Basic hire rate evidence has been enshrined in case law, appealed and supported in the court process.

Case law supports BHR as being the lowest daily rental rate available (using mainstream providers).

See the following two recent examples.

Stevens v Equity – Court of Appeal 2015

This case concerned how the court should assess the basic hire rate (BHR).

It was to decide whether the rate should be a subjective or objective test.

The court confirmed on 26 February 2015, that BHR is an objective test. It went on to say that the claimant may only recover the lowest locally available rate for a vehicle from a mainstream company, for example, National, Europcar, Thrifty, etc. (That said, if there is no mainstream company from a reputable local supplier.)

McBride v UK Insurance Ltd and Clayton v EUI Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144

The Court of Appeal agreed the decision of Stevens v Equity [2015] was correct and consistent with the previous rulings of Pattni/Bent (no.2) [2011] and Burdis v Livsey [2003].

Nil excess etc. should be considered separately and not interfere with stripping out irrecoverable elements as laid down in Dimond v Lovell [2002]. Courts should readily admit into evidence any off-the-shelf excess elimination insurance to achieve nil excess, provided it is for the same car and period.

Courts should take a realistic approach to adjustments to the BHR, provided a vehicle is available on a 28-day rental against a seven-day requirement.