The GTA Is Getting a Binding Dispute Route. What That Actually Changes at Day 61.

The GTA rate card is fixed for twelve months, so once liability is settled, duration is the whole argument. A binding ADR route is coming for unsettled claims, decided by specialists who understand GTA hire claims rather than a district judge who does not understand credit hire. Here is what the scheme actually is, what it is not, and what to do about it before it opens.

Two things happened to the GTA this year and most desks have only really absorbed the first.

On 1 July the new maximum daily rates took effect, following the independent review. We covered the practical application of that at the time. It matters, but it is the smaller of the two changes.

The second is the GTA ADR Scheme, the GTA’s own alternative dispute resolution route. The full name matters, because this is a defined scheme with its own rules and its own fee, not ADR in the general sense. After a pilot run through 2025 and into 2026, the GTA is preparing to open a binding dispute route for credit hire claims that have not settled inside the protocol window. Stewart McCulloch, the GTA’s independent chair, said in May that the platform would open on a voluntary basis once the operating rules were finalised.

Put those two together and you get the shape of the next twelve months. The rate is fixed. It cannot move until the next review. After liability, everything that is left to argue about is duration, and there is about to be a faster and cheaper place to argue it.

This piece sets out what the scheme actually is, corrects a few things that are being repeated about it, and covers what a credit hire desk should be doing while the rules are still being written.

What the GTA ADR Scheme actually is

The detail below comes from the GTA chair’s own public comments and from the industry panel that reviewed the pilot. The rules were not final when those statements were made, so treat the specifics as the current design rather than settled law.

The GTA ADR Scheme is a structured, binding process, delivered by trained decision makers who understand the GTA. It is not mediation and it is not a facilitated conversation. A specialist hears the dispute and makes a decision, and that decision is legally binding on both sides.

The pilot ran on Verisk technology, managed by Allied Universal, with a small team of trained decision makers. Just under 60 cases went through it. The GTA reported that award quality was audited closely and that consistency reached 100% across the last third of the pilot.

The trigger is 61 days, not 62. This is worth getting right because the number has been reported both ways. GTA cases that have not settled drop out of the protocol at 60 days and become litigation candidates. The ADR route is designed to catch them at that point. Claims meeting the criteria will be offered GTA ADR if they have not settled within 61 days.

The threshold at launch is a hire element under £10,000. The pilot was capped lower, at £7,500. The launch figure is the one to plan against, and it is not a coincidence that it lines up with the judiciary’s position that sub-£10,000 civil claims should be going through mediation.

Four things people are getting wrong about it

It is not automatic. This is the single most important point and the one most often lost. The scheme operates on a voluntary basis, for claims where all parties have agreed to ADR. Nothing forces a file into the GTA ADR Scheme at day 61. What happens at day 61 is that the case becomes eligible to be offered the route. Somebody still has to say yes.

That changes the question a desk should be asking. It is not “what happens to us at day 61”. It is “when we are offered this, will we take it, and on which files”.

It is not a soft option. Binding means binding. A decision goes against you and that is the outcome, without the appeal routes litigation gives you.

It does not cover everything. The pilot excluded fraud allegations, multi-party and multi-shunt incidents, linked injury litigation, and higher-value claims. Fraud exclusions are confirmed to carry into the launch scheme. If a defendant insurer has pleaded fraud, this route is not available, and that is unlikely to change.

The launch date is not nailed down publicly. The GTA said summer 2026, subject to finalising the rules. Some trade commentary has put it at the end of September. We have not been able to confirm a specific date from the GTA itself, so if you are building it into a plan, confirm the date with the GTA rather than relying on secondary reporting. What is not in doubt is that it is close.

Why duration is now the argument that is left

The GTA’s own position is that rate has been a manufactured controversy for years. The CHO’s research put the increase in GTA maximum daily rates at 5.78% across a decade, roughly 0.56% a year against average UK inflation of 2.6% a year over the same period. Whatever you make of the source, the direction is clear enough, and the annual review built into the revised GTA is designed to take rate off the table as a recurring fight.

The pilot data says the same thing from the other end. The disputes going through GTA ADR were primarily about hire duration. With rates standardised, vehicle grouping, need for hire and extras were becoming less contentious. Once liability is resolved, duration is what is left.

That is the strategic point for anyone running a credit hire desk. For twelve months you cannot win or lose on rate. Liability aside, you will win or lose on whether your file explains, with evidence, why the hire ran as long as it did.

The economics reinforce it. EY forecasts a net combined ratio of 108% for UK private motor in 2026, a second consecutive underwriting loss. Insurers under that kind of pressure do not have a pricing lever available on the timescale that matters, so they will go looking for margin in indemnity spend. Duration is the largest single lever in a credit hire claim. Expect it to be scrutinised harder than it has been.

