Car Accident with Uninsured Driver (NSW)

L[Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:15
Last edited 20/02/2018 - 13:56

I have been in a small accident yesterday with another driver who is not insured. Nobody was hurt, no glass broken etc. I have comprehensive cover, and already began the claim process soon after the accident. The other driver has admitted liability, and with photos as evidence, there's no question over fault. Based on this, my insurer has assigned fault to the other driver, and so no excess for me.

This morning the other driver called me, asking if we might keep this private, with a concern that my insurer will send him a large bill. I understand, and sadly I've been in his shoes, unable to afford insurance many years ago. He was also quite friendly about it all, was very happy to swap details etc. So if there is a way I can help this other driver out ( while also seeing my car fixed ), then I'm happy for that.

I've asked a repairer for a quote this morning, however I think it's going to be expensive as a whole door needs replacing.

Are there other options for the other driver, or other services that might help him? Anything I can pass onto him might be of help.

EDIT: Typos

EDIT2: I spoke to another local repairer, and we had a long conversation about this. They suggested that me using insurance is better for both parties. Me for obvious reasons in addition to those below. For the other party, insurers are apparently happy to setup payment plans and alike. This avoids additional recovery costs for those genuinely happy to pay.

The only potential downside appears to be an inflated cost for an insurance job. Although perhaps that may be mitigated somewhat in my case, as regardless, a new door & paint is required. I will never know for sure I guess.

Thank you everyone for the advice. You've definitely helped me, and the other driver I suspect.

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:21
    +1

    This morning the other driver called me, asking if we might keep this private

    What does the at fault party mean by this? He does not want his mum to find out?

    Edit. I get it now. No insurance involvement.

    • Unacceptable on 21/02/2018 - 19:18
      -1
      • vote only for your nickname.
  • IceCreamBandit on 20/02/2018 - 12:22
    +12

    He was also quite friendly about it all, was very happy to swap details etc. So if there is a way I can help this other driver out ( while also seeing my car fixed ), then I'm happy for that.

    If you want to help, get quotes from multiple reputable repairers and see if the other party is willing/able to pay that. If the cost of getting it privately repaired is too much then you're best just letting the your insurance deal with it. It's good you want to be helpful but getting a cheap (and possibly dodgy) repair job isn't worth the risk.

    Good thing about going with an insurance's repairer is peace of mind. I'm with NRMA and was involved in a not-at-fault accident. Needed a new rear bumper and aftermarket reverse sensors (bought car used with aftermarket sensors so I couldn't get genuine ones during repair). Sensors failed after ~12 months but the replacement was covered under the 'lifetime warranty' with the repairer/NRMA and was all sorted out within 2 weeks.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:40
      +1

      This is great advice, thank you.

      • legendary-noob on 22/02/2018 - 09:16
        +8

        OP. My respect to you for being such a considerate person. Have no experience in such situation so can't comment much but am touched by the fact that it had occurred to you to do this fella a favour. While it is always easier to just get your insurer to sort out all the mess but the world is a better place if we try to make things better for people who just had a bad day. Salute!

        • Euphemistic on 23/02/2018 - 09:49

          While on the internet it appears there aren't any nice people around, in real life there are quire a few.

          You just need to be 'alert, not alarmed' when dealing with a stranger.

  • agam2104 on 20/02/2018 - 12:23

    I think nothing can be done now.

  • altomic on 20/02/2018 - 12:23
    +8

    get 3 quotes. tell the panel beaters that it is a cash in hand job.

    give the 3 quotes to the other driver and let him decide.

    I understand both your positions.

    you don't want a crap job done on your car.
    the other driver doesn't want to pay shit load of cash to the insurance company.

    that's about all you can do.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:50
      +12

      WHy would you bother?
      Claim your insurance and let them sort it out with him…

        • whooah1979 on 20/02/2018 - 14:25
          +2

          What type of karma?

        • altomic on 20/02/2018 - 15:46
          +15

          @whooah1979: maybe I just like to think that people will be decent and do the right thing by each other.

          that is, not be a dick.
          not cheat - especially when they have done the wrong thing and need to make amends.

          What type of karma?

          repair ma kar.

        • whooah1979 on 20/02/2018 - 17:30
          +2

          @altomic:

          op hasn't done anything morally or ethically wrong. there is no reason for karma to come back at that op for opting to have their insurer handle this claim.

        • altomic on 20/02/2018 - 18:07
          +5

          @whooah1979: bonus karma points

        • paloverde88 on 22/02/2018 - 07:13
          +1

          @whooah1979:

          Chameleon kind

        • h4zey on 22/02/2018 - 11:24
          +1

          It's not about karma but rewarding a good behavior.

