Vehicle Insurance Claim– Is This Normal as Something Doesn’t Add up?

dinduboy1 on 02/04/2026 - 23:01
Last edited 03/04/2026 - 09:42 by 1 other user

Hi all, reaching out to get some guidance regarding a recent vehicle insurance claim I’ve filed.

My motorbike was intentionally knocked over in my apartment carpark, and as a result, the engine has sustained damages and requires repair.

I went through the proper channels by lodging a police report in ACT and submitting CCTV footage to the police which clearly shows the driver and the vehicle’s number plate. The police has now finalised the report and has indicated no offender details could be provided since no one nominated the identity of the person in the footage. The report though does include the vehicle registration details and who it’s registered to, and the police advised that insurance companies should be able to access this information via a Freedom of Information request.

Now, here’s where I’m facing a dilemma: my insurance company is insisting that I pay the excess amount in order to proceed with the insurance claim because I was not able to provide the name, address, and phone number of the offender. As someone new to insurance claims, this strikes me as a bit odd, especially given I’ve supplied all possible information. Is it normal/standard practice and are there other ways to challenge their decision?

I would really appreciate your insight on this matter and thank you in advance for your help!

Automotive Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • Iwantthebestprice on 02/04/2026 - 23:21
    +13

    This will be a tough one, if the registered owner of the car fails to tell the police who the driver was at the time of the accident, who do you go after?
    You need the drivers details to avoid paying excess.
    All the police can do is try and contact the registered owner of the car to ask if they were driving they either said no they weren’t, or the police couldn’t get hold of them.
    From here it’s a civil matter and will be up to you and your insurance company.
    But yes, you are required to pay excess if you do not have the drivers licence details, name and address.
    Having the registration details is not enough.
    Source - been in this same situation when someone hit me on the road, took off and then when police spoke to them they denied they were driving at the time. I was stuck paying the excess and having an at fault claim against my name.

    • kraigg on 03/04/2026 - 08:18
      +13

      Your experience mirrors mine, where someone hit me on the road and did a runner. I had to fill out a police report for the insurance company, and I had to pay the excess. Police went to knock on her door, several times, she either wasn't home or wasn't opening the door. They finally managed to track her down after almost a year, and she denied she was the one driving, despite the dashcam evidence. They took her to court and she lost, and I got my excess back from the insurance company.

      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 08:35
        +2

        They took her to court and she lost, and I got my excess back from the insurance company.

        May I ask who took her to court?

        • MS Paint on 03/04/2026 - 08:38
          +20

          May I ask who took her to court?

          She probably drove herself or possibly an Uber.

    • DPW on 03/04/2026 - 08:17
      +8

      The ACT Police need to do their job and issue a Notice Of Demand and if the registered owner doesn’t comply then charge them.

      https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/poa19…

      • Grunntt on 03/04/2026 - 10:19
        +1

        You do realise that the link you provided is to "Tasmanian Consolidated Acts" so not sure why ACT Police would need to follow it.

        • DPW on 06/04/2026 - 09:04

          Whoops, ACT reference
          https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/rta19…

          • Muppet Detector on 07/04/2026 - 05:33

            @DPW: First, note the use of the word may. May does not mean must.

            Police officer or authorised person may require people to disclose identity of driver

            Police may determine that registered owner has a valid alibi that they weren't driver and likely could not have known who was (dead or incarcerated?), or perhaps it was already known that that vehicle or the number plates were reported stolen etc thus no utility in pursuing the registered owner…

            However, if police officer determines that pursuit of the offender is 'worthwhile' (gravity of potential offence that may be pursued and the cost for doing that)…

            The available defence:

            s2 "despite reasonable diligence, i simply cannot work out who was driving that vehicle at the time of the offence"

            • I live in a shared household, I asked all of my housemates if they had been using my car and they all said "no".

            • I asked as many of my friends and family who I thought may also have access to my car and they all said "no" as well.

