How the reply shifts with the timeline

Drafted reply

Dear Sirs

Re: Credit Hire Claim — Intervention Position

We write further to your recent correspondence on intervention. Having reviewed the timeline and the materials available, our position is as follows.

Agreed timeline:
  • Claim referred to this firm: 10 April 2026
  • Claimant first contacted: 11 April 2026
  • Hire commenced: 12 April 2026
  • Your intervention offer: 25 April 2026
  • Earliest TPI vehicle availability stated: 30 April 2026 at 09:00

Your offer post-dates the commencement of hire by 13 days (hire commenced 12 April 2026; your offer issued 25 April 2026). Charges reasonably incurred prior to a particularised offer are recoverable in full; the defendant cannot extinguish them retrospectively (Copley v Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580).

Separately, the offer as received contains no vehicle specification, no terms, and no position on CDW. On its face it does not provide the claimant with the means to make a like-for-like comparison, and the burden of demonstrating an unreasonable refusal sits with the defendant (Pattni v First Leicester Buses [2011] EWCA Civ 1384).

The intervals between referral, contact and hire (1 day(s) and 1 day(s) respectively) are consistent with reasonable mitigation under Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923.

Critically, your own confirmed earliest availability for the replacement vehicle is 30 April 2026 at 09:00 — 5 days after the offer letter and 18 days after hire had already commenced. An "offer" of a vehicle the TPI cannot in fact deliver until that date does not provide the claimant with a real means of mitigation for the intervening period. A defendant relying on a failure-to-mitigate defence must actually have made the means of mitigation available (Copley v Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580); a paper offer with a deferred delivery slot is not such a means, and the claimant's reasonable need under Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923 continues throughout that window.

We therefore decline to reduce or limit charges by reference to the offer of 25 April 2026. If you intend to rely on a particularised offer going forward, please serve one with full vehicle, term and CDW detail — and a delivery slot the TPI can actually meet — and we will respond on its merits.

We look forward to hearing from you within 14 days.

Yours faithfully
[Fee Earner]

Drafted reply

Dear Sirs

Re: Credit Hire Claim — Intervention Position

We write further to your recent correspondence on intervention. Having reviewed the timeline and the materials available, our position is as follows.

Agreed timeline:
  • Claim referred to this firm: 15 March 2026
  • Claimant first contacted: 16 March 2026
  • Hire commenced: 20 March 2026
  • Your intervention offer: 18 March 2026
  • Earliest TPI vehicle availability stated: 21 March 2026 at 10:00

We acknowledge your offer of 18 March 2026, issued 2 days before hire commenced on 20 March 2026. The offer was refused contemporaneously on the basis that the vehicle proposed (Group C) did not reflect the claimant's reasonable need, the claimant's own vehicle being Group F.

A replacement vehicle must reflect the claimant's reasonable need, not merely provide transport (Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923). Where an offer is particularised, refusal must be reasoned (Copley v Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580) — and the refusal was reasoned at the time and is supported by the vehicle group mismatch and documented family-use requirement.

Critically, your own confirmed earliest availability for the replacement vehicle is 21 March 2026 at 10:00 — 3 days after the offer letter and 1 day after hire had already commenced. An "offer" of a vehicle the TPI cannot in fact deliver until that date does not provide the claimant with a real means of mitigation for the intervening period. A defendant relying on a failure-to-mitigate defence must actually have made the means of mitigation available (Copley v Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580); a paper offer with a deferred delivery slot is not such a means, and the claimant's reasonable need under Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923 continues throughout that window.

We invite you to make a revised offer of a Group F (or higher) equivalent, with CDW and terms in line with your original, and a delivery slot that actually pre-dates the claimant's need. Should you do so, the claimant will consider it on its merits. In the meantime the refusal stands and charges continue to accrue at the contracted rate.

We look forward to hearing from you within 14 days.

Yours faithfully
[Fee Earner]

Drafted reply

Dear Sirs

Re: Credit Hire Claim — Intervention Position

We write further to your recent correspondence on intervention. Having reviewed the timeline and the materials available, our position is as follows.

Agreed timeline:
  • Claim referred to this firm: 02 February 2026
  • Claimant first contacted: 03 February 2026
  • Hire commenced: 04 February 2026
  • Your intervention offer: none received to date

To date no intervention offer has been made — and, accordingly, no date or time has ever been given on which the TPI could deliver a replacement vehicle. Your most recent correspondence requests hire records and BHR justification; that is not an offer and cannot found a mitigation defence on intervention grounds (Copley v Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580).

The claimant was referred on 02 February 2026, contacted on 03 February 2026 and hire commenced on 04 February 2026 — a 1-day and 1-day interval consistent with the reasonable-need test in Bee v Jenson [2007] EWCA Civ 923.

If you intend to rely on an intervention defence, please make a particularised offer specifying vehicle, terms, CDW and the date and time on which the TPI can in fact deliver. Absent such an offer the claimant's entitlement continues and charges accrue at the contracted rate. We will respond proportionately to the records request on the usual terms, without prejudice to that position.

We look forward to hearing from you within 14 days.

Yours faithfully
[Fee Earner]