          Do you want to live in society that everyone is skeptical and inconsiderate towards each other?

          if someone is genuinely asking for your help, would you turn your back on them?

        • Islund on 22/02/2018 - 14:12

          @whooah1979: the comment from tuzii was " Why would you bother? Claim your insurance and let them sort it out with him".

          Hence my statement "Karma?".

          Imagine if you had no insurance and hit someone = would you now want to be in a position where the damage to the other party could be fixed in the most equitable way?

          I just love all the negs. Shows how considerate we are becoming.

        • clx on 22/02/2018 - 16:29

          @Islund: The other driver is at fault and has no insurance. That's double the amount of culpability. Not having at least TPPD insurance is pretty irresponsible in my opinion. If karma is to apply to anyone, it should be to the at fault driver. It's very annoying to have your car hit through no fault of your own, let alone having to deal with a request like this.

  • TheBilly on 20/02/2018 - 12:28

    Too late

  • tsunamisurfer on 20/02/2018 - 12:29
    +58

    There is no benefit for you to go private. In fact doing so, you begin to adopt much of the risk of this process.

    He may delay. He may cut off communication and do a runner. He may not even pay for the repairs. If the repairs are unsatisfactory, you have to deal with the repairer and potentially him again.

    No.

    Protect yourself and go through insurance where you know you are protected from any of the above. By doing so, you ARE helping him, your insurance company will teach him a tough lesson in economics and risk mitigation.

    Him sounding nice and contrite, is exactly how these people act when they want something.

    • beeawwb on 20/02/2018 - 12:34
      +11

      I'm in agreement with this. What if you accept his offer to deal with it privately, do all the work of getting 3x quotes (or however many you want) and then agree to have the job done, you drop the car off and then… he doesn't pay. Are you prepared for that (not unlikely) scenario?

    • vinni9284 on 20/02/2018 - 12:39
      +9

      Totally agree with this post.

      There is a reason why you have and pay for Insurance. For them to run around for you.

      Sometimes, you get burnt based on having empathy and being considerate.

      My mum was in the same position, although she had an older car another person hit her (their fault) and went private as they didn't have insurance.

      The job was crap to say the least. Now she is left with an older car that is even worse.
      When the other person was questioned with the job.. he was arrogant and said "OK" go through your insurance then ..after the dodgy repair.

      I wish I jumped in the first place as my clueless and carefree brother was involved with the process.

      She has paid up to at least $20K of premiums over 30 years and didn't even use them.

      What a waste!

      I bet you the at fault driver has an expensive iPhone/Android … etc and has money for that.

      Go with your insurance and save the headache.

      Cheers

      • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 13:00
        +11

        I bet you the at fault driver has an expensive iPhone/Android … etc and has money for that.

        He didn't… Only an old nokia, worn out work clothes and his old delivery van. Not that I'm trying to defend him. Just dissuading generalisations.

        However, I understand the thought, and may well feel the same way towards other drivers. Without being there though, I expect it's hard for others to understand my point of view.

        • vinni9284 on 20/02/2018 - 13:07

          Well, his predicament and finances (the lack of) is not really your problem.

          However if you wish to show generosity, then go through private. It may work out. But get ready for the legwork and following up and then total disappointment if it doesn't.

          I guess you can still follow up and claim for up to 6 years with your insurance if it doesn't work out.

          There are heaps of threads on this site with "At fault driver and they have no Insurance", in a predicament and asking for advice. You're welcome to read and base your judgements from them.

          Actually there is a link from @Baysew below the other day worth considering.

          Good luck

        • ATangk on 21/02/2018 - 14:15

          With all the above advice, perhaps ask for prepayment before you start work with panel beater, incase he does do a runner and doesn’t pay after works been done. Then you can always go back to insurance.

        • secondstory on 21/02/2018 - 16:53
          +3

          Only an old nokia, worn out work clothes and his old delivery van.

          That got me right in the feels. Thank you sammyrc34 for being a compassionate human being and taking the time to consider options that might also accommodate for his situation.

    • Randxyz123 on 20/02/2018 - 13:21
      +6

      Came to say this…

      It sounds harsh but it you can’t afford insurance then you cannot afford a car.

      Go through your insurer. Tell him “I’m sorry but I don’t have time to get multiple quotes”.

      The insurer will let him pay it off.