            "so I don't know what else I could do, but I just don't know who was using that vehicle at that time"

            OR

            "car is a company car to which eight people had access, but none of them will acknowledge that they were driving"

            Even if the defence fails, the maximum penalty is $3,200. No demerit points. No criminal record. No risk of incarceration, not even community service. Repercussions are not much more than a parking ticket or seatbelt fine.

            Somebody in line for a much more serious penalty (particularly if in the commission of another serious unlawful act, unlicensed, uninsured, dui, breach bail or probation conditions etc), if they were identified as the driver at that time may be tempted to refuse to comply and take or pay the lesser penalty.

            As police and court resources are finite, they have to decide how much effort will be involved vs the "reward" for them doing so.

            Remember, even if driver is identified, they can only be charged for the offence that can be proven they did commit, not for ones that they didn't. (Eg: dangerous driving or failure to stop at red light, may be crime, but "he nearly hit that pedestrian, but didn't" or "he flipped off other drivers", may not be.

            • DPW on 07/04/2026 - 08:14
              +1

              @Muppet Detector: Thanks for the detailed explanation. Pretty crap all around. Even though the OP has CCTV of the driver that could be shown to the owner

      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 08:39

        The ACT Police need to do their job and issue a Notice Of Demand and if the registered owner doesn’t comply then charge them.

        2(c)(ii)

        I don't know".

        Charge them with what?

    • try2bhelpful on 03/04/2026 - 09:29
      +4

      We had an issue with our car which was similar. This guy hit our car and took off. He then reported the car as stolen. Funnily enough it turned up around the corner from him a couple of days later. The cops can’t do anything. Hopefully this will be less of an issue with dash cam footage if the driver can be identified.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/04/2026 - 11:43
      +4

      What am I missing here? OP has the name, address and rego via CCTV and police. OP submits those details to insurer and makes the claim. It's up to the insurer to pursue that individual and recover. Whatever the registered owner said to police is irrelevant. Also, phone number won't be a requirement under the the PDS.

      It's not OP's job to play detective from there.

      • derrida derider on 04/04/2026 - 16:00
        +1

        " OP has the name, address and rego via CCTV and police." - the point is he DOESN'T have the name and address.

        The police cannot provide that to him because of privacy. His insurance company is allowed to get name and address of registered owner from the police eventually, but they then have the problem of legally proving who was actually driving the car at the time.

        So insurance company is demanding an excess before they'll fix the car. In the event they find the driver and successfully sue him they have to refund the excess - but even that is months or even years away.

      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:09

        OP has the name, address and rego via CCTV and police.

        Why didn't you tell the OP that he has all that?

        It's up to the insurer to pursue that individual and recover.

        Yes.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/04/2026 - 12:16
          +2

          I just did.

          • gromit on 03/04/2026 - 12:40
            +2

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: well it will come as news to the OP as he has stated he doesn't have all that.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/04/2026 - 11:45
              -2

              @gromit: Likely, because the insurer is playing games. As they always do, especially for those unaware or haven't lodged a claim before.

              • gromit on 05/04/2026 - 12:16

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Nothing to do with playing games, you either have that info up front or you don't. If the insurance company gets the info themselves then they refund the excess, but until they have them the excess is well and truly on you to pay.

    • ATTS on 04/04/2026 - 15:09

      By not telling police who the driver wqs when asked coupd it be considered hindering police?

      I think for company cars u can not nominate driver to avoid the demerits and stuff aswell but you pay a huge fine right? I wonder if its similar to not telling police officer who was driving

      • Iwantthebestprice on 04/04/2026 - 18:41

        You’re right, when requested by the police the owner of a car must say who was driving at the time. But the issue is if the police can’t get in contact with the owner or the owner gives them the runaround the police seem very quick so just say it’s an insurance issue and a civil matter.
        In Victoria the police are so busy and stretched I honestly think they could not care less about matters like this and after attending the station twice I was told there is nothing more they can do and to go through insurance.

