I rear ended another driver and his insurance company is demanding $5500, please help

Lflibbidyflop on 07/01/2017 - 15:03
Last edited 09/01/2017 - 14:42

Wanting general advise as this is my first car accident. Yes, I've learnt my lesson and now will have insurance for the rest of my life while driving, please don't hate ):

I got a letter of demand today from NRMA speaking on behalf of 2nd car who claims $5500 because I rear ended him about two months ago. The scenario happened on a highway with multiple traffic lights in qld:

  • First car abruptly stopped at a traffic light which already had a line of cars
  • Second car braked, then let go, and braked to a complete stop, did not rear end the first car
  • Third car (me) braked, however did not brake hard enough to come to a complete stop and rear-ended the second car

Facts:
* At the time I was uninsured
* Police statement was not made at the time of incident
* Second car was a red P plater, student
* Second car was insured under his mum's name
* No witnesses (except the first car, of which I have no contact details of)
* Exchanged details, took some (poor quality) photos with second car
* Attempted to contact the second car 100 times and they ignored my messages and calls prior to receiving letter of demand

The PAV of car was stated $6000 for a 2007 Ford Fiesta 3dr, Salvage value $1000, and the chassis of both passenger and driver sides were damaged, stated from motor vehicle assessment. He decided to write-off the car and I was charged for subsequent tow & car hire for 14 days.

Attached are photos from the incident:
* My car (http://tinyurl.com/jn4hfts)
* His car (http://tinyurl.com/zdexr9m, http://tinyurl.com/j4gux4u, http://tinyurl.com/zyxacux)

What's the best plan to undergo negotiations? Personally, I don't believe his damages were severe enough for a write-off and he wanted a new car. Advice would be highly appreciated as a first time it is highly mentally exhausting; and as a poor university student, this will take a huge chunk out of my existing little savings ):

Automotive

closed Comments

      • Randxyz123 on 09/01/2017 - 17:14
        +2

        The vehicle hire was AFTER the vehicle was written off. I would understand the need for car hire during the repair process/ decision to be written off, however this was not the case. Would that be a justified point?

        It doesn't matter when they hired it… The fact of the matter is

        After the insurer writes off the car then there could be 2 weeks before every thing is processed and they get the payout.

        There is no way you are getting out of paying for the hire car.

      • Piranha2004 on 09/01/2017 - 17:32

        Car hire clauses in policies only apply if the policy holder is deemed at fault. You can always claim car hire costs if another party is at fault (and for anytime up until the final settlement of the claim I believe). You will absolutely have to pay for the car hire.

        • njm on 09/01/2017 - 19:41
          -5

          The hire car benefit shouldn't be dependent on who is at fault, as long as its an insurable event.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 06:20
          -1

          @njm: but it is?I don't make the rules but how can you expect insurance to take care of hiring a car without them getting any benefit out of it. Which is why it's for not at fault scenarios.

        • njm on 10/01/2017 - 08:35
          +1

          @Piranha2004: Where are you getting your information from? Are you reading this in a PDS? The NRMA PDS states:

          'Hire car after an incident

          If an incident we cover causes loss or damage to your vehicle and you need a hire
          car.

          We pay this benefit on top of your agreed value.'

          Quite clearly when you insure for comprehensive cover, you are insuring for at fault and not at fault incidents. The hire car is applicable for 'an incident'. Quite clearly it is applicable regardless of who is at fault.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 09:22

          @njm:

          The NRMA PDS states this for the TOP level of Comprehensive cover (no different to adding a hire car option). Their standard comprehensive policy does NOT cover hire car for at fault accidents. AFAIK no insurer in Australia offers hire car for at fault accidents for standard comprehensive offerings (i.e its always an optional extra which you have to pay for).

        • njm on 10/01/2017 - 12:29

          @Piranha2004:

          The standard cover ONLY covers a hire car following a theft or attempted theft.

          You can pay an additional amount for the hire car extension which will then cover you for any insured incident regardless of fault for up to 14 days.

          If you read my first post to the OP it states:

          A lot of motor policies don't allow for a hire vehicle following an accident as standard, make sure that the other driver did have this cover in place.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 13:12

          @njm: It doesnt matter if the other driver had the hire car cover in place because he wasnt at fault. He can claim for car hire as he has been inconvenienced by the OP. This conversation would only be relevant if the OP had been looking for hire car coverage due to their accident.

