Our Car Was Rear Ended by a Stolen Vehicle during a Police Chase

Ldhon123 on 26/04/2023 - 00:59
Last edited 26/04/2023 - 09:43 by 1 other user

Dear Ozbargain Community,

We need to share a frustrating situation that we're currently facing. Recently, my mother's car - a 2009 Honda CRV Lux - was rear-ended by a stolen car that was being pursued by the police. Despite the fact that the other driver was fully covered by Allianz Insurance, we were informed on the phone that they are not liable for our damages, leaving us to bear the cost of the repairs.

The police investigation is close to completion and the suspect, a 17-year-old repeat offender, has been identified. However, this does not help in terms of the financial burden that we are facing as a result of the collision. Unfortunately, we don't have comprehensive insurance since the car is an older model. We are considering legal action, however we don't know where to start and we are quite shocked that Allianz allegedly do not insure damage to other property if their clients car is stolen.

We could use your help and advice on how to navigate this complicated situation. If anyone has any experience with similar circumstances or can suggest resources to aid in this process, we would be grateful for your support.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Automotive Car Honda

closed Comments

    • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 18:45

      Depending on the state you can go after them in small claims, no lawyer required (or allowed) and if they ever get an income you can have their wages garnished. If people owe you money it’s actually really hard to get out of unless they die before earning anything significant on the books.

      In QLD you have to know how to fill out all the paperwork etc but yes, you too can have an angry ex convict showing up at your place when they realize you’re getting some of their pay.

      Many third party insurers will pay you up to $5k (even without comprehensive) if you can identify the at fault driver and they will go through this process to get their money (eventually) back in most instances.

  • djkelly69 on 26/04/2023 - 07:59

    Assuming the driver wouldn't likely have sufficient assets to be worth chasing, can you seek criminal injuries compensation?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2023 - 08:39
      +5

      As the name suggests, criminal injuries compensation is for injuries, victims of violent crime. Not people that are too cheap to get insurance.

      • djkelly69 on 26/04/2023 - 09:40

        Google suggests it varies from state to state. NSW seems to specify 'violent crime', but it looks like most other states just say 'victims of crime' which obviously the OP is.

        However it does only seem to cover personal injury not property damage, so no help for the OP.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2023 - 11:35

          If you look closer, you'll see that most do say violent crime. The OP is not a victim of crime, so much as a victim of a traffic accident. If the OP was injured in this accident, then there is compulsory third party insurance to cover that.

          To cover financial loss from a traffic accident you have optional insurance. If the OP is a victim of anything, it is choosing not to take up that insurance.

          • SpicyStew on 26/04/2023 - 21:58

            @[Deactivated]: There is no mention of the charges the teen faces so nobody here knows what the crime(s) is/are..

  • 87percent on 26/04/2023 - 08:47
    +3

    was wondering something..

    lets say im driving in a 2 lane road in the left hand lane. A car in the right hand lane swerves into the left hand lane, and i have to swerve out of my lane to avoid getting hit. When swerving, i hit a the gutter/tree/whatever and i damage my car. If i have a dashcam, and can identify the other driver, would they be liable at all?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2023 - 08:59
      +1

      If you can prove another person is at fault, and they can be identified, then your insurance will chase that other person for compensation.

    • lachhelix on 26/04/2023 - 11:07
      +9

      Coming from first hand experience with almost the exact same thing (albeit in someone else's car, before dashcams were a thing) insurance said no, you can't prove they were going to actually hit you, they could have just gone back into their lane and you overreacted - it was total BS

      • Sleeqb7 on 26/04/2023 - 11:15
        +10

        I've heard a similar story in which the advice from the insurance company boiled down to "Next time, let them hit you".

        • CMH on 26/04/2023 - 18:03
          +1

          I'm in this camp, and I've had a few such prangs.

          Some of these drivers have even gone to court over it. Based on my insurer contacting me about more information.

          Still yet to pay an excess. My rate hasn't gone up neither. Same rate as a new customer with 0 claims.

    • johnfuller on 28/04/2023 - 09:14

      NO! you are 100% liable, they didnt touch your car so they didnt cause the accident.

  • Daniel Plainview on 26/04/2023 - 08:49
    +36

    It's a crap situation and I don't think a small minority of the OzB community needs to rub the OP's face in it by repeatedly saying "Oh well if you'd had comprehensive insurance it would have covered it." etc - yes looking at you @jv amongst others.

