In a Car Crash, Other Driver at Fault - They Want Me to Lie to My Insurer to Make Sure They Cover It. What Should I Do?

Lhrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:14

Hey OBs! Long time lurker, first time car-crash poster (think it's required you post a car incident for your first post?).

ASCII diagram of collision:

          |       |
          |       |
———        ————
                <— Me, green light
———        ————
          |   ^  |
          |       |
        Her, red light

I got T-boned at low speeds in an intersection when another driver ran a red - both cars are written off. I'm definitely not at fault, have witnesses, no worries with that. I have 3rd Party Fire/Theft and the other driver kind of has Comprehensive. They're being co-operative except for one thing.

They want to say it was their mum driving the car because it's insured under her name!

I don't want to lie to my insurer but I'm worried if I tell the truth, the other driver's insurance won't cover the cost.

Has anyone been in this position before? I'm thinking I can just say I only got the other driver's phone number and lie by omission?

On a side note, another driver's dashcam was on but only saved the aftermath because it deletes old recordings, or
there's some kind of 1min recording interval? Definitely getting a dashcam after this, but if that's how they work what's the point?

Automotive Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • neo on 16/11/2022 - 12:21
    +193

    It is insurance fraud, and they know it. You give your insurer the actual details and the insurer will deal with it.

    His mum's insurance will likely have an unlisted driver excess, he can pay that.

    In addition, from this point onwards you should have 0 (zero) contact with the other party, everything via your insurer.

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:33
      +3

      Appreciate it, that makes sense to me. Never been in this situation before so cheers everyone for the advice

      So being worried about them not being insured isn't a thing?

      • CalmLemons on 16/11/2022 - 15:00
        +5

        I normally just tell them it's a lease car and you do not own it and there's nothing you can do.

        • EightImmortals on 16/11/2022 - 15:46
          +81

          So how often to you have accidents?

      • Herbse on 16/11/2022 - 15:26
        +2

        If you have third party insurance and the other person, even if they are at fault, is not insured due to not being on the policy or just plain doesn't have insurance. Unless your insurance policy specifically says so, you might not be covered and your insurance will tell you to settle the matter privately.

        Check your PDS immediately before you take any action because if you "do the right thing" you'll end up not being covered and will have to figure it out personally.

        I learnt this the hard way with my third party insurance company and an overseas traveller who wasn't insured and ignored me trying to claim money back.
        My current insurer (Shannon's) covers me for up to $5k if the other party at fault has no insurance. I had a claim and they paid me out and chased the other party for the money. Very few companies do this.

        Edit: OP already called the insurance company. All the best to op

        • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 01:19
          -4

          This is a very odd post. All you have to do is identify the at-fault driver to your insurer. Then they reimburse you and it's up to them to recover those costs from the other driver/insurance company. It doesn't affect you if the other driver disappears back overseas or whatever (as long as their license wasn't fake).

          • Herbse on 17/11/2022 - 07:36
            +11

            @[Deactivated]: For comprehension insurance. Yes in most cases.

            For third party. No. Unless the pds states that they do cover you for that situation.

            Lots of people get caught out with that one because they assume their insured and they'll be covered no matter what. But most insurers don't cover you if the other party is uninsured for whatever reason (no policy, was drunk and insurance is void etc)

            Everyone should read their pds

      • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 01:13
        +5

        neo has it in one.

        It's the car that has to be insured not the driver. Otherwise every person renting a car would first have to get insurance. The car owner allowed another person to drive. And when the owner paid their car insurance, they're supposed to disclose whether anyone else will drive it regularly, and their age, because younger drivers have less experience, and thus more accidents/claims.

        So if for instance they allowed an 18 year old to drive their car, the owner would probably have to pay more for comprehensive insurance. Instead she decided to cheap out, to pay less. It's not your responsibility to help them cheat by saving them the extra $100 or whatever they should have just disclosed and paid the insurer in the first place, so the younger person could drive.

        In fact some policies already allow other people to drive your car a few times, just not REGULARLY. So you could be placing yourself in danger for nothing, simply because the owner doesn't even know what her own insurance policy contains.

        Unless of course the driver wasn't even licensed. In which case, I'd lean MORE toward telling the truth, not toward "saving" them.

        Anyway, if someone doesn't disclose someone else would regularly drive their car, and they have a smash, the owner will have to pay the excess (several hundred $ on my policy) because the owner should have declared another regular driver when they paid their insurance. Then the insurance company pays out the rest (and might increase the owner's insurance premium by a couple of hundred $ next year).

        They should both be thankful they're only "losing" a few/several hundred $ in excess. Because: a) If the fraud comes out they'll be wishing they'd just paid the several hundred, and: b) Plenty of people have had uninsured accidents costing several thousand up to replacing entire cars. If they can't afford to pay several hundred in excess, they shouldn't be driving in the first place. Several hundred $ is no reason to put everyone at risk of fines/fraud charges.

