Non fault Claim Credit Hire

lisyloo

but that doesn't extend to getting buses or walking rather than hiring a replacement car

Correct.
Personally I'd probably chose to get a train if I was having to put my own money up front or take a risk of not getting it back, but that's a matter of personal choice for an able-bodied person without small children. I don't think there's anything wrong with making people aware of their options and warning them of the potential hazards.

The non fault driver getting a similar sized/standard car to the damaged one isn't unnecessary, neither is using credit hire to provide one if you can't fund the hire yourself

Absolutely not.
There's nothing wrong with it per se.
But as we have already said you generally sign a contract that makes you ultimately liable in the small print if the insurer doesn't cough up and the higher the charges are the more likely they are to dispute them.
There are also some cases where liability doesn't always turn out to be as black & white as the claimant thought it was initially.
So for example a rear ender where the 3rd party comes up with (fake) wtinesses and pack of lies that you reversed into them.
There have certainly been anecdotes where people thought the accident was definitely not their fault and totally clear cut only for the other side to dispute it, usually with a pack of lies.

If people want to go ahead with credit hire then that's up to them, but they should bw aware that the 3rd party insurer might dispute very high charges and it could come back to haunt them possibly up to 6 years later.
Getting a bus seems like an eminently sensible suggestion to me for those that are able (for those that have public transport options, aren't disabled or have small children to ferry around).

vaio

also worth pointing out that some credit hire companies include a term that the punter (provided they cooperate through the process) will not be liable even if the courts decide the charges are unreasonable

alistair.long

lisyloo wrote: »

I think you must misunderstand the meaning of mitigation.
It means making efforts to reduce or avoid costs.
That means that the claimaing DOES have to care and not run up unnecessary bills.

sorry forgot to put case refrence, and also make it a bit clearer.
You have to mitigate you loss, however the senario changes as you can goto the nearest dealer and pay a reasonable price for a hire car, and not need to worry if it is too much.
Only in refrence to hire car when you need it.

clark v ardington

lisyloo

also worth pointing out that some credit hire companies include a term that the punter (provided they cooperate through the process) will not be liable even if the courts decide the charges are unreasonable

Good point and I think I read somewhere that some offer a relatively cheap insurance policy against this which may be a good compromise for some people.

The only issue is that you do need to read the small print.
The sales guy/girl will simply tell you not to worry about a thing and everything will be fine.

lisyloo

and pay a reasonable price for a hire car

Yep, the reasonable price is the crux of it.
There is no issue at all with a reasonably priced hire car.
It's when it's 3 times the normal price when there is an issue.

clearchalk

Any advise on filling out the reason why you require a car, whilst yours is unroadworthy? For the Credit hire company?

Obviously work is one, or do they expect you to fill in ever reason?

I was thinking of Work primarily and some social use.

Quentin

That will do!