Hit from behind, Other Drivers Insurance Looking to Claim

Cave Fire on 25/10/2016 - 18:57
Last edited 26/10/2016 - 17:34 by 1 other user

Wanting general advice. This is my dad's traffic matter. He's an elderly school teacher and was exiting the school yard through a T section onto the oncoming traffic. While stopped, a parent has hit him from behind, with minor damage to his car and a cracked headlight to the other vehicle. To make matters worse, he had no insurance coverage and his rego had lapsed.

The other vehicle's insurance has sent a letter out saying they are looking to claim the liability from him. Doesn't really say anything like he is 100% at fault or similar. I would think that being he got hit from behind, it is actually the other driver who is at fault. Or does being unregistered cancel this out?

Also, is there a way we could see the other persons version of events? They claimed to have had a recent accident before this one.

I have read about going to the financial services ombudsman as well.

Thanks…

Update: Spoke to the insurers today, Letter sent was an old letter (?) that does not take into account any information sent in. We've provided our version and they are now waiting for their client's version of events. Just goes to show how these insurance companies operate….

Automotive

Comments

  • pjetson on 25/10/2016 - 19:20
    +1

    Has your dad made a claim against the driver that he considers to be at fault? Not their insurance company, but directly with the driver?

    And more importantly, has your father stopped driving his unregistered and uninsured car? Your father has most likely committed at least one traffic offence, and will probably end up having to pay a large fine and lose demerit points.

    • Cave Fire on 25/10/2016 - 19:42
      +1

      Yes, he only found out as the other party had gone to the police to make a report. We only have minor damage, a small scratch on the bumper, just over some reversing sensors (unsure if any of those are damaged). Think my dad was going to let the damage slide. He regoed the car as soon as he found out, just forgot about it.

      • pjetson on 25/10/2016 - 22:29
        +4

        The other party had gone to the police to make a report

        Then the other party is simply being nasty and trying to escape liability, and has played the only card they have.

        Regardless of how little damage there is to your dad's car, get a quote to fix it, and present the quote to the other party and tell them in writing that they are 100% in the wrong and that if they do not pay within seven days, he will take action to recover costs.

        Next step if they do not pay is a solicitor's letter of demand, including the extra that the solicitor has cost him, again delivered to the driver, not their insurer. The final step is court, I'm afraid.

  • oscargamer on 25/10/2016 - 19:26
    +8

    the fact that he has no insurance or rego is not relevant to the fault attributable to the collision and the associated costs

    • Cave Fire on 25/10/2016 - 19:44
      +1

      That's what I would think… Might have to use that line when I chat to them.

    • Well Wasted on 26/10/2016 - 11:52
      +1

      even though your father was not at fault in the accident, your father was driving illegaly… through absent mindness (not paying rego) or otherwise… an insurance company won't pay out. why did he pay the rego the next day? did he think he'd done the wrong thing by not having his car registered. he's lucky he doesn't cop a fine for driving an unregistered car… if he had of hit some-one and caused personal injury he'd be liable for all medical bills.

      • Cave Fire on 26/10/2016 - 13:44
        +3

        We're not after a payout, the damage to his car pretty much buffed out or was touched up and is hardly visible. We'd just like the at fault party to be responsible for their own damages. I think that is reasonable.

        • Well Wasted on 27/10/2016 - 14:54

          i got car license and car rego mixed up.. soz… you can backpay you rego for 3months i think… but would still cop a fine for driving an unregistered car and others medical insurance is not covered in an accident. a license can be backpayed too… but you would still cop a fine if it was out of date. without both of these things (registered car and a driving license) you are not allowed on the road… even though the accident was not your fathers fault… the other driver is not liable for payment. the accident would not have happened / should not have happened because your father was not allowed to be on public roads without an up to date licence and paid vehicle registration.

    • mapleice on 31/10/2016 - 15:36

      Not true. No rego implies that the vehicle should not have been there in the first place. As silly as it sounds, that is the way the law will look at it. If the vehicle was not there, (which by being unregistered it should not have been), the accident would not have happened, I have experienced this and as selfish and horrible as it sounds, this has been used in a fatal accident as a reason for the not at fault vehicle to be deemed as at fault.
      In saying this, it goes without saying that a vehicle with no rego is also not insured, as you cannot insure an unregistered vehicle for use on the road.
      The only hope is that it is deemed as private property, (inside the fenceline of the school), and becomes a civil matter in which an agreement to cover repairs becomes feasible.

  • blitz on 25/10/2016 - 19:35
    +1

    For how long had the rego been lapsed?

    He's not at fault for the accident. That's standard insurance company tactics.

    • Cave Fire on 25/10/2016 - 19:49

      Since June and this happened in July. Thought it seemed wierd…

  • oscargamer on 25/10/2016 - 19:52
    +1

    he might wear a ticket for unreg, but again, no relevance to the collision

  • Savas on 25/10/2016 - 20:11
    -5

    When I started reading this title, thought it would be about something else

    • bargainslut on 25/10/2016 - 22:00
      +3

      I got done from behind not long ago, I'm not sure who's fault it was.

