Post on 21-Aug-2015
Agenda
Ramirez -v- EUI LtdBicycle Credit HireRecovery and StorageInterventionWhat does the future hold?
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
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
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
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 argumentsCLAIMANT DEFENDANT
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
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
Court of Appeal
Withdrawn at eleventh hour
Appeal marked as dismissed
Appellant to pay costs
But is this the end?
Pre-allocation - £1160 + VAT + 20%Post-allocation - £1880 + VAT + 20%Pre-listing - £2655 + VAT + 20%Potential saving - £1495 + VAT
BenefitsCost savings
Pre-August – £1000s
Post August
Willingness to negotiate
More favourable outcomes?
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
How to defeat these claims Enforceability
Need
Higher threshold?
Alternatives
Period
Rate
Impecuniosity
Londonbicyle.com (£50.00 p/week)
Intervention?
Johnston -v- Loizou
Recovery & Storage Charges
Increase in frequency of Recovery & Storage
The arguments:– Enforceability
• Valid credit agreement?• Regulations 2008
– Need– Mitigation
Hasnath -v- Shahid
Intervention - Prevention is better than cure
ABI/GTA restrictions
A successful intervention:– Telephone calls – Telephone transcripts– Copley compliant letter
Smith -v- Currier
What does the future hold?
Post-LASPO The referral fee ban
Closer cooperation between CHOs & solicitors
Increase in the small claims limit to £10k
The future of the ABI GTA
Office of Fair Trading & Competition Commission
GTA mediation
The GTA Portal
Hire rate reviews
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
Competition CommissionPossible 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
Summary
Ramirez -v- EUI Limited Bicycle Credit Hire Recovery and Storage Intervention Credit Hire - Post LASPO What does the future hold?