Hoping someone with a bit of automotive legal/insurance knowledge can help with this. I'm totally flummoxed!
A 17 y.o. P-plater rear-ended my daughter in her lovely little low-km Mitsubishi Colt at a controlled intersection a few weeks ago. The chassis is twisted and it's a write-off. She's not very well-off, so she only had 3rd party etc insurance (in W.A.). The car had 69,000km on it - but was 2007. We paid a bargain ~$7,000 for it in late 2020…a great deal at the time. Replacement cost for something at even 3X the km of same age is roughly $8-9,000 from a dealer. Prices on 2nd-hand market are much higher recently.
The P-plater was not displaying his plates (we have photos).
His Dad initially seemed reasonable, and offered to make everything right - BUT, his insurer was not impressed by his son's accident as a P-plater and (presumably) rejected the claim. Dad then offered to make it right anyway.
The problem is that he claims that his liability is limited purely to the max value an insure would pay in a 3rd-part claim - which is ~$4100. But my daughter is facing a replacement cost far in excess of that. Additionally, the Dad insisits that we must surrender the damaged car to him as part of the $4100 pay-out - as this is what would happen if the hypothetical insurer had paid out.
My gut's churning on this. It just seems really unfair that my daughter is up for a huge bill to make up the loss (in purchasing an equivalent replacement vehicle) - which is wholly NOT her fault.
Do we have any leg to stand on? Or, must we accept this really mean-spirited offer? We're going to have to dip into our meagre retirement savings to help her buy a replacement.
Apparently, the Dad is being advised by some mate who's an insurance industry guru!
BTW, in the meantime, it looks like our daughter is also suffering effects of concussion from the incident - according to her GP and hospital A&E. We haven't yet mentioned that to the Dad.
I'm sure there'll be opinions on this, but it would be good if someone with professional knowledge could advise. Thanks.
Liability for Crash Write-off. Help!
Comments
- 1
- 2
Usually over 2k and cops have to come, you must have been driving some bombs
It is 3k damage now days (or personal injury), and needs to be reported to police, does not require police attendance.
I'm in Vic and when I was hit, I called the cops (something the insurer asked with my previous claim) and the dispatcher couldn't care less. She said unless there was a physical altercation or something then it was a civil matter.
What insurance do you have?
Good question.
I don't quite understand why OP is angry about surrendering the car. Hey OP, have you considered finding a VERY SIMILAR car to yours (same model, year, KMs, variant, etc etc)… then telling the "reasonable" father that, he should buy that car for your daughter and exchange it with your damaged one?
Because that's fair/square. You're getting an equivalent car. He's fronting the bill. And he's getting the damaged one, which will have some sort of value in it. You're absolutely not getting ripped off, nor he.
Potentially he's buying a $7,000 car, and you're getting it, and he's getting the damaged one. Which he may be able to fix for $3,000 and then sell for $5,000…. and accrue a $2,000 savings to himself. Or just outright sell the car as is (or parts) and claim $1,000 of value from it. Potentially. Either way, the other party is out of pocket anywhere from (lowest) $4k, to a (median) $6k, and upto $7,000 (highest).
This is the closest I've found from your description:
https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2004-mitsubishi-col…Although, that's the fairest way to do this, it is more involved/convoluted.
Otherwise, you could just sell your damaged car for $1k parts so you don't hassle too much. Then get him to pay you $6k as recompense. That way you are slightly inconvenienced, but now have your funds. And he is not as inconvenienced as above, but he is out of more money.
So in such solution, it is still fair, but not as fair as above. And the commodity we need to consider is that; convenience = value = money.
Completely irrelevant.
This is a very simple civil liability case.
Person A caused $8k of costs to Person B because of their negligence. If Person B can prove 1) negligence and 2) quantum of damages to a court's satisfaction (or by negotiation), then Person A owes Person B $8k.
It's totally irrelevant how the costs were incurred; from a legal POV it's the same as if Person A threw Person B's $8k watch or handbag off a bridge. For some reason every time people read "car" they immediately think of "insurance".
The only way insurance comes into the picture here is if Person A wants to call on their insurer to cover all or part of the claim. Even if their insurer only offers $4k, Person A will still owe the remaining $4k to Person B since that is their legal liability.