    OP did nothing wrong, crap situation and I'm surprised there's not a clause (or Govt legislation) to compensate uninvolved 3rd parties in such matters, where their insurance or others do not apply. Amongst all ones costs these days, its understandable for a number of reasons that motor insurance other than full comprehensive may be chosen.

    Not a huge fan of the repeated 'victim shaming' some derive glee in lumping on folks here, they came for guidance not that.

    My only advise for the OP might be to speak to the Police, then also any motor bodies you're a member of e.g NRMA, then perhaps consumer regulatory bodies in the state - those are all the free ones - then perhaps you'll have to go and have an initial chat with a lawyer - as it might be throwing good money after bad - but it may well be that civil action against the offender (which you would be 100% certain to win) might be viable - just that they are a repeat offender does not mean their family would not have the means to cover your costs.

    best of luck.

    • CrowReally on 26/04/2023 - 09:04
      +4

      People do like a pile-on, but I think also ignorance/excuse shaming. Sentences like "Unfortunately, we don't have comprehensive insurance since the car is an older model" is 'dog ate my homework' nonsense.

      I personally agree with you that there's still value in discussing the question/what the options would be, but with sentences like that sticking in OP's post you're also spending your time doing the adult research for someone who's not fully adulting.

      • Daniel Plainview on 26/04/2023 - 09:34
        +2

        I don't like to speak for other people but I think it's pretty clear that not having comprehensive insurance was, argueably atleast for many people fundamentally sound - their car had a low value - so they possibly had 3rd party only - so they'd cover others costs if the accident was their fault but not their own. I don't think this is a terrible line of thinking nor 'trying to cheap out' etc. e.g driving uninisured.

        I think they just didn't fully explain their basis for going 3rd party (assume they had this atleast?) - but we can read between the lines and I don't think that makes this a 'you should have known better, so take what you deserve' type situation. :-)

        • CrowReally on 26/04/2023 - 10:09
          +2

          I'm going to have to beg to differ on this one. They made a value decision that it's wasn't "worth it" to have insurance on their old car because 'hey what's going to happen to it right?'. You can call it "fundamentally sound" if you want, but it really just means you agree with them on the risk/reward gambit.

          Anyway, The Thing Happened To It and they betted on the wrong side. This is the time to own the decision and move on.

          Anyone who makes a decision to self-insure/save money and then moans about what they're going to do when The Thing Happens deserves that level of feedback because they're not adulting. (For the record I don't think OP is pissing and moaning in that fashion, I'm just frankly sick of "insurance is for fools crash oh shit life's unfair help" posts).

        • em on 26/04/2023 - 10:53
          +1

          If you can't afford to replace your own car, you need to get comprehensive insurance. You cannot assume that anyone you get into an accident with will have their own insurance which will cover your car. Most people I've known who have been in car accidents have found out the other party were uninsured or even worse, unlicensed/unregistered.

      • ssfps on 27/04/2023 - 00:28
        +3

        Hopefully some of these commenters can have their car or home hit by a meteor, lightening, a flash flood, or some other event where their precious insurance has some act-of-god clause that means insurance won't pay out. Then we can have a poetic justice pile-on thread for even more entertainment.

        • AdosHouse on 27/04/2023 - 22:15

          Comprehensive insurance will pay out for Act of God, just classified as an at fault claim.

      • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 18:49
        +1

        The worst part is all the people ‘playing adults’ who don’t realise even most third party insurers cover up to $5k if not at fault. So they respond with ‘sucks to be you, should have known better’ every, single, time, this topic comes up they’re corrected, they still can’t help repeating the same unhelpful nonsense.

    • Domingo on 26/04/2023 - 09:04
      +3

      How dare you try to be reasonable and constructive in these forums. Your kind are not welcome here
      /s

      Good luck OP, and sorry to hear about your situation. Hopefully it isn't too impactful, but the reality is in the short term you're going to have to sort something out. You may be able to get a court order for the offender to pay for the damage done, but chances are it'll be on a payment plan over a long period of time as they don't sound like someone with much income earning capacity, so consider just moving on as one of your options.

      You can consider that you have self insured by saving money on comprehensive insurance over the years, so the money that you've saved can now go towards a replacement.

    • deme on 26/04/2023 - 09:34
      -4

      No OzBargain, has constantly said why you should get Comprehensive insurance. It should be drilled into you by now.
      OP can use all that money they saved from not paying for it to pay for a new car.

