Mr Vamsi Putta v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Stewart |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 117 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 28 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QA-2019-000253 |
[2020] EWHC 117 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM DARTFORD COUNTY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Stewart
Case No: QA-2019-000253
Angela Georgiou (instructed by Quantum Legal LLP) for the The Appellant
Aidan O'Brien (instructed by DWF LLP) for the The Respondent
Hearing dates: 21 January 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
This is an appeal by the Claimant against an order of Her Honour Judge Venn sitting in the Dartford County Court on 12 August 2019. In her order she gave judgment for the Claimant in the sum of £9,158.46. The Defendants had made a Part 36 Offer of £10,000 on 8 February 2018.
I gave permission to appeal by order dated 21 November 2019.
Outline
This appeal concerns credit hire charges which were claimed in the sum of £26,290.27 and repair costs in the sum of £2,424.95.
The Claimant was at all material times a self-employed Transport for London PCO-licensed taxi driver. His Mercedes E220 was damaged in the accident on 27 May 2016 and was temporarily unroadworthy. On 30 May 2016 the Claimant entered into a Credit Hire Agreement for a replacement vehicle. The daily rate was £408 (inclusive of collision damage waiver and VAT).
On 2 June 2016, the Claimant instructed engineers (Laird Assessors) to inspect the Mercedes. Their report is dated 3 June 2016. They valued the Mercedes at £18,000. The estimated cost of repairs was £2,335.14. The repair costs included 6.7 hours labour. The engineers' report was disclosed to the Defendant on 6 June 2016.
On 21 June 2016, the Defendant admitted liability via the Portal. On 28 June 2016 they sent a letter referring to the Claimant's claim for personal injury.
On 7 July 2016 the Claimant received an interim payment from the Defendant in the sum £1,962.62 in part payment of repairs. The Claimant then initiated the commencement of repairs. His vehicle was fully repaired by 20 July 2016 at a cost of £2,424.95. The vehicle then had to undergo a Transport for London safety test, which it passed on 1 August 2016.
The credit hire claim was therefore for 64 days between 30 May 2016 and 1 August 2016.
Summary of the Judge's Findings
The Judge accepted that the Claimant's memory was not the best but added “…I do not believe that the Claimant was giving answers to the best of his recollection or doing his best to assist the court; I formed the strong impression that he was doing his best to give answers he felt were favourable to his case. At one point I had to remind him to think about the answers he was giving because he had given me six or seven different answers to one question; this was not only confusing, but also suggested that the Claimant was not being a careful witness.” [29]
As stated above, the engineers' report was sent to the Defendant on 6 June 2016. The Judge found that it was not reasonable for the Claimant to allow storage and hire charges to accrue until he received a response from the Defendant's insurers. She said that a reasonable time for a response would be the time allowed under the pre-action protocol, namely 15 days. In any event, where the vehicle was repairable at modest cost, 15 days was a reasonable period of time for the Claimant to allow the Defendant's insurer to indicate whether they wished to arrange their own inspection. Therefore, as at 21 June 2016 it was reasonable for the Claimant to make some progress with returning his vehicle to a roadworthy condition so far as his finances allowed him to do that [31]–[35].
The Judge found that throughout the repair period the Claimant had over £5,500 available to him on his credit cards and the Claimant could and should have effected repairs by using his credit card facilities. In the 15 days after 6 June 2016, the Claimant should have started investigating when his vehicle could have been repaired. He should have had in mind before 21 June 2016 that he might need to find a repairing garage [35]–[37].
Allowing the actual 13 day repair period and eleven days thereafter to obtain the Transport for London certificate, the repairs should have been completed and the vehicle back on the road as a taxi by no later than 16 July 2016. [38]–[39].
Thus, the period of hire was reduced to 49 days. In relation to this, the third ground of appeal states:
“The learned trial judge was wrong in law and in fact to find that a period over which the Claimant hired a replacement vehicle was too long.”
The Judge then considered the question of (1) the rate of hire and (2) whether or not the Claimant was impecunious.