    • CocaKoala on 22/02/2018 - 15:10

      ^^ this.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:43

    No, take him to the cleaners

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:48
      +25

      I just had a chat to the cleaners at my work about which avenue the op should take. They just shrugged their shoulders. Not sure if they speak English. Probably not a good suggestion.

    • tighttighttight1 on 20/02/2018 - 13:07
      +2

      No, take him to the cleaners

      "It's sick, it's piss, it's revolting, it's insulting"

  • Euphemistic on 20/02/2018 - 12:46
    +6

    My mum's car was hit by a truck many years ago. she had full comp insurance. He wanted to sort it out privately due to increasing his premiums etc. Got 3 quotes, he decided it was too expensive and said he wasn't going to pay, so mum went to her insurer, got the car fixed and it was not her problem anymore.

    You can help out, but if things get tricky go straight back to your insurer and get the claim going again. If he does offer to pay, get the cash before the work is done.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:52
      +2

      See this is my thinking too.

      Where I am, there are only three repairers. Of which, they offer lifetime warranty on their work ( not just insurance jobs ). Surely I wouldn't be losing out choosing private or insurance with either of them?

      • R-Man on 20/02/2018 - 13:35
        +5

        Lifetime insurance until the shop closes down? compared to your insurer's warranty who I imagine will stay around a lot longer.

        I have to applaud you for your empathy to help out someone in bad luck but after reading the discussions here I think you should just stick to your insurance.

        I would hate it if your door became faulty later on and you were stuck arguing with a deadbeat repairer when you could have just let insurer handle it all.

      • porkupine888 on 22/02/2018 - 12:49

        i think the main concern would be are people worthy of their word - going through proper channels means that you wipe your hands off that - but if he can fork out the amount for repairs then go ahead privately? an alternative would be to give THEM the offending party a chance to source it out within say a day or three days max and if they can't resolve it by then then take it straight through insurance

  • kerfuffle on 20/02/2018 - 12:48
    +5

    Go through insurance. Like the others say, they might play the I'm a nice guy card, then do a runner when it comes to paying for your repairs.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:49
    +18

    Unfortunately, people without insurance are typically really bad at paying. If you backtrack from your insurer now there's a good chance you will never see any money and be out of pocket yourself.

    This is what insurance is for, it's regrettably not your fault he doesn't even have third party property insurance.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 12:51

    Continue with your insurance they will claim it off him.
    Not your issue he doesn’t have insurance so why should you be doing him a favour….

  • Baysew on 20/02/2018 - 12:52

    Have a read of this thread Smash Repairers Closed down, Stole Money, Returned Car Untouched

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 13:11

      Thank you for the warning. I'll keep it in the back of my mind.

      Hoping however that I may be safe from these situations, being a small town. Things don't change quickly here, these repairers have been open for a while.

  • Seraphin7 on 20/02/2018 - 13:00
    +6

    Seriously? The fact old mate doesn't have insurance is his problem. He now wants to make it your problem.

    Best case, you do all the running around, find a quote that is mutually agreeable, wait for old mate to pay a deposit, wait for your car to be fixed, wait for old mate to pay the bill in full and you finally get your car back.

    Worst case, old mate disappears somewhere along the way, this drags out for months, you get stiffed with the bill and the insurance won't pay because it wasn't an authorised repair.

    Or you could just put it in with your insurer NOW and let them deal old mate.

    Being frank, if you agree to this, you need your head read.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 13:07
      +3

      Yes, there is the chance that old mate delays this. The repairer I asked this morning said that payment is required in full before work begins for a private job, which I understand. Therefore to handle this privately, I would also expect that old mate can pay that amount immediately. If he cannot, or if there is going to be a delay, I will have to go through insurance.

      My takeaway is, don't cancel the claim until the job is paid for in full.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 13:12
        +1

        Your takeaway should be, don’t worrry about old mate continue with insurance.
        I honestly don’t understand why/how people are actually bothered helping after you were hit by him.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 13:21
          +12

          Purely because I've been in a vulnerable situation like this before. Sure, it was my responsibility, but I was lucky that nothing happened.

          But had something happened, I'd be thrilled if the other party were able to be a little accommodating.

          And you know, I work with people. Helping others is in my nature. So the last thing I want to see is someone's circumstances hinder them further. It's not a good cycle. That's not to say that I'm gullible, or can be taken advantage of.

        • dazweeja on 20/02/2018 - 15:02
          +7

          @sammyrc34:

          I've helped out someone in this situation before. Got 3 quotes, he paid in full, job was done. I genuinely believe he was in quite a desperate situation (he was going through a divorce and was doing odd jobs to pay the bills) and I wasn't put out too much by the arrangement. 6 months later I was hit by another guy. Seemed to me he was a young, privileged w*nker, and showed absolutely no remorse for hitting me. He asked to keep it private and I said no.