"so she only had 3rd party etc insurance"
do you mean third party property (TPP)?
or are you referring to personal third party (sometimes called CTP)?
some TPP cover for not at fault and hit by uninsured (often max $5k)
.
some TPP cover for not at fault and hit by uninsured (often max $5k)
I'd be looking into this, speak to your insurer and work out options. Otherwise, issue a letter of demand to pay for the car at market value which may be more $ if you can justify your case. If they don't pay, take them to court.
BTW, in the meantime, it looks like our daughter is also suffering effects of concussion from the incident - according to her GP and hospital A&E. We haven't yet mentioned that to the Dad.
My understanding is that it's not his problem. Doesn't this get handled by the WA transport accident commission or whatever it's called over west?
Additionally, the Dad insisits that we must surrender the damaged car to him as part of the $4100 pay-out
No way Jósè. Tell Dad to get #$@%ed
My understanding is that it's not his problem. Doesn't this get handled by the WA transport accident commission or whatever it's called over west?
The car isn't worth 8-9000 OP (had a look on car sales). Here's an example of what you might get on average, it's not the most expensive or the least expensive. https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2008-mitsubishi-col… - cheaper due to slight defect
https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2008-mitsubishi-col… - more expensive side i'd say, but very similar, also being sold in NSW, not WAI'd put your daughters car at around $6000-$7000.
Yes you are getting short changed a bit, but nothing crazy. I'd negotiate to keep the car in addition to the offer, but if you can't reach an agreement, your only recourse is through small claims/civil court. Not worth imo, take the offer and get comprehensive insurance so you don't have to deal with headache of other drivers on the round as you are finding out the hard way.
I'd negotiate to keep the car in addition to the offer
There shouldn't be any negotiation here. It's a flat out no, unless OP wants to sell the car to the other guy for an additional cost - he is paying compensation for damage and nothing more. This is not the same as an insurance claim where you made an agreement with the insurer over these terms when you took out a policy with them.
Yes okay but then OP goes through the hassle of taking it to court over $2000 more. Is it worth it to potentially lose a day of work, a weekend gathering evidence and filing the claim, paying an additional fee which may not be recoverable and still POSSIBLY not getting the desired outcome? At least with the car, if OP is smart about it he can recover some of the costs by putting it on gumtree for parts for a while, then sell the remaining metal off to a wrecker for $200-300.
Negotiate is the right word. The other party has made an offer, OP can now negotiate to find agreeable terms to compensate for the damages.
This is the smarter use of time, sometimes it's not about what's right, it's about what's practical… I'm just saying what I would do as OP is asking for advice. If that's not what you would do, fair enough.
Negotiate suggests give and take. That's not how this works.
When you take out an insurance policy, your insurer stipulates that they have salvage rights in the event of a write-off, which you agree to when you buy the policy. Some random who crashes into you has no such agreement, so has no right to make a claim for the vehicle.
By "negotiating" on something unnecessary, OP is likely to end up in a worse situation - the other party is already trying to screw them down below their liability - this just adds to that.
OP can choose to sell the car to them if they want, but it should be above and beyond any payout for the damage. The negotiation (if this was to happen) is for the sale of the car only, after the fact. Not for the damage liability.
Second hand cars are definitely affected by a "WA tax". They're often up to 30% more expensive over here than they are over east (even before the whole COVID price nonsense). I know a few people who have bought a second hand car over east and driven/transported it back to Perth to save $1k or much more (that's including the costs of getting there and back). I'm not talking about super flash cars either, just your typical family car.
When push comes to shove, you have a civil claim between your/your daughter and the other driver/his father.
This can be remedied in one of two ways … you either negotiate an outcome agreeable to both parties, or you take the matter to the appropriate court or similar.
You say the vehicle is a write-off. Given there is no insurer involved, I can only assume you have privately received quotes to repair that either exceed, or come close to exceeding the cost of like-for-like replacement.
If the car is written off in an insurance situation it is correct that the insurer pays you out and then keeps the vehicle and salvages whatever they can from it. There would be no reason for the same principle to apply here.
On the assumption that your daughter's insurer will not get involved (they may, but let's assume not) you will need to demonstrate that (1) the cost of repair exceeds the cost of replacement, and (2) the value of replacement on a genuine like-for-like basis.