      OP did nothing wrong, crap situation and I'm surprised there's not a clause (or Govt legislation) to compensate uninvolved 3rd parties in such matters, where their insurance or others do not apply

      It is already, the thief is liable. How do you think insurance works? The thief is still liable they'll chase them for the cash.
      Stop trying to get the public to pay for you.

      Amongst all ones costs these days, its understandable for a number of reasons that motor insurance other than full comprehensive may be chosen.

      If you cannot afford to be out of a car then you cannot afford not to have comprehensive insurance.

      We are considering legal action

      LOL you didn't want to pay for comprehensive insurance but you are willing to pay for this?

      Take this an expensive lesson in life and get comprehensive insurance. (You will right?)

      • cookie2 on 26/04/2023 - 21:37
        +1

        I feel like you missed @Nikko point.

      • greatlamp on 26/04/2023 - 22:18

        The consensus has not been to get comprehensive at any price. I mentioned previously that I paid $700 comprehensive insurer for a $5000 car and collected a number of negative votes.

        My rationale was that even if I was not at fault, 3rd party only insurance is close to useless as the insurer will make you do all the legwork and identify/chase the other party. With comprehensive insurance, the insurer must pay themselves if they don't do the legwork to take the other party to court.

        • Deridas on 26/04/2023 - 22:23

          $700pa insurance for a max $5k payout, so in other words if you feel the probability of having a total loss is 1 in 7, then get the comprehensive insurance, otherwise I'd rather risk the lost car. The average driver does not cause total loss/5k damage once per 7 years, therefore $700pa for a $5k car is not work it.

          Of course, if you have so little savings you can't re-buy a 5k car if you crash your current car, and you must have it for work, that's another story. Though if you can't afford a 5k car, then not sure whether you're willing to part ways with $700pa for the comprehensive insurance.

          • greatlamp on 26/04/2023 - 22:26

            @Deridas: Not that simple. The chances of me incurring over $5000 of damage? Quite low.

            The chances of incurring between the excess and $4999 damage? Much much higher.

      • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 18:56
        +1

        Ozbargain is constantly wrong about what most third party property insurance covers. Sure, if at fault, sucks to not have comprehensive. But if the other part is uninsured, identified, and you have third party property insurance they will usually cover up to $5k on your car, which really makes sense if you have a very cheap car. They then pursue the at fault party for reimbursement directly, which they’re well setup to do.

        Stop spreading misinformation. It’s a cheap lesson but Ozbargain can’t seem to learn it.

        OP doesn’t need a lawyer, they need to talk to their (hopefully they have third party property insurance or they actually are stupid) insurance. Failing that they need to send a letter of demand and depending on the state file with small claims.

        Comprehensive insurance isn’t necessarily a requirement if you have a car <$5k and you accept you will be fully out of pocket if you are at fault. If your excess is high enough it can be utterly worthless.

    • Muzeeb on 26/04/2023 - 09:40
      +5

      My only advise

      What about spelling shaming?

      Is that allowed?

    • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 09:52
      +1

      Finally, some empathy for the OP.

      The one interesting avenue that could be worth throwing out there is:

      Given the accident happened as a result of a police chase - wild wild thought there - is there potential to have gov. pay for this? if no police chase, arguably no accident right?

      Surely i'll get some heat for the above but I feel for OP who just parked their car on their street and a police chase resulted in a rear ending.

      • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 11:28
        +1

        Yes, it's totally on the police, and not the guy who stole the car. If you want to blame anyone, blame the courts, who let repeat offending scumbags off with a slap on the wrist.

        • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 12:09
          +2

          Lose the silly sarcasm. Just makes you look an uneducated adult.

          Courts make a ruling based on information presented. This particuar situation isn't quite black and white which makes it interesting. Think about it this way:

          If the stolen car, without a police instigated car chase, crashed into your car, no questions. Only one party to chase, ie, the driver. However, police started a chase and it may have increased the likelihood of public danger, i.e, driver speeds up, makes sharp turns, etc. Then why wouldn't you blame the police? Stolen car is hardly a serious crime, so why endanger the public with it?

          Lets up the ante on consequences for a second, if the stolen vehicle, due to a police chase, increases speed and drives more recklessly, hits and killed a pedestrian (separate note, green slip covers it I think? covers the car vs. driver - someone will check i'm sure), would you solely blame the driver? or do you think the police are partly at fault too?