        • ATTS on 04/04/2026 - 21:05

          I see thanks

          Just curious what situation would it actually be considered a " hit and run"

          Thats when its becoming more serious issue right?

    • tubeidea on 02/04/2026 - 23:30
      -4

      This will be a tough one, if the registered owner of the car fails to tell the police who the driver was at the time of the accident, who do you go after?

      The registered owner. if they don't want to nominate anyone, then they're responsible.

      • Iwantthebestprice on 02/04/2026 - 23:35
        +10

        That’s not what happened with me. The driver told the police he was unsure who was driving at the time. The police told me this is a civil matter and to have my insurance company sort it out.
        My insurance company said if I don’t have the details I have to pay the excess.
        You can believe what you want and what the law says, but in practice it does not work out that way..

        • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 11:48
          +26

          What I find frustrating with this is that (in QLD at least, not sure about other states) if a driver receives a speeding fine from a camera, failing to nominate the driver means the registered owner is deemed responsible, resulting in the fine and demerit points being applied to their license. The same should apply to a hit & run incident.

          • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:05

            @gyrex: Camera infringements are reverse onus offences.

            If not everybody would just say "it wasn't me".

            • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 12:09
              +7

              @Muppet Detector: Interesting. Are you a lawyer? Shouldn't the same apply to offences such as failing to stop and provide particulars, or whatever the offence is in this case as well? Because it appears as everyone's saying "it wasn't me" and eluding any responsibility which is pretty frustrating. These people who hit & run are absolute scum and deserve the full force of the law.

              • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:11
                +1

                @gyrex: Hit and run isn't a reverse onus offence.

                As far as I can tell, nobody has said "it wasn't me".

                • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 12:15
                  +2

                  @Muppet Detector:

                  nobody has said "it wasn't me"

                  "no one nominated the identity of the person in the footage" which is basically the registered owner denying nominating who was using the car at the time.

                  I'm not shooting the messenger and I truly appreciate (TIL) you teaching me about reverse onus offences. IMO this offence should fall under the same provisions as a reverse onus offence and the fact that it's not is pretty stupid.

                  • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:47
                    +1

                    @gyrex: One reason I believe that it doesn't is because of the potential repercussions for the accused.

                    Imagine if your car was involved in a fatal hit and run incident and you had no idea who had been driving your car.

                    Penalties for camera infringements don't usually involve the potential for your loss of liberty.

                    • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 12:51
                      +2

                      @Muppet Detector: I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't the charge in that hypothetical be vehicular manslaughter and thus require a higher burden of proof? A simple "failing to stop and exchange particulars" is normally associated with scumbags causing crashes and driving off.

                      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:55

                        @gyrex: The general public will only ever carry a maximum standard of On Balance of Probabilities. It is only the Crown who will need to provide proof to a higher standard.

                        • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 12:59
                          +1

                          @Muppet Detector: OK, using your hypothetical, wouldn't the driver be charged with vehicular manslaughter and thus the onus is on the Crown to provide evidence to satisfy the charge and how does this affect my argument that the law should be changed so that hit & runs should be treated the same as camera offences and reverse onus be applied?

                          • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 13:06
                            +2

                            @gyrex:

                            OK, using your hypothetical, wouldn't the driver be charged with vehicular manslaughter and thus the onus is on the Crown to provide evidence to satisfy the charge and how does

                            I don't know about vehicular manslaughter, but the gist of what you're saying is correct.

                            Generally speaking, if the crown is accusing somebody of a crime, their standard of proof is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

                            You need to be able to prove who the driver was "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in a criminal case.

                            If it were a civil case, the insurer still needs to prove who the driver of the car was, but only on the balance of probabilities.

                            This is why the police will usually pass the buck to the insurer for cases of insignificant damage.

                            If police prosecuted this case, no money awarded to broken bike. If insurer pursues 'alleged' driver, court will award the required money.

                            • JIMB0 on 03/04/2026 - 13:41
                              +1

                              @Muppet Detector: Just like how Bruce Lehrmann got off on the criminal charges, but in the civil case it was determined that on the balance of probabilities he did it.