          If I had my time again, I'd do the same thing in both situations.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 15:18

          @dazweeja: Can I ask, what was it that changed your mind for the first crash?

          Also, the mob has spoken, I will be going through insurance. :)

        • dazweeja on 20/02/2018 - 15:48
          +1

          @sammyrc34:

          I think I was probably unclear ;) I meant I wouldn't change either situation. I sort of agree with others that if someone can't afford insurance they shouldn't be driving but I think that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. My belief from talking to the first guy was that if he couldn't do the odd jobs that the car allowed him to do, he'd probably be unemployed and out on the street.

      • Seraphin7 on 20/02/2018 - 13:18

        Your takeaway should be send it through insurance today.

        Old mate has caused the problem, he can pay for it. In full.

      • beeawwb on 20/02/2018 - 13:20
        +1

        "There's no harm in hoping for the best, as long as you're prepared for the worst."

        By all means if you're inclined and able to try and help the guy, that's great. You've got the right mindset for if things don't go to plan though. Good luck with your repairs!

      • loropy9 on 20/02/2018 - 13:33

        I understand that what you are trying to do is morally correct. However, don't forget that when he is faced with a big bill that he potentially won't like to have to pay, it will be you who has enabled this temptation. So, if you are not sure you can make him pay, don't tempt the man.

      • CocaKoala on 22/02/2018 - 15:14

        If old mate couldn't afford insurance, the assumption that old mate will somehow magically be able to foot a large bill at once to prepay the repairer doesn't seem logical. Either old mate isn't thinking this through, or he's trying to make his problem yours and then go away.

        PS: You took insurance for one reason. Now you're a good guy trying to help and all, but don't get into trouble trying to help others. It might sound a bit harsh, but old mate isn't your friend right now, but the insurer is.

  • Ryanek on 20/02/2018 - 13:18
    +2

    I know you mean well OP and I sense you are a good person who wants to help the other driver at. If you get payment upfront, your only risk here is any issues that might arise from the repair, or even any issues that weren't initially identified.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 13:23
    +1

    Simples.

    Get three quotations from repairers, and then present him with the quotations.

    He pays you in full for any one of these quotations.

    Now the ball is in your court. You can either repair your car using his money, or (if possible/desirable/you want to) you can pocket the money and continue driving with the damage.

    This option would obviously mean that you cancel your insurance claim, and keep an eye out to make sure that you have not been penalised for making then withdrawing a claim.

  • tsunamisurfer on 20/02/2018 - 13:34
    +3

    Does anyone have any insight? In general just how much more going through insurance would jack up the final cost for the at fault party?

    I have no real evidence but on 2 occassions I have approached panel beaters for repairs and they first ask is it for Insurance or Private? Naive young me thought why would that make a difference. It wasn't until I got both prices that I understood they want to charge more for going through insurance, it was a significant bump of about 60%.

    I walked out indifferent but thinking I should be angry about this. Their increase of cost for going through insurance actually costs me money via premiums.

    So based on my limited experience, the at fault part can expect to pay about 60% more but I don't know if the Insurance Companies will tag on some 'admin costs'.

    • Euphemistic on 20/02/2018 - 14:41

      Sometimes it is perfectly legitimate to cut the costs of a repair.

      For example, for a door repair the insurance co quote might order a whole new door and paint it, while a cheaper option could be to use a 2nd hand one and repaint it, or even just re-skin the current door, or just repair the damage. For an older car it might not matter whether the part is new or used. There is often more than one way to do a repair.

      Personally I'd be happy with a reconditioned item if I was paying for my own repairs (but only from a reputable repairer).

    • dazweeja on 20/02/2018 - 15:52

      Last time I was at a panel beater, I was informally told that the repair would be about 40-50% greater through insurance so similar story to yours.

  • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 13:56

    I think you are a good person for thinking of the other person but I agree with the others that going through your insurance company is the best way forward.

    However, if you do want to go down the other path then get quotes from panel beaters you trust and make sure this guy puts the money up front to you. Give him a timeframe in which he must pay you or you go back to the insurance company. You may already have affected any no claim bonuses at this stage anyway. Worth talking to the insurance company about what would happen in all the outcomes. People who don't have the money for insurance are not, notoriously, good at paying for repairs either. He may continue to give you a sob story that he can't cover it this month but he might be able to get the money next month and then it just becomes a world of pain. I don't understand why the Government doesn't come up with a low cost 3rd party property to go with standard 3rd party - it would save a lot of people a lot of trouble.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/02/2018 - 14:02
      +1

      I don't understand why the Government doesn't come up with a low cost 3rd party property to go with standard 3rd party - it would save a lot of people a lot of trouble.