          Btw, there are hundreds of these cases in the US (i'm sure in AUS too) where the police not making sensible judgements harms the public as a result. Some win, some lose - each needs to be judged case by case. All I'm saying is in this situation, its worth looking at the broader circumstance - there may be some fault on part by the Police, resulting in this car crash. If there is, OP could pursue it.

          • CMH on 26/04/2023 - 18:08
            +1

            @Bargainitis:

            Stolen car is hardly a serious crime, so why endanger the public with it?

            But it is usually the start of a serious crime spree. First step to committing a serious crime is to get a stolen car you can ditch after the act.

          • MrFrugalSpend on 26/04/2023 - 20:44
            +1

            @Bargainitis: "Hardly a serious crime"?" Most are being stolen through home invasions that are terrifying tens of thousands on mass or sometimes car jackings with violence in carparks etc. I know several people that have endured home invasions with groups of youths with knives etc in their home in the middle of the night to get said cars, kicking doors in, etc…they haven't been able to sleep at night or return to feeling safe in their own home months later, then the thieves drive them erratically (not usually with the police chase, those are much rarer with the rules to protect public safety these days, but just in general), so there's been plenty more articles of serious injuries and death from accidents they cause, sometimes innocent victims, then write them off for a simple joyride putting tends of thousands onto insurers they are passing the cost of onto us, making it harder to get insurance, then the youth justice system just wants to give them a hug and blame their upbringing, and they are out doing the same thing the next weekend, rinse and repeat and repeat again…. Its a very serious issue, which can then lead to even greater crimes, and I wish people would start taking it more seriously and we'd have far less of the situations like the OP is in!

            • Eeples on 27/04/2023 - 13:30
              +1

              @MrFrugalSpend: And this needs to be balanced with the police chasing and endangering the lives of themselves, pedestrians, the thieves, and other road users.

              There is no easy answer.

              • AdosHouse on 27/04/2023 - 22:20

                @Eeples: So you think these people steal cars and then grandma drive the cars? No, they are already endangering other people before the police arrive.

                My easy answer is a police chopper with a 50 cal armed door sniper aiming for the drivers seat. But apparently that offends people.

            • MementoMori on 27/04/2023 - 17:59

              @MrFrugalSpend: Agree - they should deport them

        • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 13:27

          lol nice downvote mate. notice I didn't downvote you? Shows your maturity level, child.

          • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 13:35

            @Bargainitis: https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/268582/103245/screensh…

            I didn't downvote you. Nice random attack though. It is possible other people think your comment is stupid.

            • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 13:49

              @brendanm: I apologise then.

              Back to attacking eachother on this topic then…

              • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 16:10

                @Bargainitis: I didn't attack you over this topic either. People just need to take some personal responsibility.

                • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 16:58

                  @brendanm: sorry jokes aside though, my follow-up post - you still don't see any merit to it?

                  You are effectively asking the OP to take responsibilty for damage that wasn't their fault.

                  If you consider the waterfall of responsibility, I would order it as:

                  1) driver / perpertrator (legally behind the wheel and crashed into OP's car)
                  2) police (instigated the chase, leading to the crash into OP's car)
                  3) owner of the stolen vehicle (car being involved in the crash)

                  I mean, where does the OP sit in this? I'm baffled. Help me understand - instead of saying "you wrong, F you", talk to me with some logic. I'm open to new information / thought processes.

                  • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 17:03
                    +2

                    @Bargainitis: I didn't say "you're wrong, f you".

                    Op was the one who decided to take out 3rd party on the car. They knew that this would mean that insurance would only pay out to fix someone else's car if op hit them. They knew that it would not pay for repairs to their own car.

                    They figure that the reward of lower prices was worth the risk of damage happening to their car, that they may have to pay for. The taxpayer should not be liable for ops choice.

                    • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 17:16

                      @brendanm: I think people who buy third party insurance go in with the mindset that if someone hits their car, they would be able to pursue the at-fault driver / insurer. However, if a branch falls or some ahole in the shopping centre decides to key their car, etc, they are not covered. Those risks seem acceptable risk in the grand scheme of things. Thats how I think about third party insurance anyway.