        • njm on 10/01/2017 - 13:28
          -2

          @Piranha2004:

          It does matter. NRMA are chasing the OP for hire car costs. Therefore they can only chase hire car costs if they have incurred this cost.

          If the owner did not have the hire car option on their policy, NRMA should not have provided a hire car. This is clear in the PDS that without the hire car option, a hire car is only provided following theft or attempted theft.

          If the owner hired their own car, then they would do so at their own cost and would need to seek recovery directly against the OP.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 13:39
          +3

          @njm:

          You dont understand. A not at fault party is entitled to add car hire costs (as well as any relevant ancillary costs) to the overall claim as suitable compensation for being inconvenienced due to collision caused by another party. There may be a point that NRMA shouldnt be allowing car access if its not on the policy but the other party can certainly add this to the claim (OP hasnt mentioned if this has gone through NRMA or his own but I find this irrelevant as the not at fault party has been inconvenienced). This is standard practice across the insurance industry. The hire car option in the policies is relevant in the event the insured is the at fault party and requires access to a hire car.

        • njm on 10/01/2017 - 15:13

          @Piranha2004:

          Are you trying to say that it is standard practice across the insurance industry that the insurance company will attempt to recover both insured losses (covered by the policy) as well as uninsured losses (not covered by the policy) against a third party?

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 15:44

          @njm:

          Yes. Technically it is covered by the policy since you are claiming reasonable compensation (i.e. hire car) for the period you are unable to use the covered asset. It is not the fault of the policy owner that they have been hit and they should not be worse off than they were before the accident.

          EDIT: Here is an old but relevant article http://www.drive.com.au/car-insurance/know-your-rights-when-…

        • njm on 10/01/2017 - 17:32

          @Piranha2004:

          The article you have posted supports exactly what I am saying and not what you are saying…

          'If a car accident isn't your fault, YOU may be able to claim against the OTHER PARTY'S INSURANCE for more than just the damage caused to your vehicle in particular, the cost of hiring a temporary replacement vehicle.'

          You will note that it doesn't say you may be able to claim against your own insurance.

          You can't claim a hire car through your own insurance if you don't have the hire car benefit available to you.

          The car hiring company in the article supports this 'If there's a risk the claim won't be paid perhaps the other driver isn't insured they let the customer know this and decline the job.
          The no-fault driver then has the option of hiring a car on standard terms and taking the matter further personally rather than through the service.'

          An insurer can't recover a cost that is not covered by the policy, it goes against the Doctrine of Subrogation.

          So, my comment to the OP was that if the other party did not have the hire car option on their policy NRMA cant recover this cost. If they did have it, NRMA can attempt to recover it.

          If the owner hired the car them self they can attempt to recover the cost against the OP, not through NRMA, but directly, as noted in the article.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 18:27

          @njm: You never talk to the other person's insurance, that's what YOUR insurance company is there for (note for comprehensive policies only). Hence you ask your insurance company to add the cost of the hire car to claim and they ask the at fault parties insurance for reimbursement. It also says: "Edmunds acknowledges people could go through their insurer to have a claim like this made against another party for their car rental costs." The OP is liable for the cost of the car hire regardless of whether the not at fault party has the "hire car" option on their policy. This is one of the things you learn when working for an insurance company. Ive claimed car rental for not at fault claims and I know many people that have done the same in this situation. It's not a hard concept to grasp but you dont seem to be getting it.

        • njm on 10/01/2017 - 20:04
          +1

          @Piranha2004:

          Your reading skills aren't great, you generally agree with most things I have already written, get one part of it wrong, then add an insult.

          If your insurance company pays for an uninsured loss then its claims leakage must be high.

          I have based my argument on the PDS and on insurance law, you base your argument on what you and many people you know have done… enough said.

          You're not assisting the OP and I won't be replying any further.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/01/2017 - 22:11

          @njm: Not like you are assisting as well by asking the OP to go on a wild goose chase. Your argument is based on insurance law and the PDS while mine is based on real world facts. So I and those people I know in the insurance business (IAG FYI) must all be frauds/stupid. Real world facts vs stubbornness "Enough said".

          OP if you are still reading this, dont bother asking NRMA whether the other party has hire car option because a) they wont tell you and b) its not relevant.