The Defendant's case was that, having spent £2,424.95 on repairs out of a sum of £5,585.68 available funds on the credit card, the Claimant had £3,160.73 funds remaining on his credit card. The submission was that those funds should have been used by the Claimant to hire at the basic hire rate (BHR).
The Judge found that on 3 June 2016 the Claimant knew that his vehicle was repairable and the estimate of repairs in terms of cost and time (2 garage days approximately). Had the Claimant been mitigating his losses, then at the end of the hire period he would have been driving his own vehicle again. The only evidence as to the BHR was from the Defendant. It was provided by a Mr Skellam. The Judge was not provided with a copy of the case of Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 93. She said that so far as she was aware she was not required to identify that a particular vehicle was available at the time the Claimant hired [41]–[46]. In refusing permission to appeal the Judge gave further details about the chronology of what was available to the Claimant in the period 27 May 2016 to 9 July 2016. That chronology was amplified from the evidence in Mr O'Brien's skeleton argument. It was not disputed. I shall refer to it later.
Relying on Mr Skellam's report, the Judge found that a company called Drover could have provided an equivalent vehicle at £335 per week [47]. After judgment Ms Georgiou said that Drover was not a hire company but an advertising platform which did not own its own fleet. There was further argument about this point and the Judge then asked about another company in Mr Skellam's report, namely Wendex. Ms Georgiou said that the evidence was that Wendex was essentially a garage offering hire as a secondary service and they would not be a mainstream reputable hire company so as to satisfy the Stevens v Equity test. She added that there were no quoted rates for Wendex attached to Mr Skellam's witness statement. There was a further discussion which culminated in the Judge saying that it had been brought to her attention that Drover appeared to be an advertising company, or at least an intermediary between drivers and hirers and not an appropriate company on which to base an assessment of the basic hire rates pursuant to Stevens v Equity. She concluded as follows:
“Another company is identified in the statement of Mr Mark Skellam…Mr Skellam explains in his statement that he knew that he had been dealing with finding the basic hire rate for a replacement for an ABI category PT9 vehicle. When new, the Claimant's vehicle would have been ABI category PT9. Mr Skellam states that he also knew that he was looking for a plated vehicle. He states that he had made telephone enquiries to prospective vehicle providers from whom the relevant basic hire rate details were recorded. He said that some published a tariff on their website, but for others he had to make telephone enquiries.
One of the companies Mr Skellam contacted is known as Wendex and offered 7 day hire for £350. Wendex is clearly a company that hires vehicles. It was suggested on behalf of the Claimant that hiring was only part of Wendex's garage business, but I have seen an advert from Wendex, which states that they are Wendex Vehicle Rental Ltd, PCO registered hire vehicles; they offer daily rental for contract hire. I have seen another advert that says that Wendex has in excess of 20 years in the vehicle rental industry and are well placed to serve.
It is unsurprising that the rates Mr Skellam put forward are not from places like Hertz or Easy Car because the Claimant's vehicle was a plated vehicle; I have yet to see rates offered from these sorts of companies for a plated vehicle.
I am satisfied that Wendex is a company of some 20 years standing; it is a reputable PCO plated vehicle provider and whether or not it is a mainstream supplier, it is certainly a local reputable supplier. No issue has been taken with the locality of the company.
I am also satisfied that Mr Skellam made the telephone calls he says he made and that he was told by Wendex that a Mercedes Benz E Class was available for £350 for a 7 day hire.
I therefore revise what I think the basic hire rate is likely to have been to £350 for a 7 day period. I find as a fact and I am satisfied on the basis of Mr Skellam's evidence, that there was likely to have been a Mercedes Benz E Class, or similar class of vehicle to that the Claimant had been driving, available to hire for the duration of the period in which had been reasonable for the Claimant to hire for at that amount.”
To the above hire figure the Judge added collision damage waiver at £18 per day for 49 days, a total of £882, making the figure for car hire £3,332.
Ground 4 of the Grounds of Appeal is as follows:
“The Learned Judge was wrong in law and in fact to accept the Basic Hire Rates evidence adduced by the Defendant when assessing whether and at what rate the Claimant could...
To continue reading
Request your trial