A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 24 March 2022
Two years ago we launched our ANPR strategy in defending credit hire and fraudulent credit hire claims at our annual conference.
Our initial focus was on three main areas:
When we launched our strategy, the use of ANPR evidence was relatively new in insurance claims, and judicial appetite was untested. Initial signs were however promising as over the summer of 2020 we had a number of cases where ANPR evidence proved of interest to judges, whether at Case Management Conferences or Alternative Dispute Resolution Hearings.
By our one year anniversary, many more cases had proceeded through the litigation process and we took stock of the strategy’s success and reported our findings, which included:
Two years on the strategy remains highly successful.
Of concluded cases with strong and favourable ANPR evidence in the last 12 months:
Therefore if you haven’t yet deployed an ANPR strategy across your credit hire claims portfolio it is safe to say you are overpaying claims and, worse still, paying out on fraudulent claims.
Strategy in action
The insurer client had secured favourable ANPR evidence pre litigation. The evidence was raised in the defence and as no response was received, we proceeded to obtain an ANPR storyboard to accompany the evidence.
In order to bolster the ANPR evidence we:
All of this evidence, including the storyboard, was given to the claimant at disclosure stage. Following disclosure, the claimant failed to serve any witness evidence and agreed to our drop hands offer to discontinue the claim. Savings in excess of £30,000 were achieved.
The ANPR storyboard allowed us to present to the claimant’s solicitor (and to the Court, had the matter proceeded to trial) how the claimant’s vehicle was clearly in use during the alleged periods of hire and storage. It helped to compare the locations of the vehicle with the corresponding addresses of the claimant and the storage venues, showing that it was highly likely it was the claimant who was driving the vehicle.
In this case the claimant’s vehicle was caught on numerous ANPR cameras throughout the period of hire.
Pre-litigation the claimant openly confirmed that his vehicle was not in use during the repair period. This was clearly inconsistent with the ANPR evidence.
The ANPR concerns were pleaded in the defence and there was no response to this. We obtained the ANPR evidential pack and served the witness statement. Again, there was no direct response to the disclosed evidence.
The claimant then discontinued the claim one week prior to trial.
The crux of the issue was that the claimant’s vehicle was still in use during the hire period, as evidenced by the ANPR evidence.
It was agreed that we should use the ANPR evidence to discredit the claimant’s claim and where possible, if litigated, to use the evidence to show fundamental dishonesty on the claimant’s behalf and seek a S.57 CJA finding against the claimant in order to have the whole claim dismissed.
On disclosure of the evidence the claimant discontinued pre-issue.
How can we help you?
If you are interested in utilising ANPR evidence, we can work with you to:
For further information please contact Helen Mason on the details below.
+44 (0) 121 698 5309
Mark Gallagher, James Hughes
Jemma Lewis, Ratinder Kaur, Emily Exon, Jodie Wadrup
Cassandra Mitchell, William Swift
Stefan Desbordes, Chris Baranowski
Sophie Lawless, Jackie Fulford
John Goodman, Amy Hickey
Mark Bailey, Mark Ashley
Claire Laver, Helen Laight
Kerry Bell, Claire Laver
Jonathan Bingham, Jonathan Hill, Kamran Khan
Fiona Gill, Rebecca Austin
Emma Fuller, Ieuan Poole
Peter Allchorne, Annabel Lingham, Andrew Parker
Peter Allchorne, Michael McCabe
Helen Mason, James Ellis