      • njm on 09/01/2017 - 19:34

        Considering the hire period started after the assessment/decision making phase, 14 days seems long, but it seems strange that it started after it was written off. However there may have been back and forth between the owner and NRMA, eg, the owner may have been trying to negotiate a higher amount on their payout, may have corresponded via email which always takes longer.

        You are right in that the cover ceases when the vehicle is written off, depending on which policy they had (Comprehensive or Comprehensive Plus) the hire car coverage can be up until the owner received their settlement.

        Whatever amount you may reduce from the hire car costs will be minimal compared to a reduction based on the car value of $6,000.

        Good luck.

      • PVA on 09/01/2017 - 21:12
        +1

        it maybe written off but the owner wouldnt be payout out already. thats why they had the hire car.

  • BertieBrown on 08/01/2017 - 13:44
    +4

    Does anyone have a genuinely logical or sensible reasoning for not having even basic TPP insurance? I can't think of any, but then you get these posts where someone is saying that they don't know what to do because they didn't have any insurance.

    Another question, what about bicyclists? For instance a bicycle accidentally scrapes a car at traffic lights etc? That'd be just a case of a private settlement yes?

    • aman00024 on 08/01/2017 - 21:55

      I 've heard that very soon bicyclists will get number plates.

      • BertieBrown on 08/01/2017 - 23:05

        This would be good in a sense, but also I'd imagine really hard to enforce. I suppose anyone using their bike to commute would either be found without a plate or just get one to avoid potentially getting pulled over.

      • prinsenhof on 09/01/2017 - 23:32

        I would imagine that finding young/fit police officers capable of pursuing a cyclist would be very difficult. I doubt many could ride faster than 20km/hr for more than 50 metres.

        Especially with the added weight of the bike sirens, radar and touch screen computer.

        • Agret on 11/01/2017 - 10:19
          +1

          I think you could easily pursue a cyclist on a police motorcycle.

    • trongy on 08/01/2017 - 22:22
      +2

      Another question, what about bicyclists? For instance a bicycle accidentally scrapes a car at traffic lights etc? That'd be just a case of a private settlement yes?

      In general that would be the case. However, membership of a number of cycling organisations includes third party insurance.
      e.g.
      Bicycle Network
      Bicycle NSW
      Cycling Australia

      • BertieBrown on 08/01/2017 - 23:02

        Thanks for the info, I had no idea about TPP with those groups :)

    • unelectric on 09/01/2017 - 18:11
      +2

      Imagine if OP had rear-ended a Ferrari

      • BertieBrown on 09/01/2017 - 18:56
        +1

        Exactly, boggles the mind. In all seriousness, depending on the type of car that you hit, the financial hardship could be very significant and long lasting, for people on a low income it could be devastating. I.E; the repairs are not $5000 but $40000. Take the example of the Ferrarri, where the car originally costs potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars, is it unreasonable to consider the repair costs could exceed $40000? Its pretty tragic to think someone could be bankrupted by a car accident when TPP is relatively cheap and not even that hard to apply for.

    • airal3rt on 09/01/2017 - 23:20
      +4

      The only scenario in which it makes financial sense to not have TPP insurance is if you meet the following criteria:

      1: you have top-notch dash cam coverage on your car so you can prove who was at fault in any potential accident,

      2: you also believe the chances of yourself being at fault in an accident are so slim that the money saved from not paying insurance will outweigh the expected cost of an accident you caused.

      It's certainly a risky gambit, and hitting a BMW will ruin your week. It's a higher stakes version of the people that travel on the train every day yet never by a ticket; I had a friend who commuted into the city every day for 4 years without buying a single ticket, he got caught and fined on 3 occasions. Paying 0.75 fines per year was cheaper than buying a ticket, so it was + expected value to not buy a ticket, even though he could get fined twice in a week it still works out cheaper over the long run.

      • FirstNameLastName on 10/01/2017 - 00:14

        airl3rt: unfortunately it still doesn't make financial sense because even brilliant drivers experience: kangaroos/tire blowout/aquaplane/oil & diesel slicks/etc etc. plenty of things will see you suddenly being somewhere else.

        and humans are so very susceptible to distraction. a passenger jet once crashed into the ground whilst all three pilots were puzzling over a landing gear issue.. which turned out to be a broken light bulb anyway (gotta love 'air crash investigations" :) ).