Once there you have demonstrated the financial damage caused by the at fault driver that is then the basis of your argument in negotiation.
That negotiation may or may not result in an agreement to pay that amount to your daughter … at which point you either fold, take the money and move on, or take the matter to the relevant court, tribunal, or whatever is appropriate and attempt to get the figure you believe is right. The second option may or may not get you a better outcome than the first.
Gat a lawyer to draw up a letter of demand (to save money write it yourself and ask the lawyer if they are okay with it to put it on their letterhead) and send as this will show you are prepared to get lawyers involved and should the dad more agreeable to settle or the amount you want.
No lawyer would touch this because their fees would make this uneconomical..
Rubbish. Any lawyer would be more than happy to write a letter of demand. You can even get these from online law firms for <$50,
@chillin222: Just cos you send a letter with a letter head it doesn't mean it will have effect.
The father is advised by his insurance mate and they will just say, you don't need to do anything unless or until they file proceedings and serve you.
If I get a letter and it has a dinky online law firm, I'll just laugh.
If the person can't afford comprehensive insurance then they probably can't afford the $500-$1.5k retainer and the additional costs to pursue judgement and recovery.
$6-7k for a debt is usually a lawyer free zone because most lawyers are charging a fair chunk of change for their services.
Having said that, it's definitely possible that there are lawyers out there charging nothing to do small work like this. I wouldn't expect them to be any good tho.
Many debt collectors will give you the letter for free.
Not exactly true. If you are using the other vehicle's insurer (not your own) they have no legal claim to your car. They will deduct a scrap price from the payout. A recent example I'm aware of was a $900 scrap deduction and the owner was able to sell instead on FB marketplace for $3000 and make a small profit on the scrap.
This is true. The other driver's father owes you nothing.
The son is the one who owes you. So you have to try to negotiate the best deal you can out of his father, and decide whether its worth taking the risk of pushing him so far that he walks away and leaves you with whatever you can get out of his son, which doesn't sound like it would be much.
You'll lose out if you accept what the dad is offering? Yep, that's what happens in car crashes unfortunately.
Full comp costs are insane for young people, especially P platers. Most young people simply cannot afford it.
I understand this is because the risk is higher, but it's the same answer anyway.This is why I never owned a vehicle I couldn't afford to replace as a young person.
that's why your parents put the car under their name and list the kid as a drivers, this all could of been avoided if op didn't cheap out or simply shopped around for third party that offered market value up to a certain amount on not at fault accidents.
Adding a kid instantly jacks the price, Insurance companies aren't oblivious to this tactic. It's also Fraud.
Hardly makes a difference
My car was valued at 10k, insurance wanted 2k a year +2k in excesses if I crashed.
Sounds like you've got into a sticky situation.
Who reported the incident to insurance/police?
(presumably) rejected the claim
That sounds like your taking his word for it, that he informed his insurance of the accident and they denied it. That may not have happened. His father may be trying to go around insurance in order to avoid the accident being registered to his sons name, and his sons premiums going up. Which they do, whether or not they pay out anything.
If thats the case you may have some leverage. The basis of common law is that when damage happens, the other party returns you to the same position you were in before. Based on that I'd say this guy owes you a replacement car of roughly the same age and condition. He doesn't get to just pull a number out of thin air and decide that's a fair amount.
THE DAD if he has his son on his cover insurance should definitely deal with it… They don't pick and choose if he is covered by the dad then they have to pay if the son is at fault? Isn't that how insurance works?
But again they may only pay their own "market" value which is usually the lowest price they can find…
If the Son isn't named on the Policy or displaying P plates (as required) then Insurer may try and avoid this.
I'd suggest you see a Solicitor and let them advise on claims arising.
Don't agree or settle.
If I am not mistaken the insurer will pay if the driver is not listed but the owner of policy has to pay some extra amount.
It is Perth and may depend on the Insurer.
Also, starting off with red P plates and transfer to ‘green Ps’ after six months. Night time driving restrictions apply to the first six months. It's an offence if you fail to display your P plates as required.
I reckon WA closing the border kept SA safe. lol
Your daughter is required to be compensated for her loss.
How that happens is the question.
Why not find a suitable car and get the driver to buy it for your daughter?
The driver is responsible, not the father.
Why was the claim not accepted by the insurer?