      +1

      I could have used that once or twice, even if unused.

      • Euphemistic on 20/02/2018 - 14:43
        -1

        Problem with that is that it would not be low cost. Anything Govt run is likely to be more expensive than the market will charge. Just look at the CTP prices.

        • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 15:47
          +2

          Yeah, because outsourcing all of our services to private sector has lead to an enormous saving? That was sarcasm if you didn't miss it. My electricity and gas prices have gone through the roof since the government handed them to their mates.

          There is absolutely no reason for government run services to be more expensive - there should be an economy of scale involved and, I'm sure, a lot of people would take it up. If nothing more it would drive down cost from the private sector to match it.

          In NSW CTP is provided by 6 different private insurance companies and QLD also has different providers for CTP. From what I have been able to glean online the NSW CTP is much higher than any of the other states where the CTP is run by the state governments. There are people having a whinge about it.

    • dcep on 20/02/2018 - 14:08

      in qld

      12 months rego + CTP = $750 for a 4 cylinders car

      maybe they should lower the rego cost and incl. $200 TPP inside.

    • Seraphin7 on 20/02/2018 - 14:48
      -1

      I don't understand why the Government doesn't come up with a low cost 3rd party property to go with standard 3rd party - it would save a lot of people a lot of trouble.

      Any time someone says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help", expect things to get a whole lot worse. How much lower cost 3rd party property insurance do you want? It's cheap as already and is being more than adequately provided for by the market.

      You could make the premiums $1 a year and some people still wouldn't pay.

      • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 15:59
        +1

        If it is given as an option with the rego, and it is well priced, then people will just tick the box and pay the money. When you have to go through all the hassle of contacting the insurance companies and get quotes etc then people decide it is all too hard because they won't have an accident - or they forget to renew and find themselves without insurance. Maybe you don't want that option but I sure would like it and I think we would have a lot less of the "I've been hit by someone who isn't insured" postings.

        Expecting private industry to have our "best interests" at heart is illogical, they are in it for the profit and this needs to be on top of the cost of providing the service. As I indicated previously, most of the surges in pricing our services were after the governments handed them off to the private sector. The absolute last thing we need is an American style health insurance system.

        • Seraphin7 on 20/02/2018 - 16:32

          I'm not suggesting private industry to have our "best interests at heart" … I'm simply noting there is what I believe to be an entirely reasonable and affordable set of options already available.

          If you get the government involved, costs will inevitably spiral. I think we can agree that that the private sector is generally better equipped to provide products and services more efficiently than government.

          I would humbly suggest that expecting government to lower the cost of the provision of insurance to be illogical. And if you are suggesting that 3rd party insurance is in someway to be funded by the taxation system (to draw in your comparison with health insurance), well, you've got to be joking!

        • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 16:59
          +1

          @Seraphin7:
          The options are reasonable, and affordable, to you; however, given the number of "accident, no insurance" posts here it doesn't seem that way to others. I'm proposing a system that would make it easier, and probably cheaper, for people to have 3rd party property insurance. This system would also stop the insurance companies trying to duck shove claims between themselves.

          I don't agree that private sector is "generally" cheaper than government given Private industry needs to add profit on top of the scheme. Can you please provide me with examples of it being cheaper with the Private Sector; given the skyrocketing costs of power services I find that proposition a bit lacking?

          Costs associated with the scheme should be lesser given the number of people signing up. The issue I was raising with health insurance is to show how illogical it is for America to go down that path.

        • Seraphin7 on 20/02/2018 - 17:39

          @try2bhelpful: I would suggest that if you can't afford to insure your car for at least third party property, you can't afford to drive. Full stop, end of story.

          I'd support making third party property insurance compulsory, but that it is provided by an insurer, not the government.

          Examples of where private industry is cheaper than government abound. It's basically anywhere the private sector exists and the government doesn't. If the reverse were true, the government would be "everywhere" running businesses more cheaply than the private sector, generating profit and not needing to tax anyone!

          More specifically, if you look at the way the Commonwealth government (in particular) outsources the provision of many services (the aged care sector being an example that springs to mind), you will see that even the government recognises many of its services can be delivered more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.