                              • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 13:56

                                @JIMB0: I get where you're going with this, but remember the Lehrmann Criminal trial ended up as a mistrial because of jurer misconduct.

                                Whilst the DPP can retry this case (no double jeopardy), they've said they don't want to for concerns of Ms Higgins health.

                                However, as you say, when Bruce "went back for his hat" in civil, Justice Lee did find him guilty of rape on the Balance of Probabilities. (Appeal pending on that but two other alleged rapes weaving their way through Qld courts atm).

              • tenpercent on 03/04/2026 - 12:16
                +1

                @gyrex: The full force of the law.

            • tenpercent on 03/04/2026 - 12:10
              +1

              @Muppet Detector:

              If not everybody would just say "it wasn't me".

              Kinda like murder charges, or any other allegations.

          • lonewolf on 04/04/2026 - 08:34

            @gyrex: Thats because police and the government are only interested in revenue raising. Since in this case, they wont get a payout, they dont care.

      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 00:58
        +3

        The registered owner. if they don't want to nominate anyone, then they're responsible.

        It doesn't work like that.

        Whilst police are involved (hit and run for example), it's a crime where proof is required BaRD.

        Once the insurers are the claimants, they only have to prove the lower standard of On the Balance of Probabilities that the owner was driving.

        Just because he owned the car, doesn't mean he was. Police and insurers need to know who was driving.

        • Wiser on 03/04/2026 - 12:29
          -4

          No, Even if the driver refuses to provide details the owner will be responsible unless it was reported stolen at the time of accident.
          The insurance comapnies have access & resorces tio pull the info.
          But they just try to pass the bucks to you.
          One call to insurance industry Ombudsman will fix it if it is harder for OP to fight it out.
          People normally excahnge licence details when involved in an accident.
          But it is not legally required.

      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 01:17
        +1

        The registered owner. if they don't want to nominate anyone, then they're responsible.

        Registered owner may not even know.

        • Jamessaba on 03/04/2026 - 21:43
          +1

          Does this apply to CCTV evidence for fuel fill and dash, asking for friend

          • Muppet Detector on 04/04/2026 - 22:33

            @Jamessaba: Generally speaking, it would be the same in theory, theft isn't a reverse onus offence so the burden of proof will be on the claimant.

            Notwithstanding the recent surge in the cost of fuel, this level of theft would generally be so minor that it is probable that the police would not divert many resources to this leaving the business to offset their losses through the taxation system (ie write the theft off as a loss on their tax return).

            Of course there will be exceptions and outlier examples to this.

  • cashless on 02/04/2026 - 23:59
    +8

    Pay the excess & then let your insurers handle it. If they find the culprit, you’ll get your excess refunded

  • dinduboy1 on 03/04/2026 - 09:10
    +8

    Thanks all for the feedback. Appreciate it and as suggested, best i just pay the excess and move on as life is too short !

    i just hate the fact to concede that someone purposely did this and got away scot free. ( in this case, the offender was trying to park in the parking bay beside, got out their vehicle twice when the realized their car was too close, then tried moving my bike, it didn't work so they then decided to proceed anyway; drove straight through which pushed by bike and it toppled. They then just went about their business and after sometime, reversed their vehicle and drove away!!

    • brendanm on 03/04/2026 - 11:48
      +3

      Post up pictures of their car, rego, and face in your local Facebook group, see if anyone recognises them.

    • Browsers on 03/04/2026 - 10:32
      +1

      The other driver won't get off scot free. Your insurer will recover against the owner of the other vehicle or his insurer, and you will get you excess back. The insurers will regard as probable it was being driven with the owner's consent unless it was reported stolen.

    • Gunnar on 03/04/2026 - 11:26
      +1

      Yeah sadly it’s a hit and run situation really. A long shot but you could try getting your building CCTV footage to see if the owner of the vehicle was the one who got behind the wheel of the car (assuming the cameras are set up to record this - unlikely). Here you’re also relying on the people reviewing this would be willing to go through this much effort (incl the cops).