You will likely have to sent a letter of demand or engage a soli.
He is 17 if he is not on insurance then daddy must pay up or threaten legal actions
Not quite. The driver (the 17 year old) is still the party to the action but as he is a minor he will require a litigation guardian (the father).
Same for the girl who's car got rear-ended. She's the party to the action but her father will act as the litigation guardian.
So much emotional and irrelevant information.
She's not very well-off, so she only had 3rd party etc insurance.
Insurance is for people that aren't well off. Your daughter took a $7k gamble and lost.
Did you know that Rene Rivkins multi-million dollar car collection wasn't insured? He could afford to lose and replace it. Kerry Packer: ditto.
My kids drive a $4k Honda. It's insured 3rd Party Property as we can afford to lose the Honda but not the Mercedes or light pole they might crash into.
Because Brad1-8tsi stated they can afford to lose the Honda.
OP's daughter, as per his own admission, is "not very well-off", implying she can't afford to lose her Colt without insurance.
Reading is key.
"we can afford to lose the Honda". Whereas in OP's case it seems they can't afford to lose the Mitsubishi, even thought he's been offered $4100
Username checks out ;)
How is your kids Honda 3rd party insurance different to the OP daughter's Mitsubishi 3rd party insurance?
Because the Honda is a hand-me-down from my late father's estate which none of the family wanted so there was no real purchase cost.
Dad touch-parked for the last few year of ownership so all the corners are scratched and it's black which makes it look worse.
It's been caught in 3 hail storms since we've had it, so the exterior resembles a golf ball.If they write it off they can afford to buy something else. It's just self insurance when the last quote for full comprehensive insurance was half the value of the car.
It's pragmatic economics.
ahh reminds me of my cars to date. pretty much all scratched/faded/dented and all on 3rd party till last year (I'm early 20s). Full comp sucks when your young and the premiums are like 1.5-2.0k for a 5k car. It did make me however drive somewhat carefully, and the savings from TPP over full comp would buy me a "new" used car by now.
I'm finally at the stage of life with a decent salary and ability to buy a 'nice' relatively new car and have full comp only be like 5-10% of the car's value. It pays to have parents like yourself (mine we're the same, i.e. could afford giving me a 'new' car but didn't) who don't just buy a new car for their prince/princess to have them damage/crash it later, but instead have them value both money and the car itself and feel accomplished when they get to buying a decent car for themselves.
Insurance is for people that aren't well off.
What an ill informed comment. Insurance is for anyone who is keen to manage their risk profile effectively and reduce their liability.
In fact, the more expensive the car I have, the higher coverage I'd get.
I don't think it ill informed.
Insurance companies are in business to make money by charging more in premiums than they pay out. On average you can expect to pay more than you claim (unless you are a bad driver and make more claims than a normal person).
If someone is well off enough to be able to replace an asset themself then they don't need to pay to insure it.
Lots of ultra rich adopt this strategy, effectively they are "self insured".If you buy an expensive car that you can't afford to replace then you would insure it. If you were "well off" enough you wouldn't need to insure it.
In fact, the more expensive the car I have, the higher coverage I'd get.
Being able to buy an expensive car doesn't mean you are well off. It means you can afford to buy an expensive car.
I'll try and explain it really simply.
Our 2005 Honda Acccord Euro as described above is driven by 2x under-25yo. It's worth $4k (if that). Comprehensive insurance was quoted at $2500 with a $1500 excess. So if the car was written off in that year we would have paid $2500 in premiums to get $2500 back from the insurance company. Is that smart use of money?
TPP is $500. Since 2018 when we dropped back to TPP, every time we pay the TPP premium we mentally set aside $2k for a replacement vehicle.
Here we are in 2021 and we have $6k in "the bank" to buy another vehicle or pay for Ubers or car share.
I've been working FT for 43 years. I'm financially established, paid a professional wage and the money is in the bank if the kids need a replacement car.Only yesterday I bought myself a car (2016 Pajero Sport). It was $32,500. Did I insure it full comp? You be I did. I can't afford a $32k hit and the pain of finding a replacement work/play vehicle in a hurry.
Did you know that Qantas doesn't pay workers compensation premiums? They self-insure.
The problem is that he claims that his liability is limited purely to the max value an insure would pay in a 3rd-part claim - which is ~$4100.