What an expert ADR decision changes, in both directions

Part of the appeal of this scheme, on the credit hire side, has been the inconsistency of county court outcomes. A district judge who sees credit hire twice a year is working with less context than a specialist. The GTA’s argument is that a decision maker who knows the protocol produces more consistent and more predictable outcomes.

That is true. It is also worth being honest that it cuts both ways.

A decision maker who understands credit hire is harder to persuade with a file that is thin. A generalist judge might be moved by a confident submission. A specialist will know what should be on the file, will notice when it is not there, and will not need the other side to point it out.

So the realistic read is this. Files that are properly evidenced on duration should do better, and faster, under the GTA ADR Scheme than under litigation. Files that have been getting by on the other side’s inability to engage will do worse. If your desk has been relying on the second, this scheme is not good news for you, and it would be better to find that out now than at the first award.

The incentive structure

The pilot carried a deliberate carrot-and-stick design, described by the industry panel that reviewed it.

If the credit hire organisation submits a correct claim and the insurer fails to engage, the CHO receives a 20% uplift on the awarded amount and the insurer pays the GTA ADR fee. If the insurer makes a fair early offer, the CHO declines it, and the decision then sides with the insurer, the award is reduced by 10% and the CHO pays the fee.

Both sides carry a cost for behaving badly. That is the intent.

Treat these figures as pilot design rather than confirmed launch terms. They were described during the pilot phase and the operating rules were still being finalised months later. The principle is very likely to survive. The percentages may not.

What the principle tells you is more useful than the numbers anyway. There is now a direct financial penalty for turning down a reasonable offer and being wrong about it. Declining an offer becomes a decision that needs a reason on the file, not a reflex.

What to do before it opens

Four things, none of which require the final rules to be published.

First, work out which of your open files would be eligible. Hire element under £10,000, no fraud allegation, not multi-party, not linked to injury litigation, unsettled past 60 days.

Note what is not on that list. Liability status is not a filter. A claim where liability is still in dispute can come into the scheme, and so can one where liability has been denied outright, provided the hire has ended and the clock has run. Liability being unresolved is not a reason the claim falls outside the scheme. It is one of the reasons a claim ends up needing the scheme in the first place.

That is worth saying plainly, because the instinct on a busy desk is to park anything with liability still live and deal with it separately. Those are exactly the files to run through the filter.

Run it and see what the volume looks like. If it is a meaningful share of your aged debt, this scheme matters to your cashflow and you should be planning for it properly.

Second, audit your duration evidence on those files. Not the hire agreement, the duration story. When the vehicle went in, what the repairer actually said and when, what the delay was attributed to, when the total loss decision was made and communicated. A decision maker will ask. If the answer is a note saying “chased bodyshop”, that is not evidence.

Third, fix the capture at the front end, not the back. The pilot found that over 80% of GTA claims needed manual adjustment before settlement, despite fewer than 2% reaching litigation. That is enormous friction on claims nobody is really fighting about. Most of it is claim quality at submission. Improving that is worth more than winning decisions.

Fourth, decide your position on consent now. Because the route is voluntary, somebody at your business needs to own the question of when you agree to the GTA ADR Scheme and when you do not. Make that a policy with criteria, agreed in advance. Do not leave it to whoever happens to open the offer.

The part worth watching

There is a live disagreement underneath all of this about who benefits. The CHO has argued publicly that defendant law firms have an interest in keeping credit hire in litigation, because litigation is where their revenue is, and estimated that a working GTA could take as many as 100,000 cases out of the county court. Defendant firms would put it differently, and have.

You do not need to take a side to draw the practical conclusion. A binding, specialist, faster route to a decision is good for a desk with well-evidenced files and bad for one without. The scheme is close enough now that the preparation is worth doing on that basis alone.

One question worth leaving open

The clock runs from the invoice, which in practice means the hire has already finished by the time a claim becomes eligible.

That is a reasonable place to put the trigger if you think of the scheme as a way of clearing aged debt, which is largely what it is. But it does mean the route arrives after the expensive part is over. Where liability is the thing holding a claim up, the hire has usually been running throughout, and by the time the claim is eligible the cost is already incurred and everyone is arguing about a number that can no longer be changed.

So here is a question we are not going to answer: would a great ADR system take claims while the hire is still running, to resolve liability sooner?

There are decent arguments against. A live hire changes the incentives of everyone at the table, and a scheme built to settle invoices is not obviously the right instrument for deciding liability. But the question is worth putting to the people still writing the rules, because the answer shapes whether this ends up as a debt-recovery tool or something that actually shortens claims.

The rate is fixed until the next review. The argument has moved to duration. The place that argument gets settled is about to change.

Want to talk through how your desk should prepare? Get in touch.

FAQ

© CreditHire Assist  ·  www.credithire-assist.co.uk