      Highly unlikely this will happen though and you’d have to do a lot of running around.

  • altomic on 02/04/2026 - 23:42
    +7

    just sign a stat dec stating Teresa Brennan was the driver.

  • Bignudge on 03/04/2026 - 07:26
    +7

    Yes this is completely normal.

    1. If you can provide the offender's full name, address and contact number to your insurance, they will waive the excess.

    2. If you can't supply those details and the insurance has to go looking…. then you are expected to pay excess upfront, then when/if those details are found then the excess will be recovered and returned to you.

    The key word here is IFFFFF they can find those details. It's not straightforward and will be an uphills battle for you at this point. They could run the rego and find the registered owner to contact them…. but he/she could always say "idk who was driving, wasn't me…. prove it". And now what? Back and forth between the cops?

    I have an uncle who was at the red lights, some dude infront reversed into him then did a runner. It was all caught on dash cam but going back and forth between the the cops and insurance led to nothing as there was no proof who was driving. Cops didn't even bother investigating to charge him with leaving the scene of an accident without sharing details. In the end, my uncle just paid the excess and moved on with his life.

    Good luck!

    • Wiser on 03/04/2026 - 13:22
      -1

      Do you think your registered car killed someone and you can play IDK and get away with it?. The isurance company can take the registered owner to court.
      The onus is on the owner to prove he/ she was not in possession of the vechicle at that time.

      • Bignudge on 03/04/2026 - 14:04
        +1

        If someone was injured or killed, then the police will go "fineeeeeeeeeeeeeee" and will make an attempt to visit the registered address to investigate.

        In terms of 'minor' cases, there would be at least dozens if not hundreds or thousands of cases like this across Australia every single day. From getting your door dinged at the carpark, to a runaway trolley, doors getting keyed, tyres getting slashed, the tradie accidentally overspraying paint over the fence onto a car, etc…. there are simply not enough resources.

        I shit you not, some dude jumped over my fence, broke into my car, stole my wallet, then used my debit card at the local servo at 5am…. full CCTV footage both from me and at the servo with multiple angles. The "detective" came to take photos and fingerprints for the sake of it. I had to plead the cops to take my CCTV footage. And….. that's about it. It was more about them providing me a indident number to me…. but then that doesn't waive my claim excess either.

      • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 13:31

        In which country?

  • 2esc on 03/04/2026 - 10:06
    +6

    I thought with speeding tickets/driving offences the registered owner pays if they cant nominate a driver.

    I would of thought this would apply in this case too.

    Another loophole for lowlifes.

    • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 11:38
      -1

      thought with speeding tickets/driving offences the registered owner pays if they cant nominate a driver.

      Camera infringements are reverse onus offences.

      I would have thought this would apply in this case too.

      "Innocent until proved guilty"

      Another loophole for lowlifes.

      No loophole.

      • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 12:48
        +2

        Not a loophole but the law sucks that hit & run offences aren't reverse onus offences.

        • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:50
          -1

          How would you feel if your car was involved in a fatal hit and run and you had no idea who had been driving your car.

          In a reverse onus offence, you are now guilty of that fatality and the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

          • gyrex on 03/04/2026 - 12:55
            +1

            @Muppet Detector: I know this is wild but I always know who's driving my car and if I don't, it's been stolen. Also see my response further up re your hypothetical - vehicular homicide would require a higher burden of proof. I'm not having a go at you but to a layman, it would be nice to see hit & runs also fall under the reverse onus category.

            • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 12:59

              @gyrex: Their burden of proof to test an alleged crime in court is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for all crimes - exception reverse onus.

              Balance of probabilities for civil court or criminal defence.

  • JIMB0 on 03/04/2026 - 08:25
    +4

    Get their address and send the bikes around to collect.

  • tenpercent on 03/04/2026 - 10:24
    +2

    Was there any other CCTV footage perhaps from other cameras that shows who got into the car or who got out of the car?