        • BertieBrown on 10/01/2017 - 07:53

          Yep, I have to agree with Stitchy, there's simply too many uncontrollable/unpredictable variables to be able to adequately insulate yourself from the potential damages of an accident.

          Also re: air crash investigations, how about the time where they forgot to land the plane because they were 'using their laptops' I think they might have nodded off personally, and so they had to land at a different runway. I mean it's awesome no one was hurt obviously, but jeez, that's some bad hat harry.

      • leetguy101 on 10/01/2017 - 00:24
        +3

        I thought about this, and I realised that you're missing one component that completely changes the equation for me - risk tolerance. Without TPP, your potential loss would be infinite. You could cause a huge crash in the car park of the Annual Luncheon of the Maserati Owners' Club.

        • orly on 10/01/2017 - 02:04
          -2

          @leetguy101 you do understand what the term "infinite" is right?

        • Baysew on 10/01/2017 - 16:10
          +3

          @orly: Perhaps googol it?

        • orly on 10/01/2017 - 17:38

          @Baysew:

          Ba dum tish! Still a finite number though.

        • leetguy101 on 11/01/2017 - 00:12
          -2

          @orly: No, infinite is right.

          http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortsel…

          Skewed payoff ratio – Short selling has a skewed payoff ratio as the maximum gain – which occurs if the shorted stock was to fall to zero – is limited, but the maximum loss is theoretically infinite.

          —
          Just as when you short sell a stock, theoretically, the stock price can always go up, the loss from no TPP insurance is theoretically infinite, because you can theoretically drive your car into the back of a special gathering of all 20 Lamborghini Sesto Elementos ($US 2.9mil each, new), and the 20th one punches a hole on the Harbour Bridge. Who knows how much one that will cost? Bridge closures and everything.

        • FirstNameLastName on 11/01/2017 - 09:52
          -1

          it's ok everyone leetguy was initially employing a common argumentative tactic known as 'hyperbole'.. (however, i can't defend his puzzling attempt to defend the exaggeration??)
          :)

          perhaps sleek geek adam spencer's (short laymen) reply to the definition of infinity will assist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl7Ptt9htUg

          "some infinities are bigger than others"

    • supersabroso on 10/01/2017 - 21:42

      Yeah, I'm proud to be a great driver from a poor family and I didn't need it. I have a dash cam, that is my insurance. Paid $1,400 for my first year of comprehensive insurance in Sydney, never again. What a waste of money. To date, saved myself $7,000 in insurance fees. Most accidents are just parking scrapes where the cost of the accident is roughly the cost of insurance + excess. There is no real gain unless you don't have a dashcam or you are a bad driver.

      I know plenty of colleagues who've never had an accident in their life and wasted tens of thousands of dollars paying for other people's screw ups.

      Having said that, I'm about to take out a million dollar loan from the bank to finally call a place home in Sydney. Probably should get third party as most people in this thread are suggesting. I can easily and cost efficiently cover the cost of my deprecating vehicle, but I won't have the face to start a thread called "FML dem BMWs….."

      • twister292 on 11/01/2017 - 01:26
        +4

        Until that "parking scrape" is on the carbon-fibre bumper of a Lexus IS-F that costs $20,000 to replace…

    • Major Mess on 11/01/2017 - 15:42
      +1

      If you are broke and have nothing to lose. The old, you can't get blood out of a stone.

  • Seraphin7 on 08/01/2017 - 15:08
    +8

    Said it before and I'll say it again … why are people driving around without insurance? You're lucky you're only up for $5,500. Could just as easily have been a $250k vehicle and you'd be up for tens of thousands.

  • syousef on 08/01/2017 - 20:33
    +21

    Who the hell goes without 3rd party insurance? You could be bankrupted through one mistake or even a bad set of circumstances.

  • smpantsonfire on 08/01/2017 - 21:38
    +5

    Most cars over 7 years old with a hit up the bum are instantly write offs, mostly due to economic reasons.

  • berry580 on 08/01/2017 - 21:45
    +4
    • Pay up
    • Weasel off and risk getting a court action on your credit file or pray the insurance company write the debt off
    • Declare bankrupt (not worth it for $5.5K)

    Whatever way you want to go, you're liable 100%.

    If you do drive again, please get at least 3rd party insurance please.

  • Sapz on 08/01/2017 - 23:03
    +18

    Hi buddy,

    Assuming you are a genuine student and does not have a full-time job.

    And YES, you have to pay the sum and there's no way around it.