                      However, in the situation of the OP, another external force has led to their car getting damaged, ie., a police chase resulting in a stolen car crashing into theirs. Like I said already, if there was no chase, and a stolen car just so happens to crash into it, I would accept my fate but if its a situation where the police could have potentially caused it, why wouldn't you consider them partly to blame?

                      p.s if the government ends up paying, they will likely claim funds from the perpertrator. Frankly, they will have much better luck getting recovery than a normal citizen, i.e, they could deduct from perpetrator's future pay, withhold centrelink payments, etc.

                      p.p.s. I didn't downvote your other post, just to be clear :D

                      • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 18:28

                        @Bargainitis: The same thing would happen if any uninsured driver hit ops car, up shit creek without a paddle.

                        • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 19:11

                          @brendanm: You’re not reading my replies in completeness. Anyway, let’s move on.

                          See you next thread.

                          • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 20:36
                            -3

                            @Bargainitis: I'm not replying to all of it, because most is irrelevant if you read my last reply.

                        • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 19:02

                          @brendanm: Third party property usually (in every policy I’ve seen) covers damage done by an uninsured driver to your car up to $5k. So if your car is worth less than that you’re basically covered just the same as comprehensive provided you can identify the at fault party (and it’s not you).

                    • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 17:18
                      +2

                      @brendanm: Anyway, i'm done with this thread, I also hate when people spend time responding and the OP doesn't even reply or follow up.

                      What a waste of time.

                      thumbs down to OP

      • MrFrugalSpend on 26/04/2023 - 20:36
        +2

        Why should I pay (as a taxpayer) because the OP risked the value of their car by not having insurance because they didn't deem it worth it for the old value of the car! FFS. I'm already paying for trying to catch the little prick

    • lostgoat on 26/04/2023 - 10:42

      They have no clue of the risk/reward equation always in favour of the insurer (and not by a small % ) .
      Hence better off not paying it long term .

      • derrida derider on 26/04/2023 - 18:09

        Better off not paying it IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE LOSS (ie self-insure). You have to be very well heeled indeed to go without TPP - you could hit a Ferrari, or wreck a bridge. Of course the odds of that are so low that its like winning Powerball but in reverse - but then each week someone somewhere wins Powerball.

        • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 19:05

          Third party property should really be compulsory, it’s so minimal even if you could afford to write off someone else’s major infrastructure.

          Comprehensive may not be worth it if your car is worth less than $5k (as most TPP policies cover up to $5k anyway if you can identify an external at fault party), though for that reason it’s often a relatively small increase for drivers with good safety records.

    • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 11:25
      +1

      Lol, why should taxpayers have to pay to compensate someone who didn't adequately insure their car?

      • pegaxs on 26/04/2023 - 16:47
        +2

        For the same reason why we pay out all these people that live on flood plains that cant afford the $29,000 insurance bill each year to replace their house and all their good when it all gets washed away every decade or so…

        • brendanm on 26/04/2023 - 17:05
          -2

          Yes, that's a bit of a mystery as well. It's the government's fault I bought a house on a flood plain!

          • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 19:08

            @brendanm: Annoyingly they seem to issue building permits and collect taxes on selling such homes, before altering the landscape to make flooding more likely. \o/ utter mystery why they let people build places they know are going to flood. Should be stopped at the permit stage and land swaps rather than allowing rebuilding. And enforce flood proof designs for areas where that isn’t possible.

    • Davo1111 on 26/04/2023 - 13:08
      +2

      Not a huge fan of the repeated 'victim shaming' some derive glee in lumping on folks here, they came for guidance not that.

      There seems to be a lot of uninsured posts on this forum for things that occured "out of their control" - too many imo. That should be a reminder to all that if you are financially prepared to surrender your car at any moment if you dont have comprehensive insurance.

      My car is insured for 18,000 and cost $508.94 for comprehesive - with a $550 excess. (i'm looking at the bill now). That, in the scheme of things, is not a lot. Although i could be in the same position as OP, save like $200 and just take out 3rd party….WCGW?

      • Eeples on 26/04/2023 - 18:17

        Hey. My car is worth about that and the want $700 to renew my comprehensive insurance.

        Who are you with?

      • Guybrush57 on 26/04/2023 - 20:51

        Wow. My car has a $700 premium + $850 excess for only $8500 value. Your insurance is a bloody good deal.

      • JumperC on 27/04/2023 - 19:16

        If the car is worth less than $5k, and you identify the at fault party, under most TPP policies they will pay you out (up to $5k) and chase the at fault party. So in that instance, no difference. Only matters if you’re unable to identify the at fault party (or are at fault) and have a >$5k car.

