she could not have afforded to pay ‘upfront’ any high street provider for a replacement vehicle and had ‘no choice’ but to hire a vehicle on credit terms.

We objected in the strongest terms to the Claimant seeking to rely on impecuniosity at that late stage having failed to Plead or Prove same.  We presented the court with the English case of Zurich Insurance Plc v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357.  

The Plaintiff’s representatives sought to argue that impecuniosity was self proving in circumstances where the Claimant was at the time a student.  We presented the court with the NI case of Kerr v Toal [2015] NIQB 83 which confirmed that assessment of impecuniosity is a fact specific exercise and the Defendant should, prior to hearing, be afforded the opportunity to consider the Plaintiff’s financial documentation by way of Voluntary Discovery.

The Plaintiff finally sought to challenge the BHR evidence itself and the author of the report was robustly challenged on the methodology and data sources from the reports.  Arguments were made that the vehicles listed in the BHR report  were not an exact match for the Plaintiff’s own vehicle and that no evidence could be adduced that these rates would have been available at the exact time of the accident but instead could have been days or weeks later.

We presented the court with the English case of Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 93 which confirmed that a court should not allow overly technical arguments and should attempt a reasonable estimate when it comes to the reports.  The replacement need be no more than in the same broad range of quality and nature as the damaged car.  Furthermore an alternative rate from even a year or so later than the accident date is still likely to throw considerable light on what the spot rate would have been at the time.

 

The Judgment and the Credit Hire Rate

 

The Judge stated that the Plaintiff’s impecuniosity would have convinced him to allow the Credit Hire rate but accepted our office’s position that impecuniosity had not been pleaded nor proven.

In the absence of an impecunious Plaintiff, the Judge accepted the evidence presented VeriRate of a BHR rate and the difference between the BHR rate and the Credit Hire rate.

The Judge found that the BHR evidence and evidence from the VeriRate representative confirmed that the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses in opting to utilise a Credit Hire Rate rather than a High Street Provider and paying ‘upfront.’

The Judge having reference to a number of rates within the BHR report awarded the lowest sum available in the BHR Report.

This resulted in a significant saving to our insurer at more than 50% of the Credit Hire invoice claimed.

The figure awarded in respect of hire by the Court failed to ‘beat’ the Tender made by our office almost one year previously.

 

Key Takeaways

 

  1. Credit Hire claims in the Republic of Ireland are a rare phenomenon but are undoubtedly on the rise.

  2. Those cases where the daily rate appears to be excessive should be challenged by way of Basic Hire Rate evidence provided that the Claimant is not relying on impecuniosity.

  3. If a Claimant is relying on impecuniosity, they should plead and prove it.

  4. Tenders remain an effective tool in the Defendant’s arsenal and any Tender should be made with the benefit of a Basic Hire Rate report.

  5. An allowance should be made for a courts unfamiliarity with these types of claims and Defendants should ensure that they have compelling arguments, supported by case law to challenge any issues that arise should the matter proceed to hearing.

 

 

This case was handled by Ruaidhrí Austin of our office.  Ruaidhrí Austin is the Head of the Credit Hire department in Lacey Solicitors and is known and respected in both NI and ROI for his knowledge and experience of Credit Hire claims across all court levels in both jurisdictions.

 

 

 

 

Compensation for Personal Injury Claims After a Car Accident in Belfast

Posted on by Maria Adams

If you’ve been involved in a car accident in Belfast or elsewhere in Northern Ireland, the impact can extend far beyond just physical injuries. Car accidents can lead to long-term consequences, affecting your health, finances, and overall quality of life. At Lacey Solicitors, we understand the serious implications of road traffic accidents and are dedicated to helping you claim the compensation you deserve.

 

Compensation Claims for Personal Injuries after a Car Accident

 

Personal injury compensation claims are extremely common following road traffic accidents. According to the  Department of Infrastructure, there were approximately 880 serious injuries resulting from road accidents in Northern Ireland in 2023— a 3% increase from the previous year. These figures highlight the importance of securing legal representation after a car accident.

While personal injuries are the primary basis for compensation claims, it’s crucial to know that Lacey Solicitors can help you pursue claims for other losses that may arise from the accident.

 

What Can You Claim After a Car Accident in Belfast?

