Reasonable Hire Period in Credit Hire: Defending Repair Delay in 2026

A booking date four weeks out is not a handler failure. It is a capacity problem. But if the only thing on file is the invoice, the period is going to get cut.

CreditHire Assist sees this file constantly. Liability is clean, the rate is defensible, and the hire period is 61 days because the bodyshop could not take the car until week four and then waited a fortnight for a part.

The third party insurer letter arrives offering 21 days. It does not engage with the repair timeline, because the repair timeline was never sent to them.

Why hire periods are stretching in 2026

The repair sector is losing people faster than it replaces them. The Institute of the Motor Industry’s report Understanding the UK Accident and Repair Workforce, covered by Insurance Post on 27 July 2026, puts the sector at roughly 59,500 workers, losing an estimated 4,700 a year and running at a net loss of around 1,700 annually. That constraint lands on the booking date.

Vehicle complexity pushes the same way. ABI figures published on 11 February 2026 show £11.9bn paid out across 2.5 million motor claims in 2025, with vehicle damage alone at nearly £7.5bn, or 63% of total claims paid. The ABI points at advanced systems, sensors and high-value components, and notes that continued pressure on supply chains can result in longer repair times. That is the industry’s own trade body confirming repairs are taking longer for reasons upstream of any individual claim.

Then the specialist categories. ADAS recalibration, high-voltage systems, EV work and low-volume models need specific qualifications and often a particular approved site. Fewer sites, longer queues.

There is no reliable published average delay figure. The number that matters is the one the bodyshop gave you.

The economics behind the insurer’s push on period

EY’s motor results analysis, published 23 July 2026, forecasts a net combined ratio of 108% for 2026, after 98% in 2024 and an estimated 102% in 2025, recovering to 103% in 2027. EY is explicit that claims frequency should stay broadly stable. The pressure comes from repair, labour and vehicle costs, not from more accidents.

That is dated context and a market forecast, not a statement about any particular insurer. But when margins are under that pressure, period is one of the larger controllable lines on a credit hire file.

That is commercial reality, not bad faith. Correspondence that treats it as bad faith reads badly to a district judge. Correspondence that answers the cost point does better.

What “reasonable” means on period, and where the burden sits

Two things get conflated here. The first is the claim itself. As the party claiming, the claimant needs to establish the loss and that the period claimed flows from the accident. You need to show why the vehicle was off the road for as long as it was.

The second is mitigation. If the insurer’s case is that the claimant should have used another bodyshop or accepted an offer, that is a positive case about the claimant’s conduct. A defendant advancing failure to mitigate is expected to plead it and support it with evidence, not assert it in a letter. Geest plc v Lansiquot is the usual reference point.

On delay caused by others, Mattocks v Mann remains the anchor: a claimant should not be treated as responsible for delay caused by the conduct of insurers or repairers save in exceptional circumstances. A 1993 authority, and a claimant waiting on people they do not control is exactly the 2026 capacity problem.

It does not make every long period reasonable. It puts the focus on whether the claimant behaved reasonably in the circumstances they were in, which is a question of evidence.

The evidence to capture on day one of the repair booking

Capture the constraint when it happens, not when the challenge lands. When the bodyshop gives you a date, get the following in writing:

Date of first contact and date offered for booking in. That gap is the capacity delay, and the number the insurer will argue about.
The reason for the gap, in the bodyshop’s own words. “Earliest ADAS slot”, “manufacturer-approved site, four-week queue”. A named person and a date beats a summary written later.
Whether this was the nearest suitable repairer, and if not, why not. Manufacturer approval, warranty conditions, certification, network requirements.
Parts position at estimate stage. Ordered date, expected date, back-order flags, any supersession.
Every revision to the date, with the reason. One dated line each time.
Any period the vehicle was drivable. This affects need as well as period.

Do the same on the total loss track: inspection date, decision communicated, settlement offered, funds cleared. A period that looks long often looks different once those four dates are on the page.

