When a driver needs a replacement vehicle after an accident, the credit hire daily rate is often higher than what a mainstream rental firm would charge on cash terms. In many claims, the court limits recovery to the Basic Hire Rate (BHR), a proxy for what a reasonable person could have paid a mainstream supplier for a similar car in the same area. Even if you arranged credit hire, the recoverable amount may be set by the lower market rate.
1. What Bunting v Zurich Actually Decided, and What It Did Not
In Bunting v Zurich Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1807 (QB), Pepperall J dismissed an appeal against a trial judge's assessment of basic hire rates. He described the grounds as a "nit-picking challenge to the judge's findings of fact", emphasising that rate-setting is a fact-sensitive evaluation for the trial judge and that an appellate court will not interfere absent legal error or perversity.
That label, however, was directed at the manner of the appeal, not at the legitimacy of rigorous fact-finding at first instance. Bunting does not insulate weak or opaque BHR evidence from scrutiny; it simply warns that once a judge has made clear, evidence-rooted findings, micro-criticisms on appeal are unlikely to succeed.
2. Findings of Fact vs "Nit-Picking": Why Factual Challenges Still Matter
At trial, parties are expected to test BHR evidence on the facts: which suppliers are "mainstream"; what the claimant's locality is; what rate was genuinely available on the actual start date and time; whether a nil-excess was achievable and at what cost; and whether supplier terms (age limits, deposits, additional-driver rules, mileage caps, pet policies, 24-hour billing) make a quoted rate comparable for a person such as the claimant. These enquiries go to the heart of the objective BHR test and are not "nit-picking".
3. The Governing Yardsticks (Briefly)
Objective test: the court identifies the lowest reasonable rate from a mainstream supplier, in the claimant's locality, for a comparable vehicle.
Nil-excess is a separate question: if mainstream comparators have an excess, the cost of achieving nil excess is considered separately and can be added as a reasonable uplift.
Impecuniosity: where proven, credit rates (including irrecoverable service elements) may be recoverable; otherwise recovery is limited to BHR.
4. Examples of Proper Factual Challenges (Not Nit-Picking)
- Timing/lead-time: show same-day vs. 48-hour pricing/availability where start dates were uncertain (e.g., undriveable vehicles or variable repair dates).
- Locality/branch: evidence the supplier's nearest branch and explain why distant branches are not a reasonable option in context.
- Pay method and availability: capture both pay-on-collection and prepay rates; record any "sold-out" messages or inventory limits.
- Nil excess and deposits: identify excess levels, deposit/authorisation blocks and the cost of stand-alone excess insurance; tie to the claimant's financial position where relevant.
- Driver and usage terms: age/licence tenure/points, additional driver attendance, mileage caps, pet policies, 24-hour billing/grace periods and late fees.
- Vehicle mapping: confirm SIPP/ACRISS class (not just a model "name") to avoid down-spec comparators that depress the rate.
5. Practical Next Steps for Case Teams
- Run searches for the actual start date/time at the claimant's nearest mainstream branches; preserve screenshots of results, vehicle pages and key terms.
- Build a comparison table (supplier, branch, SIPP, lead-time, pay method, excess/deposit, mileage, daily/weekly, odd-day calc, total).
- If impecuniosity is in issue, analyse deposit authorisations and headroom against the "reasonable sacrifices" test.
- Invite clear findings of fact on locality, lead time, nil-excess cost and adjustments to reduce appeal risk under Bunting.
Key Authorities
- Bunting v Zurich Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1807 (QB)
- Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 93
- Pattni v First Leicester Buses Ltd; Bent v Highways and Utilities Construction [2011] EWCA Civ 1384
- McBride v UK Insurance Ltd; Clayton v EUI Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144
- Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64
- Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 (HL)
Disclaimer: this article is general guidance, not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Does Bunting v Zurich prevent challenges to BHR evidence at trial?
- No. Bunting addresses appeals from clear findings of fact. At first instance, parties are expected to test BHR evidence on locality, lead time, nil-excess cost, vehicle class and supplier terms.
- What is the objective test for Basic Hire Rate?
- The court identifies the lowest reasonable rate from a mainstream supplier, in the claimant's locality, for a comparable vehicle on the actual start date.
Related articles
Why AI in Legal Claims Needs a Knowledge Base, Not Just a Language Model
A language model alone cannot guarantee accuracy in legal work. Here's why architecture matters and what a curated knowledge base actually changes.
Impecuniosity in Credit Hire: What the Courts Actually Require
What does impecuniosity actually mean in credit hire? A practical guide to pleading, proving, and defending it, grounded in Lagden and recent case law.
When Insurers Try to Intervene: What the Case Law Actually Says
A strategy guide to defeating intervention arguments in credit hire, grounded in Copley v Lawn, Manton Hire, Sayce v TNT and Bee v Jenson.