I have a feeling that the other party is confused, or they're BS-ing you. The $4100 is probably what their insurance will cover for their own car, not 3rd parties car ie. yours or whoever they hit.
What happens if they hit a Lambo, ask the Lambo owner to accept $4k? LOLBut if their insurer rejected their claim, then the $4100 is irrelevant?
Check with your insurer to see if your 3rd party covers for not-at-fault collisions where at fault party does not have insurance, you may be covered up to $5k.
Everyone, I really apreciate the collection of thoughtful responses - just helps to get other viewpoints. I'll mull over this and see.
She does have an appointment with a legal aid person this coming week, but I suspect this is all going to end up with us gulping and taking the hit.
Thanks anyway.Unfortunate situation. Hope it works out OK
Take this as a lesson, if you can’t afford to lose your car it is even more reason to get comprehensive insurance. It covers you in the event you get hit by someone insured who is not playing ball. TPP insurance helps if you hit someone or if you get hit by an uninsured driver (if it’s covered in your policy) but you miss out on receiving compensation quickly when the other insurer or driver starts to argue with you.
I had TPP on previous cheap cars. Fortunately I didn’t learn the TPP issues the hard way, but by reading this forum. I have comprehensive now and probably will forever more unless my car is only worth what I have sitting in the bank for a rainy day.
Sounds like the Dad is BS'ing his way and bullying you into accepting an outcome that benefits them!
$4100 is the upper limit value on Redbook for an automatic 2007 Colt LS RG
Call the dad's bluff, ask for $8k or advise you will be taking it further.
Redbook is such an unreliable guide nowadays.
It kinda always was for cars over 10 years as Redbook uses the data from your local RMS when recording stamp duty payments and given the lower value nature (read: cash payment) people record transaction prices well below the actual sale price when transferring rego to save out on the approx 3% SD surcharge.
On top of this, COVID has boosted car values anywhere between 30-50% and redbook hasn’t really updated their book values for it yet as they use a large date range of historical values and transaction volumes are generally lower.
OP, I would completely dismiss Redbook as a source of value (I think it to be a great achievement if you can get any car for the price range advertised by Redbook).
Use Carsales/Gumtree for an equivalent market value and get around 5 comparable vehicles (Take screenshots before the ads are removed) and average their list prices and ask for that. On top of that, you’ve mentioned that you only bought it last year. Realistically in this environment and the cars age, depreciation would be non existent so if you want to come out of this no worse off then perhaps just ask for $7k and mention the car will be deregistered before being given away (should get a further few hundred, and idk why you’d want to keep it anyways)
If it was dealing with an insurer, you'd still be in the same boat.
Your sense of "value" and replacement cost differs from market expectation.
You have grounds to bolster your counter claim (and potential civil court action) by seeking additional compensation for loss of vehicle use.
rg. if you had insurance, you'd possibly have had the right to a hire car.
Expect to end up in court if you want more.
Insurers can be negotiated with. NEVER take their first offer. Also this is not an insurer here so taking it on the chin is not what you should accept
I just got 40% more than my first offer with my insurer a few months ago
Ask them to actually replace the car. If not then the gloves should be off.
This father is in no position to screw you. I’d throw everything at him including the probable $70,000 lawyer’s for hire injury settlement which is about what whiplash gets. Talk to the police and let them handle the prosecution and ask that you be considered for compensation from the court for the dangerous driving charge and not displaying P Plates.
It’s possible the P plates were not on the car because of endemic arrogance in the family. I’m fuming too!
The father is in no position to screw OP, but the 17 year old at fault may be.
if push comes to shove you can bankrupt the 17 year old and still get nothing, assuming most 17 year olds don’t have much savings.
So it’s probably best not to drop 70k on lawyers.I may have been unclear. The payout with a lawyer for hire is a about $70k no win no fee. The lawyer takes half.
What are you even talking about? The father did not crash into the car. All throwing everything at the son will do is get the 17 year old to declare bankruptcy and they don't see a cent.
Doesn’t bankruptcy mean one’s assets exceed certain amount must repay whoever it owes to meaning if the son starts to work in future his pays will be partly withheld to make repayments to OP’s daughter?
No
@p3nf0ld: How are my debts paid?