 

If you’ve been injured in a car accident and the incident wasn’t your fault, you may be entitled to claim compensation for various damages. Here’s a breakdown of what you could claim:

 

1. Vehicle Damage Claims

In addition to personal injury claims, you may be entitled to compensation for vehicle damage. Lacey Solicitors works with a network of qualified motor assessors across Northern Ireland to accurately assess your vehicle’s damage. If your car is beyond repair, we can ensure you receive the pre-accident value to help cover the cost of a replacement vehicle.

2. Replacement Vehicle Hire Costs

After a car accident, having access to a replacement vehicle can be essential. If you need to hire a vehicle, Lacey Solicitors can help recover credit hire costs through collaboration with insurance companies and accident management firms across Northern Ireland.

3. Medical Expenses

Medical expenses can be extensive, and it’s important to include all related costs in your compensation claim. These may include:

  • Rehabilitation and treatment costs
  • Travel expenses for medical appointments
  • Care costs if you need assistance attending appointments
  • Mental health support related to the accident

Your medical expenses could also include any long-term care you might need due to ongoing injuries from the car accident.

4. Loss of Earnings

If your injuries prevent you from returning to work, you may be entitled to claim loss of earnings. This could include not only your current earnings, but also any future earnings you would have received had the accident not occurred. For business owners, it’s also possible to claim for lost profits resulting from the accident.

5. Additional Costs After the Accident

There are often unforeseen costs that arise following a road traffic accident, such as:

  • Recovery fees for roadside assistance
  • Storage fees for your damaged vehicle
  • Temporary insurance charges
  • Replacement car seats or equipment
  • Travel expenses if you can’t use your own vehicle

At Lacey Solicitors, we can assist you in recovering any reasonable costs incurred after the accident, provided you have the necessary invoices or receipts.

 

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for Your Personal Injury Claim in Belfast?

 

At Lacey Solicitors, we pride ourselves on providing expert legal advice and personal attention to all of our clients. Our experienced team of solicitors is dedicated to helping you recover compensation for your injuries and losses in a timely and efficient manner.

If you’ve been involved in a road traffic accident in Belfast or anywhere in Northern Ireland, don’t hesitate to contact us for a free consultation. Whether you’ve suffered physical injuries, vehicle damage, or financial loss, we can help you get the compensation you deserve.

 

Contact Lacey Solicitors Today

 

For expert legal advice and support with your personal injury claim, contact Lacey Solicitors today. Call our Belfast office on 028 9089 6540 or complete our online contact form to arrange a consultation. Our friendly team is here to guide you through every step of the claims process and help you secure the compensation you’re entitled to.

 

How to Make a Car Accident Claim in Northern Ireland?

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

A step-by-step guide from Lacey Solicitors Belfast to bringing a claim for compensation after a car accident for those in NI.

Car accidents are neither rare nor easy to deal with. Every year in Northern Ireland the PSNI reports around 5,000 collisions, with casualties in 2023 alone reaching 7,985 people. These extraordinary numbers reflect an ongoing problem with road safety – a problem which could impact you if you have a road traffic accident (RTA).

RTAs leave you in physical and emotional pain. Understanding the steps you can take to make a car accident claim for compensation can help you recover some of the losses you experienced due to your accident. Whether you were a passenger in a collision in Newry, rear ended in Lisburn, or injured as a pedestrian in Armagh, let Lacey Solicitors firm guide you through the challenges of claiming compensation after your accident.

What is a Car Accident Claim?

 

If you become injured in a car accident and it was not your fault, then you could claim compensation against the at-fault party. Speeding, lack of care, dangerous driving, and driving while under the influence of alcohol are all common causes of car accidents. No matter the cause, though, car accidents are costly both in terms of health and recovery.

How to Make a Claim for Compensation After a Car Accident in NI?

There are simple steps to making a claim for compensation after your accident. Follow the advice outlined below for the best chance at receiving the maximum possible compensation for your injuries.

At the Time of the Accident

Immediately after the accident has happened, follow these steps:

  •       Make yourself safe
  •       Get medical attention
  •       Speak to the police and report the accident
  •       Gather witness details and driver contact details
  •       Take photos

This will give you the best evidence to support your claim from the get go.