Building the file so the delay is documented, not asserted

There is a real difference between a file that says the repair took nine weeks and one that shows it.

Build a dated repair chronology wherever hire runs past a fortnight. Date, event, source document. Ten minutes at settlement, and it becomes the attachment for every period response.

Keep the source documents attached rather than summarised, and log what the claimant did too. A forwarded email dated 14 May saying the earliest slot is 9 June is evidence. Your note saying “BS advised 4 week wait” is a note.

Responding to a period challenge that ignores the repair timeline

Most period challenges are not arguments. They are offers with a number attached.

Give the timeline first. Lead with the dated chronology, not the law. Claims teams usually recognise a genuine capacity delay when it is set out clearly, and a good proportion resolve there.

Identify what is actually in dispute. The gap before booking in, the repair duration, or the tail after completion? These need different answers, and lumping them together weakens all three.

Deal with the “another bodyshop was quicker” point directly. The test is not whether a faster option existed. It is whether the claimant acted reasonably. If the repairer was chosen for manufacturer approval, certification or warranty preservation, say so and evidence it.

Ask them to particularise. If the offer is 21 days, ask which dates they say should be excluded, and why.

Keep the tone flat. The insurer has a commercial reason to test period. Answering the point beats characterising the motive. Our piece on the real cost of manual TPI responses covers the operational side.

Where the argument stops: mitigation and the claimant’s own conduct

A handler who does not know the limits will over-run a file and lose credibility on the ones that matter.

Capacity does not cover claimant delay. If the claimant did not present the vehicle when the slot came up, or sat on a decision for three weeks, that is a different category. Record it honestly and adjust.

Capacity does not cover an unreasonable choice of repairer. A five-year-old hatchback sent to a site with an eight-week queue, when local repairers could have taken it in ten days, will be tested and probably tested successfully.

Capacity does not extend the period beyond need. If the claimant had another suitable vehicle for part of the period, that part is exposed however good the repair timeline looks.

Capacity does not answer an intervention offer. If a credible offer of a replacement vehicle was made and refused, the analysis changes and the repair delay does not save you. Our piece on insurer intervention case law sets out where those arguments land.

On total loss, the period does not run indefinitely. There is a reasonable window after the decision is communicated and funds are available. Impecuniosity may lengthen it, but that needs evidencing.

Repair capacity is a strong argument on the right file and no argument at all on the wrong one. Capture the constraint on the day.

Want to see how CreditHire Assist builds this into the file? See it in action.

FAQ

Who has to prove the hire period was reasonable?

The claimant, as the party bringing the claim, needs to establish the loss and show the period claimed flows from the accident. Where the insurer’s case is that the claimant failed to mitigate, that is a positive case about the claimant’s conduct, and the defendant is expected to plead and evidence it rather than assert it. Geest plc v Lansiquot is the usual authority.

Does a bodyshop backlog justify a longer hire period?

It can, but not automatically. The question is whether the claimant acted reasonably. Mattocks v Mann supports the position that a claimant should not be penalised for delay caused by insurers or repairers except in exceptional cases. What turns a backlog into a defensible period is contemporaneous evidence: the date the bodyshop was contacted, the date offered, and the reason given.

What evidence should be on file to defend a long hire period?

A dated repair chronology, the bodyshop’s correspondence confirming the booking date and the reason for it, the parts position, why that repairer was chosen if it was not the nearest option, evidence of chasers, and any period the vehicle was drivable. On total loss files, add inspection date, decision communicated, settlement offered and funds cleared.

Can an insurer reduce the period because a different bodyshop was quicker?

They can argue it, and sometimes they are right. The test is not whether a faster repairer existed. It is whether the claimant behaved reasonably. If the chosen repairer was manufacturer-approved, held the required certification, or was needed to preserve a warranty, that is a reasonable choice and should be evidenced. If it added weeks for no discernible reason, that part of the period is vulnerable.