Insurance litigation firm, Horwich Farrelly has won a case against unenforceable credit hire agreements.
In Taylor v Chan, the firm’s head of credit hire, Max Withington advised a client involved in a road traffic accident and who was insured by HSBC, and defended a credit hire claim for £13700 brought by Accident Exchange.
Accident Exchange’s failed to comply with the relevant regulations by not disclosing a cancellation clause, which led to District Judge Hebblethwaite dismissing the claim at Tunbridge Wells County Court.
However, faced with non-compliance, Accident Exchange adopted a new tactic, arguing the hire agreement was enforceable, relying on the fact an insurance policy was taken out with AmTrust and it had purportedly paid the hire charges in full.
Accident Exchange presented a subrogated claim on behalf of AmTrust for those hire charges but District Judge Hebblethwaite ruled the hire agreement was unenforceable and that Accident Exchange and AmTrust Insurance could not recover any hire charges.
Max Withington said: “This decision, which is the first of its kind, is significant as Accident Exchange’s attempt to present a subrogated claim is viewed as a misguided tactic to try and circumvent existing legislation.
“This decision is extremely encouraging and reinforces the fact the judiciary will not entertain unenforceable credit hire agreements when they fall foul of the Regulations 2008.”
Accident Exchange, which was represented by Scott Rees, has until February 10 2011 to appeal the decision.
Original Article: Post
Source: Claims Standards Council