    • dinduboy1 on 03/04/2026 - 13:04
      +5

      ya, the CCTV videos provided to the police (4 minutes in total) included the vehicle in the act knocking over my bike, the license plate and several footage of the driver walking to/back from the vehicle. Hence its not likely they can't identify the person. I can only assume that the vehicle was registered to a different person and hence the police was unable to get the offenders details.

      • tenpercent on 03/04/2026 - 21:55

        Based on my few experiences needing police to do their jobs, I would make the assumption they haven't even watched it, tbh.

      • Wayne7497 on 04/04/2026 - 06:48

        Your problem is you said it occurred in your apartment car park , privately owned, most Police Powers need the incident to be on a " road or carriage way " not in carparks there are exceptions for injuries etc but normal crashes no, but as to the details insurance companies can and do get registered owners details through foi , they normally throw it back on the insured to save costs but when pushed they will do it.. BUT there has on your part need to be an avenue of inquiry ie registration number of offending vehicle. Nothing to nominate a vehicle etc they will do nothing throw it all back on you, n remember if the other party isnt insured youll always pay the excess even if your not at fault.

  • tenpercent on 03/04/2026 - 10:26
    +2

    Aren't you glad you pay your taxes? It would be mayhem and we wouldn't even have police to maintain and enforce law and order if we didn't all pay taxes.

    /s

    • Jamessaba on 03/04/2026 - 21:38

      yes… glad we have such efficient law enforcement where burden of proof gets pushed to the evidence providing complaint-ant.

  • jonkvh on 03/04/2026 - 11:07
    +2

    Chuck some coin at a Private Investigator to find the owner. They'll be up for it no matter what, since they'll have to nominate someone to get out of it. The Insurance company don't care where you got their details from.

  • Andrew Mills on 03/04/2026 - 19:32
    +2

    Hey mate, sorry this happened to you. It's frustrating as hell.
    What your insurer is doing is actually pretty standard in Australia, even though it feels completely unfair. I've been in a similar spot before.
    Here's the reality:
    Police won't force the registered owner to name the driver.
    Your insurer won't waive the excess without a name, address, and licence number of the actual driver.
    Having the rego and CCTV footage is great, but legally it's not enough for them.
    That said, you do have options:
    1. Pay the excess and let them chase it. If you pay it, your insurer will repair your bike. They can then use the rego details to go after the registered owner in civil court. If they win, you'll get your excess back. No guarantee though.
    2. Push back with the Ombudsman. Someone mentioned AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority). That's worth a try. Lodge a complaint saying you've provided everything reasonably possible – police report, rego, CCTV – and the insurer is being unreasonable. It's free and sometimes works.
    3. Small claims court. You could sue the registered owner yourself. But this takes time and effort.

    If the repair cost isn't huge, weigh it against your excess. If the excess is $500–800 and repairs are similar, sometimes it's less stressful to just pay the excess, get it fixed, and move on. If it's big money, fight it. Good luck.

  • jv on 03/04/2026 - 00:32
    +1

    Is it normal/standard practice

    Yes.

    You must nominate the driver…

    Otherwise, if they successfully get their money back, your excess will be refunded.

  • Muppet Detector on 03/04/2026 - 01:16
    +1

    Now, here’s where I’m facing a dilemma: my insurance company is insisting that I pay the excess amount in order to proceed with the insurance claim because I was not able to provide the name, address, and phone number of the offender.

    That is usual. If the driver is not identified, they don't have anybody to sue to regain the funds they pay to you.

    As someone new to insurance claims, this strikes me as a bit odd, especially given I’ve supplied all possible information.

    No driver's name? Driver's details?

    Is it normal/standard practice and are there other ways to challenge their decision?

    Provide the insurer with the driver's details?

    • SomeBooy on 04/04/2026 - 19:24

      Unhelpful comment. OP has done what they're supposed to do. What else can they do to get the driver's details?