          Claims of the government providing services more cheaply than the private sector are usually half-truths at best. Where people believe this to be true … and perhaps even gives the appearance of being true … is where the cost of the provision of the service is not borne entirely by the consumer. In other words, it is being propped up by the taxation system to "hide" the true cost of service provision. The totality of power services is in this bracket (especially when combined with consumer expectations regarding reliability, not to mention alternative energy sources, continuing to expand).

          The government (in all its forms) of course has a role to play in the provision of services where there is "market failure". This includes where the service is deemed "essential" by the community and there "must" be an ability to access the service without the need to pay the full economic cost (e.g. policing) and/or where the community deems the service should be "free" for the individual, but paid for by the collective (e.g. beaches).

          I simply can't see how the provision of car insurance falls into any of these categories.

        • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 18:51
          +2

          @Seraphin7:
          The government doesn't run businesses, however, it should run services that are essential and open people to be exploited by the private sector. We used to have a bank, power supplies, transport system that was owned and run by the government. Now people who need these essential services are subject to whatever prices the Private sector wants to set. It makes it easier for the Government to say they can do nothing about it.

          So you are claiming the aged care facilities run by the Private Sector as a good example of why to hand things across to them. Have you been following the expose that has been done by The Age pointing to the failures of the Private Sector in this area and how people are being exploited and abused - the amount of money allocated for food per person in some of these facilities is ludicrously small.

          https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/aged-care-watchd…

          Again, where profit is more important than people you get the risk of abuse and neglect. The real problem here is that once the Government hands things to the Private sector they refuse to actually oversee them properly. The Government is not really interested in providing services, it is all too much trouble so they just hand it across to someone who can talk a good talk. Not unlike the "outsourcing" that is happening within businesses as well now.

          You have not provided me with any proof that says that Government services are less cost effective than the private sector. You have provided me with an example where it has been shown that abuse and neglect are rife and a government with an ideology of outsourcing has not been providing suitable oversight. Please provide your financial breakdowns to prove your hypothesis.

          You are saying that car insurance will be more expensive under the government, again you are not showing me any proof at all. The presumption that because the Government does not need to make a profit then the ability to reduce the amount charged is viable. You are only saying the opposite because of your own ideology.

        • Seraphin7 on 21/02/2018 - 09:30

          @try2bhelpful: You're right … and I am unabashed in my ideology. My ideology is that governments should only provide services that cannot be provided by the private sector and/or are essential services.

          The ability to drive a car is not what I would call an essential service or a "right". When push comes to shove, if you can't afford to drive a car, don't drive a car. Get a bus, get a train, or just walk. Don't try to get someone else (i.e. the government/taxpayers) to fund it for you.

          The market for insurance works just fine. If anyone thinks insurance is too expensive, that's their opinion to hold. It does not follow that government should intervene to "make it cheaper". The only way government can make something cheaper is to hide the costs of it via the taxation system and shift the burden of cost from the user to taxpayer.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 10:03
          +2

          @Seraphin7: We have different ideas on the function of government - third party property insurance with a cheap well run system that is easy to use would be a benefit to a lot of people; especially low income people. "Selling off" the energy sector and transport have not provided us with a better, nor more cost effective, service the costs of these have sky rocketed with the handover to private sector organisations and the aged care sector is rife with abuse. Not seeing a lot of the "up side" to privatisation at this stage and it leaves the vulnerable open to exploitation.

          If insurance worked "just fine" then we wouldn't be getting so many people here with the "no insurance" issues we are. You don't seem to understand the concept of "profit" and "paying dividends to shareholders" that need to occur on top of delivering the service. If you take these out of the equation then there is no reason why goverments should not be able to provide a cheaper and more efficient product, they already have the CTP insurance system, so adding in the third party property, as a simple tick the box and pay the premium, would be very easy to do. I am not shifting the burden to the tax payer I am removing the overheads of "profit" and "shareholder payments". Every insurance company has to replicate the infrastructure needed for these departments so there is also a gross inefficiency with having replicated function across multiple organisations as well.

          You are entitled to your own ideology, I am entitled to mine. You still haven't provided me with proof that private industry is more "efficient" than the public sector and I have stated exactly why I think that the "overheads" in the private sector make them less cost effective.

        • Seraphin7 on 21/02/2018 - 10:30

          @try2bhelpful: As you say, you are entitled to your own ideology, I am entitled to mine. Where there is an ideological difference at the higher level, debates on topics at the lower level are circular.

          I'm going to leave off there. I think we both realise we could debate this for the next week and neither of us will change our view.

    • Baysew on 22/02/2018 - 13:30

      I don't understand why the Government doesn't come up with a low cost 3rd party property to go with standard 3rd party - it would save a lot of people a lot of trouble.

