ILC ARTICLE

After the event: industry responds to delegate questions

2nd November 2023

Underpinning ILC’s commitment to delivering innovative and interactive events which add value both on the day and post-event, it has collated responses to a series of delegate questions posed over Slido during the recent Exclusive Motor Claims Conference.

The event was held at Landing Forty-Two, London, supported by ILC’s Motor Corporate Partners: Activate Group, AkzoNobel, Autoglass, CAPS, Carpenters Group, Copart, DAC Beachcroft, e2e, Entegral, Enterprise, Gemini ARC, GT Motive, Innovation Group, Kennedys, S&G Response, Solera Audatex, Synetiq and Thingco, and sponsored by headline partner Enterprise along with sponsors BHR Assist, Clearspeed, EDAM Group, LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Wiser Academy.

Below are the questions posed on the day during the Credit Hire Conundrum session, with responses from third party insurers (TPI) and the CHO.

How can CHOs justify a GTA rate of over 60% above BHR on many prestige vehicles?  

CHO: The bulk of this difference is given to the insurer by way of a commission. This is also a generalisation – the 60% – and takes no account of the many GTA groups that are in fact below BHR levels and have been for some time now. The statement simple illustrates why the GTA needs reviewing and re-working.

If GTA 2 discussions don’t reach a timely conclusion/agreement, can the GTA continue to function as it is or does it risk collapsing? 

TPI: Following the interim rate review a little over 12 months ago, significant progress has been made over the last six months meaning it’s now much less likely to collapse.

CHO: Yes, there is a risk, but the alternative is the worst of all worlds and there is a will of all parties to resolve this. GTA continues to function as does the technical committee and we see GTA 2 as more of a gradual evolution of the existing GTA. 

Do you think we will ever reach a methodology to agree rates that both sides agree on?  

TPI: After many years of trying, the progress and level of conversation in the last three months suggests this is now a realistic possibility.

CHO: Yes, in fact – at the risk of tempting fate – we are close to this and a proposal is being actively considered by both sides.

What criteria/experience are you looking for in the new chairperson?  

TPI: Someone who understands the GTA and has the vision to see how it can be more effective for all parties in the future plus the experience of managing numerous stakeholders with integrity and impartiality.

CHO: This has been set out in the job description, but in a nutshell we want a commercially minded person who understands the mobility sector – the issues it faces and can work on a fair minded basis with both insurers and CHOs alike.

(Stewart McCulloch has subsequently been appointed to the role https://www.iloveclaims.com/motor_claims/gta-names-new-chairperson/)

High daily rates are one issue. The other is duration and until CHOs take ownership in moving along their clients aren’t you still going to have an ongoing battle?

CHO: High daily rates is debateable – duration could be brought under control if insurers responded promptly to cases and approved repairs more quickly, in addition to CHOs demonstrating ‘good on hire management’. There is of course a wider point in the supply chain.

We hope to address some of the points around duration control in the GTA2 but the current GTA provides clear guidelines on how cases should be managed and if they aren’t managed in these guidelines then the claim will be subject to deductions. 

It would be great for more credit hire data to be shared to the market. The issue is that no one wants to release it…

TPI: Agreed. The CHO and insurer community should aim to work on this to see if it is possible to be more transparent with sharing data.

CHO: CHO has suggested that as part of the GTA we monitor a set of KPIs.

With BHR providers taking a more prominent place in the industry, is there a need for the GTA anymore? The world has moved on.

TPI: BHR providers definitely have their place, but currently have bi-lateral arrangements with individual stakeholders. The GTA can still provide an important role for agreement on rate methodology and ensuring CHC’s and insurers work sensibly and behave appropriately.

CHO: Unless the BHR companies will allow their vehicles to be used in a non-fault accident on a credit basis then things may change but there is no evidence of that. The last time I checked BHR providers only looked at rate – the GTA is a combination of rate and process.