Insurers arguments that diminution can only arise where damage and repairs to a vehicle were either structural, ‘beyond the norm’ or affect the safety of a vehicle have been defeated at Court.
Diminution in value can occur despite good quality repairs and where the damage was not structural.
The Court said in its judgement “There is no basis for this line of argument … Nothing in Payton v Brookes or any other case that could be binding on me that says I have to be satisfied that the structural integrity or safety of the vehicle has been affected.”
This common defence raised by insurance companies highlights the difference between success and failure and why our clients instruct Clifford James Consultants to recover their diminution losses.
Commercial Director, Emma Bell commented on this positive result “This unjustified argument is used time and again by insurance companies, which is unfair on claimants making valid diminution claims. It is also wrong in law. The Court has sent a clear message that this type of blanket defence will not succeed at Court and confirms that our approach to diminution is warranted.”
At Clifford James Consultants, we consider each case on its merits. If you are interested in making a claim for diminution, please do not hesitate to call us on 0844 88 050 88