        You can still chase up an at faulty party yourself, it’s annoying but doable. My first car decades ago the insurance premium if I wanted comprehensive was more than the car was worth!!!!

        • Davo1111 on 27/04/2023 - 20:10
          +1

          But OP can't provide the insurer with the at-fault party, the car is worth more than 5k, and we don't know if OPs policy even has that rule.

          0/3

    • whatgift on 27/04/2023 - 17:19

      While I'm sure it's tough for the OP to read, anyone who spends any time in these forums knows they are going to get some random responses with things that won't help them but might be good to know, along with some helpful advice. The fact is that the consensus is that OP has little recourse, hence why the insurance response comes up repeatedly.

      I always find you need to take the bad with the good on these forums - you will get good advice, amongst a lot of questionable stuff and a high dose of reality. The old "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" adage works quite well here.

      Edit: I also think people are weary of "outrage" articles in the media, expecting a highly emotional response to a bad luck situation, expecting someone/something to intervene.

  • foxmulder on 26/04/2023 - 08:55
    -4

    Sound like a case for itsnotmyfault.com.au

  • WreckTangle on 26/04/2023 - 09:29
    +1

    Think about how much comprehensive insurance would’ve cost you. Now think about how much a lawyer is going to cost….

    • deme on 26/04/2023 - 09:42

      Wallstreetbets level IQ

    • seannami on 26/04/2023 - 09:53

      Free community legal is your friend

  • GordonR on 26/04/2023 - 09:44

    Only one person wins if you get a lawyer involved (spoiler: it isn’t you).

    • Muzeeb on 26/04/2023 - 09:51

      And the 17 year old gets a free ill fitting suit from legal aid to wear on court day. That's a win in my books.

  • JimB on 26/04/2023 - 10:10
    +2

    We had an older car stolen that had only 3rd party damage insurance (no fire and theft).

    Police found the trashed car and the thief. Asked us to collect the car.

    They wouldn't even tell us who the thief was or if they were being charged etc. Kept in the dark.

    Drove it for 3 more years before we took it to the wreckers. Couldn't sell it due to the damage, not worth fixing. It was 20 years old but only had 160k on the clock.

    We didn't bother trying to sue the thief.. can't get money from drug addict scumbag. We know it was a drug addict as there was drug paraphernalia in the car upon return along was other brand new stolen items.

    Sorry OP, your mother will just have to wear it. Move on… either drive it like that, try to fix it cheaply or take it to the wreckers. The law is way too soft to deter offenders.

    • trapper on 26/04/2023 - 11:42

      Police found the trashed car and the thief. Asked us to collect the car.

      They wouldn't even tell us who the thief was or if they were being charged etc. Kept in the dark.

      Wow, that sucks

      • JimB on 26/04/2023 - 12:03
        +1

        yeah, very disappointing.

        I suspect the detective on my case was too busy and the general police wouldn't release the information to me.

        I would have thought I'll be able to find out who it was, what they were arrested for and then given the court date.

        The rights of law abiding citizens are next to nil compared the criminals.

        • Protractor on 26/04/2023 - 20:42

          "The rights of law abiding citizens are next to nil compared the criminals."
          Mmmmm hmmmm

    • Poor Ass on 26/04/2023 - 11:42
      +1

      did you get to keep the brand new stolen items and what were they?

      • JimB on 26/04/2023 - 12:12

        Sunglasses, perfume, nitrile gloves, clothes, some other odd bits that I gave away.

        Some used items were socket set, tools, balaclava. Basically tools of the trade for break ins. Nitrile gloves to avoid finger prints, doesn't tear like regular rubber gloves.

        I only kept the socket set and Nitrile gloves.

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/04/2023 - 13:28

          I only kept the ….. Nitrile gloves.

          &

          Nitrile gloves to avoid finger prints, doesn't tear like regular rubber gloves.

          So…..? Don't leave us hanging.

  • solidussnake on 26/04/2023 - 10:25

    Another day another no insurance post, even on older cars it's like $500 a year to insure

    could OP try QCAT or something as it's only a small free to organise but doubt the kid will pay it back should be the parents !

  • GordonD on 26/04/2023 - 10:31
    +2

    There's no chance the OP's mum will get any compensation for damage to the car. She's not insured for it. The owner of the other car's insurer isn't responsible, and you'll never get anything by suing the thief.