      • Muppet Detector on 04/04/2026 - 21:56

        Why is it that this is the only post in the entire thread that you've chosen to target in this manner?

  • MS Paint on 03/04/2026 - 06:15
    +1

    Sounds normal to me

  • oscargamer on 03/04/2026 - 07:45
    +1

    As already said by others, very normal.

    If you want your insurer to get involved, you have to follow what's written in the PDS. As do they.

    If the offender is eventually found, then you might get your excess back.

  • Wiadro on 03/04/2026 - 08:20
    +1

    Normal
    If you can’t provide who did it.
    Aka
    Name, address, contact number, vehicle details

    You have no hope getting out of not paying it

  • Bruceflix on 03/04/2026 - 10:20
    +1

    In SA it is a crime to not state the driver in a vehicle accident. It is also a question the police can ask that is not covered by the "right to remain silent".

    Presumably these laws are consistent across the country. Then again, can't even get consistent speed laws.

  • saltysalt on 03/04/2026 - 12:10

    Nice of the police to do their jobs. I thought failure to leave details after an accident was an offence?

    • Dollar General on 03/04/2026 - 12:23

      OP stated police couldn’t identify the driver

      • tenpercent on 03/04/2026 - 12:25
        +1

        Did they even bother trying to?

        • Dollar General on 03/04/2026 - 13:09
          +3

          Not likely

          They could identify the driver if they wanted too

      • saltysalt on 03/04/2026 - 14:54

        They have the plate no? What are the police waiting for?

  • Bargain2020 on 03/04/2026 - 12:29

    Two recent experiences with Youi that I had to pay excess first, even though it was pretty clear who was at fault. And I had details and witnesses.
    They were very good, and easy to deal with and I got the excess refunded once it was resolved that the other parties were 100% at fault.

  • piertlethed on 03/04/2026 - 14:20

    I think this is the common way of dealing with it. The policy owner pays the excess up front and gives the information showing they are not at fault. The insurance company then follows through. If the claim is resolved, the excess may be returned.

    The text from Youi is, "Where the incident is completely the fault of a third party and you can provide
    their full name and two of either their phone number, address, driver’s licence
    number, or the registration number of their vehicle that was involved in the
    incident, we will waive payment of any excesses."

    Others are similar - I don't know of one that allows the excess to be waived up front without any name or address of the party at fault.

    I've also found that going into the local police station with the video and a friendly manner can help. They were able to help me find the right suburb when I had a video of an at fault driver answering the question of name and address but they didn't say it in the video and I was shaking and didn't notice. The local police checked it out and gave me the suburb so I could send the full details onto the insurance company.

  • kaleidoscope on 03/04/2026 - 14:23

    This is the normal process. They need a name to pass it on. Your insurance company is supposed to refund you the excess once they figure out those details. until then you just pay excess and get your repair sorted out. good luck!

  • alxr0101 on 04/04/2026 - 11:38

    Read your policy. And yes, it does make sense.

  • paloverde88 on 04/04/2026 - 20:54

    Catch 21 your need drivers detail but that person could be uncooperative provide false details or worse, threatening and aggressive or carries weapon. Despite that neither police nor insurance care about your safety but insists you get details regardless, in theory they all feel you neglected when no drivers information was attempted by you to obtain- essentially lazy they think all accidents involved fully courteous and smiling people with no weapons. How presumptuous.

    • ATTS on 04/04/2026 - 20:57

      Lol some people get stabbed from beeping the horn right

    • Wiser on 05/04/2026 - 22:49

      I was in a similar situation twice where the driver was not cooperative but my insurance company agreed and chased the registeted owner.
      I was nor charged the excess and all went very well after couple of calls with witness ( no video footage) that the other paryy was at fault.
      Even a TP insurance was handled well by my insurance company.

  • Murkymerv on 02/04/2026 - 23:27
    -3

    Considering you have no one at present to pin this act against your motorbike , it sounds like standard procedure to me ! Correct me if my comment is wrong. , which other way would insurance handle this ⁉️

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join