      • Savas on 25/10/2016 - 22:39
        +8

        Username checks out

        • bargainslut on 26/10/2016 - 01:51
          +2

          With that cute face you should watch your exterior Savas:)

  • fruit on 25/10/2016 - 20:25

    I would think that being he got hit from behind, it is actually the other driver who is at fault.

    That's a myth.

    How did the person hit your father's car? Did your father fail to give way and then get hit on the behind?

    • Cave Fire on 25/10/2016 - 21:46
      +1

      Well, having worked selling car insurance, we used to say or get told this often. Of course there are extinuating circumstances in each instance. No, he didn't fail to give way, he stopped in front of the exit point/t section to give way, other car must have been closely behind and hit him.

      • fruit on 25/10/2016 - 21:49

        Make sense

      • maybeamacy on 26/10/2016 - 01:13
        +1

        I hit a car from behind, he thought he had enough time to exit a slip lane, I had to break when he entered and ended up rear ending him. Insurance deemed me not at fault after reviewing dash cam footage and he had to fork out a $4k bill as he was uninsured, kinda felt sorry for him.

        I'm pretty sure in your scenario your dad's in the right though as he was clearly stopped at the intersection? Does he have any photos of the crash that you can show the insurance/placement of the vehicles?

        • alxr0101 on 26/10/2016 - 08:03
          +1

          Generally, the vehicle behind is responsible. However in your case the "car in front" actually failed to merge properly.

          If it was not a merge situation then this would have complicated your situation more.

          For the OP, as most advice is here, you're not at fault.

    • alxr0101 on 26/10/2016 - 08:08
      +1

      What's a myth? Unless it can be proven that the vehicle in front was being a d*ck, then the vehicle behind is responsible for maintaining proper separation.

      Even if the vehicle in front braked hard…behind vehicle responsible for maintaining distance.

  • minniethemoocher on 25/10/2016 - 22:37
    +1

    Try talking to compass claims or a similar company.

  • brettule on 26/10/2016 - 08:05
    +1

    You do get a grace period to renew your rego once its expired, which sounds like your dad has now done. You'll see on the rego renewal form its even dated as 12 months paid to June 2017 not July when he actually paid it. So if the cops need to look it up, the db will just show the car is registered and has been fully registered for x many years.

    You don't need insurance, not in Vic anyway, you pay a compulsory insurance as part of your rego. Any additional insurance you choose to take out on your car is totally optional. Of course, if your dad is at fault in an accident the cost of repairs will come out of his pocket.

    So now its just some douchey parent trying to fleece their kids teacher. If he's not at fault, fight it and don't worry about the rego or insurance issue.

    • alxr0101 on 26/10/2016 - 08:10
      +2

      There is generally no grace period (for being fined) IF the unregistered vehicle was pinged, even a day.

      Consider lucky that car wasn't pulled over before (and not had a valid reason for being unregistered…"driving directly to or from a place to effect registration and/or repairs…".

    • havabeer on 26/10/2016 - 10:09
      +2

      Can we please not propagate the myth that because registration includes MAIB insurance you don't need insurance. MIAB insurance shouldn't really be called insurance at all, it is there to help provide compensation and it is basically useless to the registered vehicle operator.

      Yes, insurance from an insurer is optional. Driving is one of the riskiest things you do every day. Eventually, you'll probably be in a situation where you or another party wants to make a claim if either of you doesn't have insurance you are going to be soon reevaluating that opinion.

  • alxr0101 on 26/10/2016 - 08:13

    Amazed no one has mentioned it yet. (no, not eneloops).

    *** Bikies !! ***

    (Seems an applicable response to so many OZB postings :-) )

  • Scot on 26/10/2016 - 11:23
    +1

    Not sure if this has been already discussed but was your Dad actually still on school property when hit. If so he was on private land and police can't fine him for no rego, not that I think this has anything to do with a clear case of hit from behind.

    • Cave Fire on 26/10/2016 - 13:42
      +1

      I think this is what eventually happened, as my dad was in contact with a senior constable. He has now stopped calling.

    • Well Wasted on 27/10/2016 - 15:47

      if he is driving an unregistered car on private property does he have permission from the land owner ? i doubt it… also depends on wether it's a public or private school ( no insurance… no rego… i'm guessing public) ?

  • Cave Fire on 26/10/2016 - 17:35

    Update: Spoke to the insurers today, Letter sent was an old letter (?) that does not take into account any information sent in. We've provided our version and they are now waiting for their client's version of events. Just goes to show how these insurance companies operate….

  • Noblejoker on 27/10/2016 - 10:54

    Whilst not likely to pursue your dad for their damage be aware they may not pay him for his
    As he was unregistered and therefore driving illegally they would likely win a dispute over your dad's costs
    Given it is so old is he looking to recover cost anyway?

    • pjetson on 28/10/2016 - 08:33

      It doesn't matter what the insurance company decides to do - the OP's father claims against the other driver. It's up to the other driver and his/her insurance company to decide who pays.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join