    But in the case of personal injury there is a nominal defendant who steps in to cover compensation for personal injury in circumstances where the party responsible couldn't be identified, wasn't insured or their insurance company has gone belly up.

    So think very carefully about whether your mother suffered any hidden hard-to-prove-didn't-happen psychological or physical injury. It might be that she did, and the compensation for that will get her car fixed. Not that I'd suggest faking an injury, but you really do need to be sure you haven't suffered some injury that will surface years down the track when its too late to do anything about. So you need to get it on record now if there's anything, no matter how small or seemingly irrelevant, that could possibly be signs of an injury.

  • Protractor on 26/04/2023 - 10:39
    -2

    Oops!
    Insurance is cheap insurance.

    Also highlights the stupidity of 90% of police chases. They instigate them. They should pay from their budget. (there goes their pay rises) Why chase an insured car at all when they have time and resources to passively track (chopper & plain cars) until it's safe to slow the car or block it in?

    ( Chasing a serial killer or terrorists through built up areas might be justified, but demolition derby for unpaid fines, stolen cars or 'acting suspicious' isn't, in a world where most cars are insured)

    Why would a person think the age of the car justifies NOT insuring it? Sounds like it was a HOS to begin with.

    • GordonD on 26/04/2023 - 10:47
      +1

      Police do have policies in this regard that require them to drop a pursuit if there's risk to the public. They get as much criticism that they're letting car thieves get away to do it again another day when they drop pursuits as they do when pursuits go wrong and injury or damage happens. They are trying to do the right thing. Sometimes what seems to be the right thing at the time will turn out to have not been enough in that specific situation, and sometimes it'll turn out to have been too much.

      In a lot of cases police quickly drop the pursuit when they see the thief is willing to do crazy stupid dangerous things, but the thief keeps running and crashes anyway.

      • Protractor on 26/04/2023 - 11:10
        -3

        They instigate most for spurious reasons. Most offenders were NOT speeding to begin with. The choice to instigate and chase , and all the downstream outcomes is 'protected' by the universal police get out of jail card. .'Chase aborted'.
        As I said they have more than enough resources to corner ,trap or slow stolen cars. Almost every state police union wants or already has more powers to be more aggressive in chases. Doesn't sound like they want less chases to me or anyone else watching the rise in pointless carnage every day .

        • CrowReally on 26/04/2023 - 11:58

          "They instigate most for spurious reasons"

          Citation needed (this is where you type "my brain told me, then I checked with it and it agreed")

          • Protractor on 26/04/2023 - 20:09
            -2

            @CrowReally: Justify the massive amount of chases for pretty crap, the risk to the rest of road users and pedestrians & then get back to me.The action should justify the results. The record is all there in coroners in every state. (There's your citation)
            Dead innocent victims and their families left behind, 'because stolen car' is OK with you?
            Unpaid fines, acting suspicious are heinous reasons?

            Here's one example.
            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-13/coroner-report-on-17-…

            There are dozens (hundreds?) of cases like this and they are growing in number. (Use your chosen search engine "state coroner condemns police chases")

            Cowboys in uniform.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2023 - 21:59
            -1

            @CrowReally: Sorry, but he's at least partially correct. I was driving when a slow truck appeared right after a 90km/h sign. I overtook the truck but as I did the truck obscured another speed limit sign of 80km/h just 20m from the 90km/h one. Then there was a third about another 20m back up to 90. A cop with a handheld radar got me, did some weird pointing action with his arm. I was still in the right lane with another car beside me by now in the left lane. I didn't know if he was pointing at me, or the car beside me, or what. As far as I knew it was 90km/h all the way along and at most I was doing 92… So what is he doing with his arm, surely he's not pointing at me, and the car between me and him didn't stop although it seemed to be doing the same speed!? I'm so confused…

            I couldn't get across to the left, but knew there was a roundabout 200m ahead. So I slowed down, kept driving, the cars around me finally cleared as they went off in different directions from the roundabout, and came back around to where his cop car was parked planning to walk across and ask if he wanted me. But he'd gone!? As I was looking forward and backwards trying to judge If I was in the right spot, I realised he was behind me, lights flashing but invisible on a sunny day AND he was so far up my bumper I could only see his dark windscreen filling my rear view mirror. I'd never seen a car so close in my mirror before, no white of his vehicle visible because he was so close. He's now banging on my window screaming at me for "not stopping when I directed you too" lol.