Your debts are not usually paid in full when you are bankrupt. Your trustee[?] can pay some of your debts using any available proceeds from the following:sale of your assets
compulsory payments[?] (if you earn over a set amount).If your trustee determines you are earning over the income set amount, they'll ask you to make compulsory payments (also called income contributions[?]). The amount you may need to pay depends on your income and how many dependants you have. Your trustee can use these contributions to help repay your debts.
If you do need to make compulsory payments, they are 50% of the amount you earn above the income threshold.
Your trustee will tell you how and when you need to make payments. If you have any questions about these payments, contact your trustee.
Sure, but if she doesn't know all the options to explore she could be worse off and still haven't learnt much.
OP didn't ask for parenting advice.
OP asked a question on the internet. OP is gonna get all sorts of answers.
She's 17, she's not an adult. People are barely even adults until there 20's as well.
Can confirm that even at the age of 31 I'm often described more as a child than an adult.
People don't realise that 3rd Part actually offers you around 5kish, if vehicle is written off.
The vehicle is worthless… do not attempt to buy out the insurer, and have fix yourself.
If the other party is insured, then that makes the process a lot simpler. If not however, her 3rd Party will cover the majority of the value of her car.
If the other party is uninsured, then you sue them for ALL costs.
3rd Part actually offers you around 5kish, if vehicle is written off.
It depends on the wording in the policy. It is usually your vehicle is insured for up to $5k in the event the at fault driver is uninsured. If they are insured, the insurance co will tell you to take it up with the other party’s insurer, your insurer will normally not help in this situation.
Not necessarily, I’ve been in the same boat when I was a uni student and with NRMA. My TPP handled everything for me even though the other party was insured.
Also with TPP, if your car is W/O you automatically retain the title to the car unlike full comp, so you’d get 5k (minus rego value) and the wreck which you could flog for like $300. Once you cancel rego too you’d get 5k overall from insurance plus whatever the wrecker gives you for the car (unless you decide to part-out yourself)But insurance rejected the claim, so is that not deemed uninsured event.
Yes but if you have a good TPP that wont be an issue when making your initial claim. I meant that my insurer was indifferent to the fact that the other part was insured or not. They did not tell me to take it up with the other party's insurer but instead took care of everything for me. Cover under my policy at the time was $10k, but with a specific 5k limit if uninsured. So if I had the same incident again but the other party was 'uninsured' then my pay-out would be capped at 5k, but the process would be the same.
This was for TPP that was like <$400 a year (which is cheap for Sydney)
Have a careful read of the TPPD policy PDS. Some insurance providers will provide rudimentary cover in the event the at-fault party is un-insured.
Ahh yes very true. Although it’s generally only up to 5k
And the other party is indicating they have insurance and a claim was denied.
Which means that for all OP’s intents and purposes and their TPP insurer that the other driver is uninsured.
@JDMcarfan: Problem with this is that depending on the insurer, sometimes all they do is call up the other party and ask "are you insured".
This happened to me, the other party told their insurer I was uninsured. I was called, asked this one question, and when I said "yes" that was it. No follow up questions. (they were at fault anyway; couple of weeks later the insurer accepted their drivers' liability).
Its an awful situation to be in but 4k isn’t bad for a 14 year old colt.
Market value on redbook is a lot lower than that, if your daughter had insurance on market value, she would probably get less anyway.Also, unless you plan to part the car out yourself, you have no advantage of keeping it post payment other then perhaps making an extra $100 from giving it to a wrecker.
We had a situation a while ago where we had the same insurance company as the person who drove through a give way sign and hit my car. The insurance company wanted each party to cover costs, despite us being not at fault in the accident.
The other party had an unrestrained dog in the front seat and drove through a give way sign. We prepared a report showing the laws that they had broken and advised the other party and the insurance company that we would be submitting it to the police with the request that the other party be charged if they insisted on going down a path of us being out of pocket for a not at fault accident. The insurance company accepted our position and paid for our repairs.
If you have photos of P plates not up, it is another form of leverage you can consider. Not the nicest thing to do, but it sounds like the other party is being difficult so consider it as an option.
got dash cam footage or witnesses?
It seems to me like the offending party should replace the car with a similar model/mileage car. It's extremely unlikely you'll find another 14 year old Colt with only 70K on the clock. That's an extremely low mileage for what's a basic commuter car.