Following the Accident

After your accident has occurred, make sure that you get in touch with the best car accident solicitors near you. Lacey Solicitors Belfast are known and respected as car accident experts and will be able to guide you safely through the legal quagmire of motor accident compensation claims.

Once you have chosen the Best Injury Solicitor in NI, proceed with the following:

  1. Act quickly – you have three years to make your claim but do not delay.  
  2. Assist your solicitor by providing a full statement along with any images to allow them to determine who was at fault and gather evidence.
  3. Carefully document your injuries and recovery time so that you can relay them to the medical examiner arranged by your solicitor. 
  4. Provide your solicitor with any ‘special damages‘ or out of pocket expenses such as loss of earnings, hire car costs, medical expenses so that they can add them to your claim.
  5. Approve the medical report with your solicitor as soon as you receive it so that there are no delays.

Your Solicitor and The Settlement Process

Your solicitor will seek to negotiate a settlement from the insurance company on your behalf.

All you must do is trust them to perform. If your claim needs to go to court then your car accident solicitor in NI will help you with the process. At Lacey Solicitors, our own experience is that less than 10% of car accident claims dealt with by our solicitors ever see the the inside of a courtroom. 

The very vast amount of our claims are settled outside of the courtroom which speaks to the reputation and negotation skills of our solicitors.

Trusted Car Accident Solicitors in Northern Ireland

 

Lacey Solicitors are a trusted law firm operating across Northern Ireland. Contact us today using our online portal to discuss the details of your car accident so that we may begin working on your compensation claim together.

Credit Hire Delays in Northern Ireland: Lessons from McKibbin v UK Insurance Ltd and Clarke v McEvoy [2021]

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

On the 8th of March 2021, judgments in two credit hire appeals were handed down in Northern Ireland’s Queen’s Bench Division. In McKibbin v UK Insurance Ltd [2021] and Clarke v McEvoy [2021] the Queen’s Bench Division in Northern Ireland addressed how courts should approach credit hire claims where delay is alleged.

 

It held that if the plaintiff delegates control of their claim to an accident management company, that company (and its chosen assessors or solicitors) may be considered the plaintiff’s agent. Any unreasonable delay in progressing repairs or assessments can therefore be imputed to the plaintiff, allowing insurers to reduce credit hire awards accordingly. However, repair garages remain outside this agency framework, and minor delays will not justify a reduction. The decisions strike a careful balance between holding claimants accountable and avoiding a “counsel of perfection”.

McKibbin v UK Insurance Ltd [2021] NIQB 27

 

Background

Mrs Karen McKibbin, a primary school teacher, was involved in a non-fault collision on 18 October 2018. Her Audi A3 was damaged and rendered unroadworthy. The next day, she contacted an accident management company, which:

  • Provided a replacement hire vehicle;
  • Arranged recovery of her damaged vehicle to an authorised repair centre;
  • Appointed a solicitor to act on her behalf;
  • Instructed an independent engineer to inspect the vehicle and assess the damage.

She was supplied with a Mercedes A180 hire vehicle, which she used for 37 days. Her own car was repaired and ready for collection on 22 November 2018. She collected it two days later. Her claim included:

  • £6,909.34 in hire charges;
  • £2,460.00 for diminution in value.

The County Court reduced the recoverable hire period by 9 days and allowed only partial diminution in value. The plaintiff appealed.

The Judgment

Justice Scoffield upheld the principle that where a plaintiff delegates full control of their claim to an accident management company, that company acts as their agent. Consequently:

  • Delays caused by the accident management company, the engineer, or the solicitors it instructs may be attributed to the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff had clearly entrusted all aspects of the claim to the accident management company, including the appointment of experts and legal representatives.
  • However, the garage itself was not an agent of the plaintiff. Delays that occur during the actual repair period remain outside the plaintiff’s control.

Despite this agency analysis, the High Court ultimately reduced the hire period by just 1 day, restoring 8 days previously deducted by the County Court. The court also reassessed the diminution in value claim, concluding that neither party’s expert had presented a fully persuasive figure. Justice Scoffield awarded 7.5% of the car’s pre-accident value, a compromise between the 5% and 12% expert valuations.

