Judge dismisses £50,000 credit hire claim over engineer’s ‘absence of reliable evidence’

A judge has dismissed a claim totalling £50,000 after it was found that the engineer who provided evidence to a damaged motorcycle’s roadworthiness “was not able to produce evidence of what aspects of repairs were carried out”. 

The claim initially occurred in October 2015 and involved an incident wherein the claimant’s motorcyle was struck and knocked off its stand by a valet employee driving a Citroen in a golf course’s car park.

After unsuccessfully attempting to sue the owner of the valeted Citroen, the claimant then sued Hastings Direct – the vehicle’s insurer – who denied any liability. 

Nearly 10 years later, Hastings and legal advisor HF succeeded in the defence of this claim, with the judge explaining that it was unclear whether the engineer who provided a report on the claimant’s motorcycle had actually inspected it at all. 

Kay Denyer, head of claims fraud at Hastings Direct, said: ”This case is a great example of how we tackle fraudulent claims, reinforcing our zero tolerance approach.

“Taking care of our good and honest customers is our most important job. We therefore invest considerably in fraud defences so that we can sure that fraudsters do not drive up costs for our customers and the wider insurance industry.”

Claim details

Hastings’ defence contested that the damage caused to the motorcycle by the Citroen was purely cosmetic and would not have rendered it unroadworthy. 

The claimant, on the other hand, said that the damage caused a total loss and incurred credit hire, additional insurance, storage and recovery charges totalling £50,000. 

Graeme Mulvoy, partner at HF, commented: ”It’s all too commonplace for vehicles to be declared unroadworthy when they are not. Time and again we see huge claims for credit hire when vehicles with some minor collision damages are capable of being used perfectly legally and safely.”

In his comments, presiding judge Murch noted that the engineer’s report “did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules” and that this, alongside a “failure to make available his notes” negatively “affected his reliability”. 

Murch added that the engineer’s report could be “given very little weight” and did not show “even on the balance of probabilities, that damage was sutained or, more particularly, what damage was sustained”.

As a result of this, the claimant was unable to demonstrate what, if any, damage had been caused to the motorcycle and could not produce evidence of what repairs had been carried out.