I have undertaken a wide range of credit hire cases during my advocacy practice. Stage 3 hearings, small claims and fast track trial.
Most hire charges are under a credit hire agreement with a credit hire organisations. These are the most contentious due to the very high rates.
Some are paid for by an insurance policy under the terms and conditions. Their rates are usually stupidly low that a Defendant cannot produce BHR evidence that can controvert the rate with a much lower, reasonable rate from mainstream or local reputable supplier.
I received a Stage 3 hearing where the Claimant had hired the car from his son at a daily rate of £50. The more I thought about it, the more I though how reasonable this claim actually was.
Defendant’s position at Stage 2
The Defendant had challenged the period, asking why it took four months to repair the vehicle (a very usual position in hire claims) but said ‘we do not accept that your client’s son would have charged his father £50 a day to hire his vehicle if he wasn’t using it himself“.
There was also a reference to submissions attached to the portal. I had not received said submissions. I have had a number of cases where there is reference to an additional document of evidence but it is never uploaded onto the portal.
The only issue in dispute at the hearing was whether the Claimant was entitled to recover this head of loss or not.
Claimant’s submissions
I intended on specifically arguing that the agreement met every element of a contract.
The Claimant had provided a statement that touched upon the circumstances of the need for the agreement and what was clearly a post agreement documents setting out what had been agreed. There was also a screenshot of the Claimant’s son’s bank account, showing a payment of £4,450.
I decided not to focus on nit picking the agreement. It was a Stage 3 hearing so I focused my argument on two points.
My first point was to demonstrate that there was on balance sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Claimant and his son. I referred the Judge to evidence that showed the card bodywork shop would not give a courtesy car due to the fact that the Claimant intended to drive his dogs around to areas to walk them.
My second point was that it was irrelevant if the Judge found that no contract existed, because he was entitled to claim loss of use as per the principle of Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923. It did not matter that a vehicle was provided to him to use, he still incurred the loss of the use of his vehicle. The rate that a Claimant could reasonable claim would be Basic Hire Rates and in the absence of any evidence from the Defendant, the rate would prevail.
The Defendant could exit the process and challenge the agreement at trial in Part 7 proceedings. They decided not to.
Defendant’s submission
My opponent, quite rightly, challenged the evidence about whether an agreement actually existed. He highlighted the ‘retrospective’ agreement and that to accede to the submission would allow anyone to potential engineer evidence of a payment to claim a large sum of money.
He said the Claimant had failed to discharge the evidential burden
He also raised the issue (that I decided not to challenge) about whether or not there as an intention to create legal relations. It is always the case there is a presumption that family members do not enter into valid contracts with each other.
Understandably as well, my opponent made no reference to my submissions regarding Bee v Jenson.
Outcome
The Judge was satisfied the evidence before the Court establish a genuine agreement between the Claimant and his son for him to have exclusive rights to the car during the 89 days his car was in the garage.
He was also satisfied that here was a legal agreement and allowed £4,450 in hire costs.
Consideration
I can imagine from a Defendant’s perspective that there is a risk that claimants will invent hire for periods where they were unable to use their car. I would say that Bee v Jenson allows the opportunity even if they had access to another car. The challenge there would be to argue that £50 is too high for a loss of use claim and/or provide BHR to controvert the same.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.