    Call the insurance company and accept the fact that you're at fault and agree to pay the sum.

    Explain that you are a poor student and ask for a instalment plan. ( they must give you one )

    State your school fees, living cost etc. anything that make sense.

    Tell them you can hardly manage $50 per month,

    YES $50 A MONTH

    Now, they will offer you a reduce sum on condition to pay it in full,

    DO NOT AGREE, ( they can't force you )

    Repeat the same story and tell them all you can manage is $50 a month

    If you play this right, I'm pretty sure they will say YES

    I am neither a lawyer nor a legal adviser. and this is not a legal advice.

    But trust me, same thing happen to my mate for a way larger sum, and he was able to settle it for a $50 a month.

    And last but not least. Make sure to have at least a 3rd Party insurance before behind the wheels next time,

    Good Luck

  • tcme on 08/01/2017 - 23:36
    -6

    It's already factored into insurance premiums for the insurance company to not expect any recovery monies from incidents like this.

    Just don't pay. If there's a stated intention to take you to court well just pay it as you're liable for it anyway and it saves court costs.

    They may get desperate enough and say "pay us $2k" and we can settle the matter now.

    • spackbace on 09/01/2017 - 01:49

      It goes to debt collectors…

      • tcme on 09/01/2017 - 03:35
        -2

        And if you don't pay them then what? Court over $5500 is a bit silly.

        • chumlee on 09/01/2017 - 08:19

          They will take it to court and get a judgement against you as a judgement last for 15 years I think it is so OP can't run from it.

          My memory fades me as to what happens if you declare bankruptcy as I think the judgement is still active

        • malich on 09/01/2017 - 15:46

          That's what debt collectors do. They will happily get the court to issue a judgement for $1k. It costs them $440 (in Victoria) to issue proceedings. Defendant doesn't turn up, judgement is issued.

          The judgement sits on the OP's credit file for 7 years once issued. Not great for a student who will be wanting to buy a house/car/credit card after they graduate.

          As others have mentioned in this thread - see if the insurance company will entertain a payment arrangement directly with you. Contrary to what others have said in this thread, there is no obligation for them to do so. The obligation to provide a payment arrangement is only present when there is a financial agreement directly between the company and the client(eg. loan, utility, phone etc); and the customer can demonstrate hardship.

          If I were in your shoes, I'd be calling the insurance company and be extremely nice to the case officer. Explain that you realise now that not having TPP was a mistake and you were worried about your future if this were to effect your credit. Ask them if they can offer a payment arrangement and negotiate the terms of the agreement. The quicker you pay it off, the better.

  • huydn on 09/01/2017 - 00:55
    +2

    This is a 2-car accident lol the 1st one didn't have anything to do with it. You were clearly at fault so paying is the only option. You can however negotiate the amount, they'll agree if it's reasonable. Good luck.

  • whoopdeedoo on 09/01/2017 - 01:15
    +7

    TPP should also be compulsory…

    • syousef on 09/01/2017 - 17:41
      +3

      The price would skyrocket, as it has for greenslips.

  • aussieprepper on 09/01/2017 - 01:59
    +12

    Next post after this. Help I bought a 2007 ford fiesta that was written of lol
    Ozbargains vicious cycle lol.

  • psylence on 09/01/2017 - 07:11
    +3

    I always wonder with people that don't have insurance you have to accept the risk. What if you had hit a bently and the bill is $100,000?

    • OzzyOzbourne on 09/01/2017 - 10:20
      +1

      If he had killed someone due to his tailgating, what would be the cost then?

      • diddy50 on 09/01/2017 - 12:18

        gaol, insurance wouldn't cover negligence, would it?

      • huydn on 09/01/2017 - 14:59
        +2

        Your insurance doesn't cover injury and stuff, that's compulsory insurance and everyone pays for that.

      • theguyrules on 09/01/2017 - 15:06
        +4

        That's what CTP is for.

  • snacky09 on 09/01/2017 - 07:51
    +8

    OP I was involved in a nose to tail a bit over a year ago…I was the middle car in a line of three. first car stops suddenly, I stop suddenly without incident and third car ploughed in to me and pushed me into car 1. Third car was driven by a learner and his dad tried to claim that I had already hit the car in front which the driver of that car confirmed she was hit once and not twice.