Clarke v McEvoy [2021] NIQB 28

 

Background

Mrs Rhonda Clarke’s Ford Fiesta was damaged in a rear-end collision on 14 October 2018. Her husband had been driving. The car was declared a total loss. She contacted an accident management company which:

  • Delivered a replacement hire vehicle within hours;
  • Sent documents for her to sign;
  • Instructed solicitors to pursue the claim;
  • Arranged an engineer to assess the vehicle.

The engineer was formally instructed on 18 October and conducted his inspection on 24 October. His report was sent to the defendant’s insurer on 29 October. The insurer issued a cheque for the pre-accident value of the vehicle on 15 November, and the hire ended one week later when the plaintiff purchased a replacement.

The plaintiff claimed for 38 days of hire. The County Court awarded only 29 days. She appealed.

The Judgment

Justice Scoffield conducted a detailed, stage-by-stage assessment of the timeline and reached the following conclusions:

  • Two days of hire were disallowed due to an unreasonable delay between the plaintiff engaging the accident management company and the engineer being instructed.
  • The engineer’s delay (six days from instruction to inspection) was found to be reasonable, given his court commitments, workload and the geographic location of the vehicle.
  • The 17-day delay between engineer’s report and payment of the cheque could not be attributed to the plaintiff, who had no control over the insurer’s processing time.
  • Once the cheque cleared, the plaintiff purchased a replacement vehicle promptly.

As with McKibbin, the court applied an agency framework: the accident management company and its instructed experts were acting as agents of the plaintiff, and their actions could be scrutinised accordingly.

Tackling Credit Hire Delays

 

These conjoined decisions clarify several important points for defendants and insurers handling credit hire claims in Northern Ireland:

1. Accident Management Companies as Agents

Where a plaintiff engages an accident management company and relies on it to handle repairs, hire and legal representation, the company and its agents (solicitors, engineers) are considered to act on the plaintiff’s behalf. Insurers may now challenge hire duration by pointing to delays caused by those parties, which will be treated as failures to mitigate.

2. Repair Garages Are Not Agents

By contrast, repair garages were not found to be agents or sub-agents. Delays occurring after the vehicle has been delivered to a garage—such as queuing for a slot or labour scheduling—will not be attributed to the plaintiff. The traditional protection afforded by Mattocks v Mann remains intact for this phase of the claim.

3. Careful Scrutiny of Delay Is Permitted

The court adopted a detailed approach to assessing each stage of the hire period:

  • Accident to engineer instruction;
  • Engineer instruction to inspection;
  • Inspection to report;
  • Report to settlement.

Where unexplained or unreasonable delay exists in the earlier stages, it can result in days being disallowed. However, the burden is on the defendant to establish that delay and demonstrate its materiality.

4. No ‘Counsel of Perfection’

The court was clear that minor or practical delays will not justify reductions. Plaintiffs are not expected to operate with perfect efficiency. For example, in McKibbin, the plaintiff’s two-day delay in collecting her repaired car (due to teaching commitments) was accepted as reasonable.

A Win for Insurers

 

These judgments equip insurers with a structured framework for defending against overlong hire claims:

  • Obtain a full timeline of the hire, repair, and communication process;
  • Identify where delays occurred, and who was responsible;
  • Challenge delay at the instruction and assessment stages, where agency can be argued;
  • Avoid contesting de minimis periods of delay or those caused by third-party garages.

Where claimants have surrendered control of the process to an accident management company, insurers are now entitled to probe that arrangement and seek appropriate reductions in the hire period where delay arises.

Contact Ruaidhrí Austin for Credit Hire Support

 

Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors and head of the firm’s credit hire department, regularly provides training, litigation advice and claims strategy support to insurers across thje entire island of Ireland.

Ruaidhrí advises on:

  • Duration and rate disputes;
  • Agency and mitigation arguments;
  • Expert evidence in credit hire;
  • Strategic defence of high-volume claims.

To arrange a training session or to discuss any aspect of credit hire litigation, contact Ruaidhrí through our secure online portal.

Speak to an Expert at Lacey Solicitors today.

Are you missing out on quality advice? Get in touch today to speak to one of our experts.

Send Message

Quick Links

Dublin

Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7, D07 EE37
+353 1 5134375

Belfast

3rd Floor, 18-22 Hill Street, Cathedral Quarter, Belfast, BT1 2LA
+44 28 9089 6540

© 2025 Lacey Solicitors. All Rights Reserved

Made with by VINDICTA®