In the recent Court of Appeal case Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP. Zo.o [2024] EWCA Civ 1479, the Court addressed whether a Claimant could recover credit hire charges when their own vehicle lacked a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision.

Mr Majid Ali’s parked vehicle was struck by a lorry operated by HSF Logistics, rendering it undriveable. At the time of accident, Mr Ali’s car had been without a valid MOT certificate for over four months. Subsequently, Mr Ali hired a replacement vehicle for 36 days, incurring charges in excess of £21,000, which he sought to recover from the Defendant.

The initial Court dismissed Mr Ali’s claim for credit hire charges, reasoning that, due to the expired MOT, his vehicle was not legally roadworthy. This decision was initially upheld by the High Court, which agreed that the absence of a valid MOT precluded the recovery of hire charges.

On 4 December 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the previous rulings, determining that the lack of a valid MOT did not bar Mr Ali from recovering hire charges. The Court emphasized that the Defendant’s negligence deprived Mr Ali of the use of his property, causing inconvenience irrespective of the MOT status. It was noted that denying the claim based on the expired MOT be disproportionate, especially considering that driving without an MOT is a minor offence which is punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000.00.

This judgment clarifies that in cases where a Claimant’s vehicle lacks a valid MOT, they may still recover credit hire charges if their vehicle is damaged due to another’s negligence. The Court distinguished between minor legal infractions and the right to compensation for loss caused by a third party’s negligence, underscoring the importance of proportionality in such determinations (para. 48 – 54).

Advantages The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Ali v HSF Logistics offers several advantages for Claimants seeking recovery in similar circumstance:

1. Clarification on roadworthiness and compensation The judgment confirms that the absence of a valid MOT does not automatically prevent a Claimant from recovering compensation for hire charges or other losses caused by a third party’s negligence. This distinction ensures that minor infractions, such as an expired MOT, do not disproportionately disadvantage genuine victims of accidents.

2. Protection against disproportionate outcomes Claimants are protected from overly punitive consequences where a technical breach, like an expired MOT, has no causal connection to the collision itself. The Court’s decision prevents Defendants from exploiting such breaches to avoid liability for damages they have caused.

3. Preservation of rights to compensation The ruling reinforces the principle that victims of negligence retain their right to compensation regardless of minor vehicle related infractions. It acknowledges that Claimants should not be deprived of remedies for loss of use or inconvenience due to a third-party’s wrongdoing.

4. Reduced opportunities for Defendant to avoid liability Defendant’s can no longer rely on the ‘illegality’ defence, such as an expired MOT, to challenge claims where there is no causal link between the illegality and the damage caused. This provides Claimant with a stronger position when pursuing recovery for hire charges and other losses.

5. Encouragement of fairness and proportionality The judgment underscores the importance of fairness and proportionality in determining liability. By emphasizing that minor legal infractions should not lead to unjust results, the decision strikes a balance between legal compliance and the right to seek compensation from a third-party’s negligence.

6. Consistency in credit hire claims The ruling helps clarify and standardize the treatment of credit hire claims involving technical breaches, providing Claimants with a greater certainty and confidence in pursuing compensation.

Conclusion The Ali v HSF Logistics judgment is a significant development for Claimants, offering clarity, fairness, and protection against disproportionate outcomes. By distinguishing minor infractions from negligence-based liability, the Court of Appeal ensures that victims retain their right to recover damages, strengthening their position in similar future claims.

For any further information on Credit Hire recoveries, or to discuss your specific situation, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Credit hire, plays a critical role in the aftermath of non-fault accidents, ensuring people are not left without transportation while their damaged vehicle is being repaired or replaced. Those involved in Credit Hire will be familiar with the process and challenges faced, but how and why did Credit hire come to be? Below we’ll shine on a light on the often-forgotten origin story of Credit Hire.

The 1980’s saw a significant increase in the ownership and use of motor vehicles, which had become an essential part of how people lived and worked in their everyday lives. Given this, what happened back then if your vehicle was taken off the road because of a careless driver? The answer is not much, claimants often had to manage without a vehicle for extended periods, causing significant disruption to their daily lives. Some could afford to hire privately but for most life got a great deal more difficult and complicated. Courtesy cars were not commonplace and even today they are typically basic vehicles, provided only for a week or two and only if this option was selected as a policy add-on.

In the late 1980s, as a direct response to the challenges faced by motorists’ free replacement vehicle providers began to offer their services. They would provide free vehicles to the victims of road traffic accidents and seek payment from the at-fault insurer with an uplift to allow them to make a profit. This represented a paradigm shift in how people’s lives were affected by the loss of their vehicle, for the first time – they weren’t. Insurers also saw a change as they were now being asked to pay to keep victims on the road, or ‘in the same position’ as they were in before the accident.

How did insurers react to this gap in service which was not costing them money? The responses varied from insurer to insurer but for a great many, they were not keen to meet these new charges or to address the underlying issues they solved. So began a legal dispute between free-replacement vehicle suppliers and insurers, one that remains active to this day. The challenges ranged from ancient medieval law (‘Champerty’ was rightly dismissed by the courts) to more realistic technical arguments that went on to form the primary areas of dispute.