    I left it to NRMA to sort out (my insurer). Car was off the road for 6 weeks…I was given a hire car and had to pay nothing. NRMA make the decision to repair or write off …so the driver you hit is not deciding to write off their own car. If the insurance company deem it not economical to repair they won't.

    You are the at fault driver here, as others have said try and negotiate the amount down and offer up a low and slow payment plan and get yourself some insurance.

  • wog_ta on 09/01/2017 - 08:23
    +1

    Highly doubt insurance will negotiate the amount. You can't do anything, pay up (payment plan or such) or be taken to court.

    • cumova on 10/01/2017 - 09:01
      +1

      I beg to differ
      I was in a similar accident like the OP about 8 years ago. No insurance as well.
      the insurance company will negotiate with you.
      Just remember, the last thing they want to do is take it to court or to the debt collectors as they will eventually probably only get about 30% of it back after all they expenses.
      I negotiated a $15,000 claim to about $9,000. They will want you to pay all straight away. I took the discount and never looked back.
      A story along the lines that you dont work, etc may help as well (at the time i was unemployed out of uni..)

  • Hirolol on 09/01/2017 - 09:59
    +2

    Probably not paying attention and on your phone.
    Just pay it.
    No sympathy from me if you don't even have the cheapest form of insurance.
    If you can't afford insurance then don't buy a car

  • OzzyOzbourne on 09/01/2017 - 10:18
    +3

    Err, you pay and hope your innocent victim doesn't take civil action against you for loss of earnings, injury and screwing up their life! Or do you expect someone else to pay for your mistake, as per usual 'gen z' entitlement?

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/01/2017 - 11:35
    +1

    "At the time I was uninsured"

    You pay the money and get insurance next time you are 100% liable and they probably have the right to sue you for loss of earnings

    The 2nd driver doesn't have to answer your calls if they are going via insurance.

    Lessen learned always have at least 3rd party insurance!

    As for you being a poor university student NO ONE CARES! the best thing you could hope for is to go on a payment plan with the insurer.

  • diddy50 on 09/01/2017 - 12:17
    +1

    You have, hopefully, learnt from this mistake, please take some advice from above about payment plans, but you have no 'out' or 'get out of jail free card' here.

    "I don't believe his damages were severe enough for a write-off. Advice would be highly appreciated as a first time it is highly mentally exhausting; and as a poor university student, this will take a huge chunk out of my existing little savings ):"

    That's not your call, I guess your only call was deciding to not have any insurance and then not keeping a safe braking distance.
    Sorry you are going through this, but we live and learn.

  • cyrax83 on 09/01/2017 - 15:05
    +1

    driving without insurance. You silly person. Cough it up and consider it a lesson.

  • payless69 on 09/01/2017 - 15:31
    +1

    forget about bankruptcy for such an amount. If the owner over claims it will put you into a bargain position. Over claiming can be considered fraud but first remember it started with you and do not run but negotiate. Qld will never jail you if you have not injured a person. However doing nothing will get you the shadiest of dept collectors giving you hell for a very long time. If you have money in the bank offer a reasonable amount for the damage you caused, keep all records. The correct court is called QCAT for amounts under 25k. If you do not have the cash, a reasonable payment plan is fine but remember you will cause overheads and that costs money. Always drive with double safety distance. Yup it pays to have third party property!

  • Skramit on 09/01/2017 - 15:50
    +23

    Lets go through your facts so you understand why you have zero, yes zero negotiating room.

    Facts:
    * At the time I was uninsured

    You idiot :)

    • Police statement was not made at the time of incident

    Not required usually unless somebody is injured or you believe another drive is under the influence of substances.

    • Second car was a red P plater, student

    Irrelevant

    • Second car was insured under his mum's name

    Irrelevant

    • No witnesses (except the first car, of which I have no contact details of)

    Irrelevant. You have clearly admitted fault. That's all their insurance company needs.

    • Exchanged details, took some (poor quality) photos with second car

    Good work exchanging details but irrelevant.

    • Attempted to contact the second car 100 times and they ignored my messages and calls prior to receiving letter of demand

    Irrelevant and you really have no rights to contact the affected other car other than to ask for their insurance details and or claim number. They have no obligation to even speak to you. Pursuing them 100 times is harassment IMO.

    If it were me that was run in and you called me 100 times, I'd respond to you with the claim number and tell you any further contact will be reported to the insurance company and police if it does not cease.