      Looks like you are not alone on that point.

      See new post Mandatory Motor Vehicle Insurance in VIC.

  • Findo on 20/02/2018 - 14:13

    Joe Hockey was right, poor people shouldn’t drive. Operating a car incurs expenses far beyond just petrol.

    • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 16:04
      +3

      The hardest people to get any sort of payment out of are the rich. They will setup their affairs so they aren't responsible for anything and then use the courts to try to wear less well off people down. If they can't wiggle it any other way they declare bankruptcy and pay pennies in the dollar to their creditors.

      • Findo on 20/02/2018 - 17:06

        Well Joe Hockey was right, within reason. People that can just buy a car and scrape together gold coins to fill up with enough petrol for a few litres a time shouldn’t be driving.

        • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 17:11

          Don't disagree, but if the taxation system was not skewed towards people not paying the taxes they should be then people who need a car might be able to afford one because we could rebalance the tax system.

        • Findo on 20/02/2018 - 17:20

          @try2bhelpful: how does rejigging the tax system suddenly give poorer people the means to afford a car and its associated costs?

        • whooah1979 on 20/02/2018 - 17:37
          +1

          @niggard:

          it reads like some people would like taxpayers to subsidise the cost of operating a vehicle for others that pays little to no tax.

        • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 18:29
          +2

          @whooah1979: you mean as opposed to the people who are now claiming, often with tenuous justification, tax deductions for luxury cars etc. What I want is for the tax system to remove the loopholes and fuzzy areas so that people who need the car can afford one - as opposed to enabling some one who is evading taxes can afford their fifth. The gap between the richer and poorer is getting wider and wider. All I'm asking is that the tax system actually extract the taxes that is should be so that we can support the people who need it. Too many tax lawyers. This does seem to be straying, somewhat, from my original premise which is that it would be a good thing to have third party property that works in the same way as the CTP. And there is, at least, one person who thought that was a good idea.

        • whooah1979 on 20/02/2018 - 18:52
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:

          statistics shows that the mean weekly gross household income in australia is $2109. not many australian households can afford to buy a $65k luxury vehicle or a $75k fuel-efficient vehicle on that level of income.

          most working australians aren't rich. they work to the bone to be able to afford a vehicle or two for big families. some may even have a mortgage that's seven to ten times their annual income.

          why should these hard-working people subsidise the vehicle operating costs for those people that pay little to no tax.

        • try2bhelpful on 20/02/2018 - 18:58

          @whooah1979: I'm not talking about the "average" income I'm talking about the ones at the top who reduce their tax to the point where they pay a pittance compared to what they should be. Why bring in the "average" in this unless you are trying to avoid the issue I am raising. It is very difficult for the "average" worker to be able to claim their car as a tax deduction, as opposed to the CEO of companies who can find a myriad of loopholes. I will repeat your final comment and aim it at the real culprits.

          "why should these hard-working people subsidise operating cost for those that pay little to no tax".

        • whooah1979 on 20/02/2018 - 19:00

          @try2bhelpful:

          anyone that earns less then $18200 pays not income tax.

        • whooah1979 on 20/02/2018 - 19:07

          @try2bhelpful:

          I'm not talking about the "average" income I'm talking about the ones at the top

          there are more of them than there are of the top 1%. any tax imposed to fund a national tpp insurance scheme will hit average joe and jane harder than the top 1%.

          besides, the top 1% can afford comprehensive insurance. they aren't the problem here.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 08:54
          +1

          @whooah1979: The people evading their taxes are taking money directly out of the pockets of the "average" person as there is less Government income to cover services provided to the community. The person earning less than $18,200 may not be paying any tax, but that does not mean they can afford to actually do anything but barely survive. A car crash, to them, may be a catastrophe. As indicated, if there was a cheap effective scheme they may actually tick the box for the insurance and the benefit is for everyone.

          I still haven't seen any proof that the Government is "less cost effective" at providing services than the Private Sector, all we have is an ideology brought in by Governments because they don't want to deal with actually managing their portfolios to the point where a service is provided by their own employees. It is much easier for them to oursource and then blame the outsourcer when the midden hits the windmill. (The IBM fiasco with the census it a case in point). Rather than dealing with the root cause of issues they bring in a different outsourcer and the underlying problems still occur.

          I have worked for both public and private sector entities. There is little difference in how they worked, if anything the public sector was a more efficient place to work and the work had an actual benefit to society. Private sector "efficiency" is largely a myth put out their by people who have an ideology of small government or a stake in Private Sector takeover.