            I thought I was in a 90 zone the entire time, had never seen a cop do that weird arm waving signal before, the car beside me didn't stop either, I couldn't have gone from the extreme right lane across to the left lane and off the road safely with the surrounding moving traffic anyway, AND had come back to check if he wanted me.

            As his ranting began to calm I realised what had happened. He had thrown his radar gun onto his seat (I was out of the car now so I could see it there), jumped in, screamed into traffic to follow me around the roundabout like a bat out of hell to stop me "escaping" even though I was driving at… what speed can you do around a small roundabout… 20km/h or less? Then ~40km/h or less back to where I'd seen his car ending in a slow crawl so I didn't overshoot his car position, and he was now going bezerk, adrenaline pumping, shouting at me all because the government coffers might miss out on a piddling $120 or so for doing 10km/h over along a perfectly straight road with only bushland and no side roads on both sides. (I've looked at the road many times since then and there's no reason why the speed limit should drop along a perfectly straight bush-lined road with no side streets or buildings or anything else, then go back up again in such a short distance. Except of course to create revenue.)

            After rattling off questions and accusations rapid-fire like a machine gun and not being able to get a word in, he finally realises what I'm saying, began to calm down, and even eventually tells me HOW TO GET OUT OF PAYING THE FINE due to missing the sign behind the truck. HAHAHA! (Which btw I still paid.)

            So yes, they really ARE far too aggressive.

  • bohn on 26/04/2023 - 10:52
    +2

    Unfortunately, we don't have comprehensive insurance since the car is an older model

    People should only take this position IF they have sufficient funds to replace the car in the event of a situation like this. If it's going to be a burden, best to get comprehensive insurance.

    • kerfuffle on 26/04/2023 - 10:54

      People should only take this position IF they have sufficient funds to replace the car in the event of a situation like this

      Or if they can be bothered doing their own chasing up when someone damages their car.

    • lostgoat on 26/04/2023 - 10:56
      -5

      @boh If you don't have a clue of mathematics with the risk and reward equation .
      Be a sheep and make profits for the insurers.
      I know you have no clue .

  • Bargainitis on 26/04/2023 - 11:03

    To the people who are questioning why the OP didn't buy comprehensive insurance - its not that they think they aren't allowed to buy it, its because its probably not worth paying for it. A 2009 Honda CRV is probably worth $8K-$10K, comprehensive is probably still close to $1K a year whereas third party is likely a third of that. You do the math.

    OP, have you considered pushing this to the fault of the police? A wild stab in the dark but no car chase, no accident right?

    I just don't know where to start on this - this wouldn't be a criminal case so its civil case at best? OP vs. DPP - I dunno, pay $144 to serve the DPP, self represent, might have half a chance? At least you won't die wondering.

    Thinking out loud, your argument being:

    1) property legally parked on the street adhering to all regulations, i.e., within the lines, not near corners, etc.
    2) Police instigates car chase, likely to have resulted in increased speed for the perpertrator, increasing chance of dangering the public. Police should have exercised better judgement for public safety, ie, called off the chase, slowed down, etc.
    3) Police failed to exercise competent judgment given the situation, leading to a car accident where by the vehicle has resulted in damage

    Maybe quarter chance? :D

    • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2023 - 20:56

      To the people who are questioning why the OP didn't buy comprehensive insurance - its not that they think they aren't allowed to buy it, its because its probably not worth paying for it. A 2009 Honda CRV is probably worth $8K-$10K, comprehensive is probably still close to $1K a year whereas third party is likely a third of that. You do the math.

      Then get another quote… and it's always worth paying it. When I took out a new policy with Shannon's the difference between 3rd party and comprehensive was about $140. We have to pay the 3rd party at least anyway, so you consider its cost = $0 or the starting point. So comprehensive for another couple of hundred $ is nothing. I can't think of any time comp was 3x the 3rd price, but maybe some insurers are!?

  • Dalton on 26/04/2023 - 11:21
    +1

    We're trained to expect consequences for our actions. We expect other people will face consequences for their actions. We don't expect that someone who trashes thousands of dollars worth of our stuff will get away with it, but that expectation isn't reality.

  • mrvaluepack on 26/04/2023 - 11:22

    Lets assume a meteorite hit your car and destroyed it and nothing else around it. This would be the same scenario. Just get a new one or next time buy comprehensive insurance if you are worried about unexpected events.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join