    He decided to write-off the car

    Irrelevant.

    What's the best plan to undergo negotiations?

    There is none, especially after you harrassed them by calling 100 times. Also you are 100% at fault and have no insurance.

    I don't believe his damages were severe enough

    You should have said earlier you are a qualified crash repair assessor and mechanic! Wow!

    • Gronk on 09/01/2017 - 16:03
      +1

      Gah, you beat me to it!

  • SydStrand on 09/01/2017 - 16:06
    +1

    You're completely at fault, OP. Best you can do is negotiate an instalment plan.

    Personally, I don't believe his damages were severe enough for a write-off

    Isn't your call. Also, the whole play-by-play is irrelevant. If you're behind, you're at fault. I'm just shocked that you apparently don't even have 3rd party. If you can afford to run and fuel a car, you could have afforded that.

    Nothing left for you to do but take it on the chin. It sucks that you're a student, but enjoy your tinned chilli and ramen for the next few months.

  • ealges01 on 09/01/2017 - 16:19
    -7

    I would completely ignore them for while(6-12 months) - move the house if possible and change the phone number. And once they track you down you are in for negotiation. Start at $1500, just tell them you are student and that's what you have in your bank account. I don't think it should cost you more than 2.5k here. May screw up your credit for while but I am sure you are not buying house any soon so should be all good.

    Good luck.

    • Skramit on 09/01/2017 - 16:25
      +1

      lol………..

      Run from your mistakes, good advice!

    • Piranha2004 on 09/01/2017 - 17:36
      +2

      This post/advice reflects everything wrong with society today. Ridiculous advice.

    • SydStrand on 09/01/2017 - 17:57
      +1

      Your advice is that the OP becomes a fugitive? Uh…

    • windrc on 09/01/2017 - 21:15

      good luck

    • ankor on 09/01/2017 - 23:27
      +1

      ealges01 - You've forgotten the cost of moving, breaking lease, and paying bond money + 2 weeks rent in advance. Poor uni student is poor, but hopefully not super stupid.

  • TheBean on 09/01/2017 - 16:33

    http://giphy.com/gifs/laughs-m6czTOLgtYzjG

    Honestly, does not look like you can get out of this. Some methods above of doing the dodgy thing to reduce, but like everyone says legally you are in the wrong.

  • blehgg on 09/01/2017 - 17:05
    +1

    I came here for the OP response….

  • whodidthat on 09/01/2017 - 17:16
    -4

    Without insurance you were/are driving illegally and you accept full consequences if anything should happen.
    You could wait for NRMA to take you to court where you can set up a payment plan - but that will affect your credit rating badly.

    • payless69 on 09/01/2017 - 17:26

      there is compulsory with rego but tpp is not required what is illegal?

  • incognitoXD on 09/01/2017 - 18:27
    +5

    $5500?
    Bargain!
    Pay.
    Be thankful you didn't hurt anyone.
    Insure.

    • Spazzwan on 10/01/2017 - 17:03

      Pretty much this. Being a student, $5500 probably feels like a fortune—but as everyone else has said in this thread, its a drop in the bucket of what it could have potentially been. Request payment options from insurer.
      Everyone makes mistakes, live and learn.

  • Herbse on 09/01/2017 - 19:08
    +2

    Great thread.

    "I'm completely in the wrong in every aspect, help me out of it!"

    This has to be a gag or someone having a laugh

  • mgh4me on 09/01/2017 - 19:26
    +1

    Agree with Sapz been there myself but bill was 15000, uturn in front of an RX7. Firstly I ask for an invoice with breakdown of cost which was supplied. Paid about 8000 of loan off at minimal repayments over a number of years. Got a tax return of 2000 so wrote letter offering this as a lump sum and final payement which they accepted so saved about $5000 grand off the debt. Should have added that the agreement was with the NRMA.

  • tmg316 on 09/01/2017 - 19:45
    +1

    You can forget about negotiating with the other party. They pay NRMA so they don't have to deal with it personally. You are dealing with them now, and I wouldn't recommend bothering to take them on. You are stuck paying whatever they want from you. I thought you were required to have 3rd party?

  • StonedWizard on 09/01/2017 - 21:24
    +2

    OP you're not qualified to think $5500 wasn't enough so thats irrelevant.

    The NRMA customer is entitled to a hire car as per their policy until NRMA pay their claim if the car was written off, thats whats happened.