        • AddNinja on 21/02/2018 - 15:10

          @try2bhelpful: I support your position - I want government involvement in lots of services.

          But sadly my actual experience in government was more like "yes minister". This happened: A new (and large) library opened in Melbourne, but they forgot to budget for staff salaries. So it was opened, but could only be used to have books transferred from it to other branches for a year until they could afford to have actual employees. A mistake like this would be unimaginable in the private sector.

          Edit: I was in a library at the time, not in government.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 16:25

          @AddNinja: You really think that something like that is unimaginable in the Private sector? If so, you haven't worked for any large private sector company. In my time with the Private sector I've seen projects worth millions go down the gurgler - the difference is that the Govenment issues are usually under greater scrutiny than the private sector ones. Have a good look at some of the larger private sector companies and look at how many of their projects and/or "acquisitions" have been written off within a year of two of them being initiated/purchased.

          They make the library issue pale in comparison - however, the library does sound like it was a cockup somewhere.

        • AddNinja on 21/02/2018 - 17:45

          @try2bhelpful: Ha - well I’ll take your word for it, I’ve only worked in small private companies.

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 17:46

          @AddNinja: Yeah, I won't tell tales out of school but you can see it in the announcements at shareholder meetings associated documentation. Worth having a good look at the announcements if you do own shares.

  • SlickMick on 21/02/2018 - 09:57
    +1

    I don't think insurance companies jack up prices. On the contrary, they try to get things done as cheap as they can.
    Avoiding the insurance company is potentially setting yourself up for grief, but no one benefits.

    • Euphemistic on 21/02/2018 - 12:48
      -1

      but the repairer will charge top dollar for an insurance job. Sure, the insurance co will try to get it done as cheap as possible, but the repairer would normally include all the work necessary and price in new parts for everything.

      Getting it done outside insurance may give the repairer opportunities to use second hand parts or repair parts that would be otherwise replaced with new - and still make the repair to a suitable standard. Not so much cutting corners, but providing a budget alternative.

    • Deridas on 21/02/2018 - 14:03

      I think you're mistaken, the smash repairer jacks up the price not the insurer.

  • donbot on 21/02/2018 - 16:11
    +3

    I once had a not at fault claim. Reasonably major repairs (he hit from behind at speed).

    We exchanged insurance details, and I was advised by my insurance company to lodge a claim under my policy to get my car fixed ASAP, then leave it to them to deal with his insurer.

    Fast forward about 4 years - I receive a call out of the blue from my insurer who dealt with this claim (not my current insurer). They were in the midst of taking him to court to recover costs from him as his insurer had denied him coverage. If I didnt sign the forms - they would not be able to take action against the at fault party to recover the cost, and therefore would come after me. Needless to say, I signed the forms and never heard about it again… but it goes to show that despite the guy saying he'd do the right thing, etc - it didnt work out.

    TLDR - insurers are better at recovering costs than you will be, and not everyone who is willing to 'do the right thing by keeping it private' will do so. You pay an insurer to insure you - let them do what they do best.

  • Dealayed on 21/02/2018 - 17:06
    -2

    Shouldn't his CTP cover for any damage? CTP is compulsory so he should have had one right? If he doesn't have CTP, means his car wasn't registered and illegal to be on the road.

    • whooah1979 on 21/02/2018 - 17:29
      +4

      Shouldn't his CTP cover for any damage?

      No.

      • Dealayed on 21/02/2018 - 17:41
        +1

        Thanks. Always thought CTP covered property too. So what if the at fault driver with no comprehensive cover refuses to accept fault. There's nothing that would cover the other party?

        • try2bhelpful on 21/02/2018 - 17:49
          +1

          Only covers medical costs and compensation for injured drivers. I would like so see it extended as an extra fee under the scheme, but we won't go around that round about again.

        • ChickenTalon on 21/02/2018 - 18:03

          Always thought CTP covered property too.

          Dealayed member since 27/06/2010

          Jesus Christ. Half the forum threads on OzB highlight the fact that CTP car insurance doesn't cover property. Something fundamental needs to change here with our rego/insurance system to make it idiot proof.

          Yes harsh, and my frustration isn't directed specifically at you, more the confusing system.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/02/2018 - 18:28

          @ChickenTalon:

          Something fundamental needs to change here with our rego/insurance system to make it idiot proof.

          It's not intuitive. I found it confusing when I was first licensed. I had to pay registration, which included CTP insurance, but then I had to go and get more third party coverage. Someone had to explain the difference.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join