Why you Need a Credit Hire Specialist?

If you are involved in a road traffic accident and it was not your fault. Now you are deprived of the use of your vehicle, but you are lucky enough that the driver’s insurer offers to pay for a replacement vehicle.

Credit hire is a term that is becoming popular in insurance processes. Some people won’t be aware of this term. For those unfortunate ones, who have been involved in an accident that deprives them of their vehicle, they may be well aware of this phrase.

If the innocent driver involved in a car accident needs a replacement vehicle but can’t afford to pay for the cost of hiring the other one, they may hire a Credit Hire Specialist having a detailed knowledge of current market trends relating to credit hire and fraud within a credit hire environment. This would involve the owner of the damaged vehicle for the agreement for a replacement vehicle provided on credit and driver’s insurance company is responsible for the cost to pay. Here, the recovery of the charges is generally taken from the insurer, and the hire of the vehicle have to pay the charges rarely.

Because the cost of credit hire is sometimes expensive than hiring from a high street rental company, insurers and credit hire organizations have become involved in a number of court actions to establish what exactly is recoverable.Some of the common defenses to a credit hire action are:

Impetuosity:

A word seldom used by the public but used daily by lawyers involved in credit hire cases. It basically means “without money” or “penniless”. Generally, clients are referred to a credit hire company by their insurers and do not always mention that the vehicle is actually a hire vehicle and not a “free” vehicle under their own insurance policy. However, the court will consider whether the Pursuer had sufficient money to hire a vehicle using their own finances. And the type of vehicle hired was of a higher standard than the pursuer’s own vehicle. Or the vehicle hired was newer, and therefore better than the pursuer’s own vehicle.

Excessive Period:

For instance, the repair period was estimated at four days but took three weeks. The pursuer is under a duty to mitigate their loss. This would be proved by showing by logical reasoning that any delay was out of the pursuer’s control.