    I don't understand why you wouldn't drive without insurance when it's as little as $150 a year for third party property damage.

  • dickiee on 09/01/2017 - 21:38

    Not sure if it's already posted but should OP at least be given the car if he has to pay it as a write off?

    At least maybe recoop some of the damages themselves through parts sales or possible repair the car.

    I know that if that ever happens to me the first thing I will do is offer to buy the car for a little more than it's worth. Both parties win not getting insurance involved sometimes. No claim etc. People who prefer only to have third party to cover what they hit…Which is fine.

    Sorry you are in a tough spot OP. Just consider $5500 a very fair lesson. I have also had a similar lesson doing excessive speed on a motorcycle in the middle of nowhere which seemed unfair to me. Also cost me a bundle and loss of licence for a long time. But…Dems the laws and I took a risk. Shit happen. Have a drink. Pay up. Bury your anger and frustration deep down inside until it slowly kills you years earlier than you expected so none of this mattered anyway.

    • knk on 09/01/2017 - 22:17
      +2

      I don't think he gets the car, it sounds like that figure is already taking into account the salvageable value of the car.

      • dickiee on 10/01/2017 - 08:46
        -1

        Understandable. But however. Of the insurance company is offering it as a 'write off' should the other driver be allowed to offer the same compensation to the driver and keep the damaged property.

        Seems logical to me. Minus some fees of course for any insurance involvement.

        • knk on 10/01/2017 - 10:56

          Salvage rights remain with the insurer or the owner of the car.

          For example, If you had a vintage car the owner may want to keep and rebuild it despite excessive damage.

  • knk on 09/01/2017 - 22:16
    +5

    Pay the money and then thank whatever god you believe in that it wasn't a $200000 vehicle you hit.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2017 - 08:31

      or even someones property

      • knk on 10/01/2017 - 10:57
        +1

        yep he's lucky he didn't have to declare bankruptcy really….cheap lesson $5500

  • bargain ben on 09/01/2017 - 22:39
    +1

    You came here looking for a sensible answer to your situation, so here is mine:

    You can negotiate with NRMA to pay a lower amount. Start with $3k as your first offer and then go up to $4k.

    Don't be scared of the courts. The courts have an arbitration process whereby you can negotiate an amount. No-one is ever 100% at fault unless you hit a parked car. You might be 80% at fault or 90% at fault in your situation. Again, it gives you the chance to negotiate if NRMA don't come to the party.

    Go to your University's student legal team for advice. Don't just pay the $5,500. This would be an inflated amount as they are expecting you to negotiate this downwards.

    • twister292 on 11/01/2017 - 22:16

      Not leaving a safe stopping distance to the car in front is 100% OP's fault. The onus is on the following driver to make sure he keeps enough distance to allow sudden stops by the car in front.

  • FirstNameLastName on 10/01/2017 - 00:23

    hmm.. this story actually reminds me of a common tactic deployed by UK folk called 'crash for cash' or something. car 1 and 2 are 'in gahootz'.. they line up in wet weather usually on an 'on ramp' (somewhere you would not expect traffic to stop). car 1 brakes very suddenly, car 2 brakes more so.. car 3 (the intended 'victim' not expecting braking during an onramp) hits car 2, and car 1 drives off. car 2 victim complains of neck pain etc etc (and claims they don't know why car 1 was braking, maybe an animal was on the road they say)

    obviously this hasn't happened here.. but i can see how someone may be at a safe distance.. but due to being a 'human being', their brain may be just a bit further from their foot for a moment.

  • chumlee on 10/01/2017 - 06:33
    +2

    $5500 buys 10+ years of third party insurance premiums. This is the risk you take being uninsured

    • twister292 on 11/01/2017 - 22:17

      More like 15 years

  • vietken89 on 10/01/2017 - 07:03
    -1

    LOLLLLL

    I'm like the 2nd person but 2 cars only, you call and message me all you want but I've filed the insurance claiming you're at fault, insurance pays me out and deals with you. So, if I'm nice enough, which is most of the time not in these situation I would just tell you fk off and deal with my insurance.

    Take it as a lesson in life, find that 5.5k or payment plan but whatever you do, don't leave it hanging in your credit history. =)

  • brad1-8tsi on 10/01/2017 - 08:06

    Not having a go at the OP but people should realise that insurance is for people that haven't got money.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join