One such dispute was that the victim had suffered no loss. This was because the loss of their vehicle had been ‘made right’ by the free replacement vehicle they had been provided. Only losses suffered by the victim themselves can be recovered, as such the victim must pay out of their own pocket to then recover those charges back. This is correct in law, but would also put innocent motorists right back to square one. You either had enough money to pay for a replacement vehicle for an unknown period of time, or you were forced to go without and suffer the consequences of losing your mobility due to someone else’s negligence. The solution to this was Credit Hire and this is the mechanic that still serves innocent motorists today, without them having to reach into their own pockets after an accident that was not their fault. Instead of paying for the hire charges, they are incurred on credit, creating the ‘loss’ needed to bring the claim, which is then recovered from the at-fault insurer directly. Credit Hire is, at its heart a workaround to keep people mobile.

Landmark legal cases, such as Giles v Thompson (1991) and Dimond v Lovell (2000), established that claimants are entitled to replacement vehicles (if they continue to have a use for one). Though challenges to credit hire claims continued, often forcing matters to court and making the provision of Credit Hire difficult, uncertain and expensive. Unsurprisingly commercial rates increased, these are generally only sought on litigated cases and would ideally encourage insurers to settle claims without the need for litigation to avoiding lengthy and costly court proceedings. However, the trend of insurers passing ownership of these matters to specialist defendant law firms continues, firms that ultimately profit from continued contention and legal proceedings.

Today, credit hire services remain essential, but the environment has become more complex due to these ongoing legal challenges and the strategies deployed against them. For claimants and CHOs, this means that careful management of the claim and legal process is more important than ever to ensure that the costs are recovered efficiently and fairly. As claimant solicitors, our role is to navigate this intricate landscape, leveraging our understanding of both the legal precedents and the commercial realities that influence settlement negotiations, in order to achieve the best possible outcome. Whether through Pre-Litigation negotiations or, if necessary presenting these claims to the court, we ensure that the interests of our clients are protected throughout the claims process.

For any further information on Credit Hire recoveries, or to discuss your specific situation, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Exciting News from Bike Assist Legal!

We are thrilled to announce that Bike Assist Legal has been shortlisted for two prestigious awards at this year’s Personal Injury Awards.

Our firm is in the running for Catastrophic Injury Team of the Year and our very own Neil Somerville has been nominated for Catastrophic Injury Lawyer of the Year.

The awards ceremony will be held in Manchester on 28/11/2024, and we are incredibly proud of this achievement. It reflects our unwavering dedication to provide unrivalled legal services to all of our clients.

We would like to extend a big congratulations to all of the other finalists who have been shortlisted. Your hard work and dedication to the field of personal injury law are truly inspiring.

Stay tuned for more updates!

Road traffic accidents are often associated with the involvement of vehicles; however, this is not always the cases. There have been instances where animals have been the cause of such incidents.

Where accidents involve animals, most cases will be decided under the law of negligence or tort, and some have succeeded under the Animals Act 1971. It is essential for client to demonstrate evidence of a negligent act, assess whether there was any control to prevent the animal from being on the roadway, and determine if appropriate warning signs were present.

The case of Donaldson v Wilson [2004] held that the Defendant was liable for the accident caused by their stray cattle escaping from the farm onto a public highway. Negligence was established on the basis that a gate wrongly left open by a walker and the derelict farm in between the Defendant’s farm and road had no barrier between it and the road. Liability couldn’t point towards the walker as there was no warning or reminders to the public to close the gate. It was concluded that the Defendant failed to make adequate risk assessments and take all reasonable steps to prevent his cattle from escaping and subsequently creating danger for road users.

Section 8 of the Animals Act 1971 imposes a responsibility to prevent animals from straying onto the highway, thereby potentially causing damage. This obligation raises questions regarding negligence, which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Section 8 states that “(2) Where the damage has been caused by animals straying from an unfenced land to a highway a person who placed them on the land shall not be regarded as having committed a breach of the duty to take care by reason only of placing them there if – (a) the land is common land, or is land situated in an area where fencing is not customary, or is a town or village green; and (b) he had a right to place the animals on that land”

We represented a motorcyclist who encountered a herd of cows in his path.

The accident circumstances were that our client was coming around a bend, when they unexpectedly encountered around 50 cows in the road, leaving no opportunity for him to take evasive action. Thankfully our client escaped relatively unharmed.

We placed reliance on the relevant caselaw and sections from the Animals Act 1971 which resulted in liability being admitted. We were then able to recover settlement for personal injury and losses for our client.

Bike Assist Legal is excited to announce our enhanced support for neurodivergent clients during the claims process.

Earlier this year, members of our dedicated claims teams collaborated to create user-friendly flowcharts and comprehensive FAQ documents. These resources empower our clients to better understand the claims process and provide the necessary evidence for smoother claim progression.

We know how difficult navigating claims can be at the best of times, so if you have any additional needs, please reach out to see how a member of our team can help.

Bike Assist Legal recently represented a famous musician who suffered a life-long wrist injury. It was, for this particular Client, problematic as he was a drummer. This meant that he was not able to perform at reunion concerts and his ability to practice was extremely limited. The Client’s love for something he had done his whole life was over in the blink of an eye.

This lead Bike Assist Legal to investigate whether, among other losses, a loss of congenial employment award was a reasonable loss to pursue.

The inclusion of a loss of congenial employment award was, for this Client, significant and shows how the team of dedicated lawyers at Bike Assist Legal are always thinking beyond the norm.