The proceedings arose out of a road traffic accident that occurred on 31st May 2008. Liability was not at issue. The Plaintiff’s claim encapsulated a claim for personal injuries together with loss and damage being loss of earnings, recovery and storage together with hire of a replacement vehicle from the 2nd June 2008 to 3rd July 2008 at a rate of £41.00 per damage with Crash Damage Waiver of £5.00 per day together with delivery and collection charges totalling the sum of £1,800.10.
The Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed beyond economical repair but she herself did in fact have the vehicle repaired, although she had to wait until payment of the vehicle damage aspect of her claim to commence repairs and hired an alternative vehicle during this period. In evidence the Plaintiff stated that she had to hire an alternative vehicle as she was a student in Londonderry and that she needed to use Credit Hire facilities as she could not have discharged the hire figure herself, as she was a student. Following the accident she contacted a recovery service local to her being Alan Graham and he recovered her vehicle to his garage. He suggested that she contact Crash Services and she then made contact with them directly. She confirmed that a Loss Assessor was sent out to look at her vehicle, being Ian Armstrong. It was deemed that her vehicle was beyond economical repair and she was offered the sum of £600.00 salvage. Her vehicle was then removed to Roy Nixon, Salvage Merchant. The Plaintiff confirmed that this was without her authority and she herself had believed her vehicle had remained at Alan Graham in his storage facility. She confirmed that she had fully comprehensive insurance and that no one had suggested that she contact her own Insurance Company in relation to this matter. Following the offer of £600.00 salvage she decided that in fact she would have the vehicle repaired herself. Two periods of hire were claimed and the Plaintiff advised that this was by virtue of the fact that a problem had arisen in relation to the initial car provided to her and indeed two collection and delivery charges were also levied in respect of the respective vehicles.
The Plaintiff confirmed that she received a cheque in respect of the PAV of her vehicle shortly after 25th June 2008 and that when the cheque cleared through her bank she ceased hiring an alterative vehicle. In cross examination she confirmed that she had had a conversation with a representative from Aviva, being the Defendant’s representatives on 5th June 2008 and in that conversation she had been advised that an alternative vehicle would be provided by Aviva at no cost to her. She advised that she wished to speak to Crash Services as she was already in what she believed was a “courtesy car”. She spoke with a representative at Crash Services named Gary. She enquired as to whether she should avail of the offer from Aviva or remain in the courtesy car provided to her by Crash Services. She stated that in her view she was being offered a courtesy car from Aviva and she was already in a courtesy car.
In her view she had been told by Gary of Crash Services that she was already in a courtesy car and by virtue of this she decided that she would remain in the car that she currently had and did not return to Aviva in relation to the offer that they had placed before her. She also confirmed that she had been led to believe that she wouldn’t have to pay for the vehicle that was provided to her via Crash Services and she stated that she had never been told that she would face a charge for the car although it was confirmed that the Plaintiff had executed the standard Hire Agreement with Crash Services. Evidence was given by a representative from Aviva that they had in fact contacted the Plaintiff and offered an alternative vehicle to her but that she did not return to them to accept this offer. Evidence was also given that Aviva could have provided a car to the Plaintiff at a charge of £14.52 per day.
In his Judgment His Honour stated that he would award the Plaintiff the sum of £6,000.00 general damage together with loss of earnings in the sum of £56.33 as claimed. He stated the two additional items of recovery and storage totalling the sum of £397.15 were not recoverable. In respect of the hire charges he found that the Plaintiff was an impeccable witness in relation to the evidence that she had given before the Court and in his view the Plaintiff had been advised and believed that she was in a courtesy car. He determined as a finding of fact that there was an unenforceable Contract between Crash Services and the Plaintiff. He therefore stated there was no amount recoverable in respect of hire charges.
This decision is now under Appeal.