Try to find another make/model of a similar class, size, mileage, and age on Car Sales and present a bill to the offending party. If they don't play ball, say you'll take it to court. Be prepared for the costs of that, and the possibility of losing.
I'd collect everything you would need if the matter was to go to small claims court - having all the information helps convince the other party, and helps convince them you are serious about taking it further if not resolved fairly.
- Quotes for repair (to show repair cost is higher than replacement cost)
- Pre-crash state of current car (odometer)
- Examples of replacement cars as advertised (to similar state as current car)
- Quoted salvage value of car.
From that the total payable becomes clear. The other party shouldn't be seeking to take ownership of the wreck if the salvage value is listed on the calculations of amount owing.
After being presented with the calculation and evidence the other party is still unreasonable, you start adding risk of increasing cost on them. In this case, if the matter stays unresolved a hire car might be required - all claimable in court against the other party.
Perfect response!
It’s possible that the son’s excess is $4100 so that might be as far as the father’s prepared to go so he doesn’t have to make a claim (and lose his no claim bonus). With OP’s daughter’s possible injuries, this needs to be reported to her insurance so there is an independent record for the future. OP should make a list of all similar cars on Carsales and present it to the other party to achieve a better price. I did this with my insurer when I was rear-ended, and they (eventually) increased the pay-out by $1000.
Injuries to be dealt with at fault driver's CTP. This could be like 1yr+ to assess everything and determine pay out
Compensation of vehicle / property to be negotiated with the at fault party since you only have Third Party Property insurance
If nothing agreeable, need start civil suit against at fault party and gather up as much Info as possible like repair quotes, market value of car etc etcIf you had comprehensive insurance your insurer would pay you up to the market value or agreed value. If you are not satisfied with the amount, the difference you want would also be a civil suit with the at fault party
Go through your own insurance. NRMA covers 3rd Party up to 5k. Let them deal with it
This
Many insurers cover not at fault up to $5000 which will cover part of the cost of your car if the other party isn't insured (some don't unfortunately). They then chase it up with the other party.
if the guy comes to whatever cost you rego'd the car at ($7k or in that vicinity) then i'd take it.he claims that his liability is limited purely to the max value an insure would pay in a 3rd-part claim - which is ~$4100
sounds a bit like BS
Also FWIW $7k isn't a bargain for a 14 year old Mitsubishi, and if someone convinced you that it was they're a great salesman.
May depend on the fine print in the policy. Normally only covers when the other party is uninsured.
He is trying to take you for a ride. Your values do sound a bit high for valuations, but he should be paying the fair market value of the car if it is not repairable. Given you bought it only a year ago, that value is also a reasonable starting point for negotiation.
See how the legal aid consultation goes.
but it would be good if someone with professional knowledge could advise
So let's ask Ozbargain 🤦♂️
Honestly not the worst idea as people like me (hello, I have the professional knowledge) surf this website too
Ask your insurance company for advice because they often liaise and as you have their details it’s possible they will do a not at fault claim.
Threaten to take him to the civil court if he does not pay for the full value of the totaled car in today's market. It doesn't matter what insurance your daughter did or did not have: she wasn't at fault, the other party was. They need to pay up for the damages they caused.
Having comprehensive insurance, i just let my insurer deal with it. All I have to do is hand over other drivers details.
Unfortunately by not having comprehensive, and saving a few bucks upfront results in these situations.
I'm surprised they're even offering $4k for a 15 year old car. I'd take it and not complain.
Court will cost you about $150 in filing fees, no risk of an adverse costs order and you and the other party cannot use a lawyer.
It's really quite easy to sue someone when the claim is less than $10,000. Let the court decide.
https://www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/_files/civil_factshee…
- 1
- 2
The most expensive colt on carsales, a 2011 VRX sports model with 12,000kms, is listed for $11k. Ones of similar age to your daughters are around $5k
As above, she isn't really, if he came up to $5k, it would be approximate market value of the vehicle.
As insurance professionals, has your daughter tried to talk to her insurer? Even with only 3rd party, some of them can be helpful.
Failing that, you will need to go to Xcat in your state. You have a police report, don't you? The police attended the scene, with that much damage, and with the medical issues that have arisen?