        • Poor Ass on 17/11/2022 - 01:47
          -2

          Tldr

        • MrTweek on 17/11/2022 - 16:32
          +1

          But how is the insurer going to know if the 18 year old drives the car regularly, or if it was a once off?

          All insurances I had would have something $500 additional excess for drivers under 25. I guess that's what they are trying to avoid.

          • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 17:20
            +3

            @MrTweek: Yeah I don't know, I asked my insurer rep that on the phone after he mentioned it and he just sort of trailed off, lol.

    • bargaino on 16/11/2022 - 12:38
      +6

      everything via your insurer.

      OP only has TPFT. He will have to negotiate with the other party's insurer.

      • ankor on 16/11/2022 - 14:54
        +7

        ..and they may deny coverage if it is not the mum driving.

        OP can't lie tho. Too many witnesses, easy to get caught and if you have your own insurance cancelled due to dishonesty, you are (profanity) trying to get other insurances later on in life.

    • kaleidoscope on 16/11/2022 - 23:19
      +2

      100% this. Don’t lie just tell exactly what happened as is. If they are comprehensive insurance they will just pay bit of extra for unlisted driver. if the person driving had no license or suspended license their insurance would still cover you but they will be in other forms of trouble that does not concern you

  • sharkyoz on 16/11/2022 - 12:21
    +40

    dont lie

    • Kangal on 17/11/2022 - 01:02

      Black Eyed Peas?

    • Lastchancetosee on 17/11/2022 - 08:40

      Cocaine

    • caitsith01 on 18/11/2022 - 11:20
      +9

      LOL at OP even asking the question.

      Let's rephrase it:

      "A complete stranger who has already destroyed my car is inviting me to commit a crime with them. Should I do it?"

  • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2022 - 12:22
    +38

    have witnesses
    They Want Me to Lie
    What Should I Do

    Is this a troll post?

    You'd be supporting insurance fraud

    End of thread.

    Aside: The above link also makes it easy to report people engaged in insurance fraud. And you've provided enough detail here - along with you comment history - for an investigator to work with with. There's no current reward a successful insurance fraud tip-off but some people treat it like a sport and don't pursue the prize money.

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:40
      +14

      Appreciate it! Will just pass everything I know to the insurer then and let them sort it out

      • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2022 - 12:42
        +2

        Good call.

  • jv on 16/11/2022 - 12:22
    +9

    They Want Me to Lie to My Insurer to Make Sure They Cover It.

    Go directly to jail. Do not pass 'GO'…

  • tadrost on 16/11/2022 - 12:23
    +14

    What do you owe them? Nothing. Tell the truth

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/11/2022 - 12:25
    +30

    DONT LIE FFS WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU.

    • bargaino on 16/11/2022 - 12:29
      +8

      Lies are one thing. Insurance fraud is a whole other level.

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/11/2022 - 12:30
        +1

        i meant lie about this incident to insurer - but yes insurance fraud is serious business if you get caught.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2022 - 12:42
        +11

        Yep! There are employees, contractors and private investigators who make their living catching-out people who do the wrong thing.

        I used to know a bloke whose job it was to:

        1. attend car and motorcycle track days to photograph cars while they still had their licence plates on and then again if they crashed/rolled/whatever;
        2. watch YouTube and Facebook videos (yep - it's a job) to find street racing and track day mishaps; and
        3. sift through social media monitoring results for potential events.

        All of the intelligence is made available and searchable to insurers and underwriters who subscribe. Make certain types of motor vehicle accident claims and you can be certain that they're going to check that that single vehicle "lost control of vehicle in carpark at 4am" claim isn't a "failed being a superhero at track day" claim.

        • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/11/2022 - 12:52
          +2

          Yo that sounds like an awesome job - like … how do you even find yourself in this type of role? Like … ex security contractor? Self declared private eye?

          • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2022 - 13:53
            +5

            @Jimothy Wongingtons: Anecdotally, it's a mix of ex-police, ex-banking and existing company employees of the insurer with an eye for detail that are dropped into such roles.

            Just look things like "Fraud Analyst", "Fraud Intelligence*", "Fraud (or 'Factual') Investigator". There are always dozens of positions available in Australia.

    • CrowReally on 16/11/2022 - 13:04
      +6

      The insurer brings up red-light camera footage and then consults subsequent witness and police reports.
      They present this evidence to you ask you to double down and identify where on the pictures/reports the mother appears.

      Tune in next week to see what stupid prize you've won on "Play Stupid Games"(TM)

    • brendanm on 16/11/2022 - 14:45
      +5

      Pity you can't give more than one neg at a time.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 18:11

        you can, you need to enable that on settings if you have premium membership

  • bargaino on 16/11/2022 - 12:29
    +12

    You chose TPPT, because your car is not worth much and you can afford the loss, right? (though it hurts)
    I have comprehensive, even though my car is old, partly for just this reason: to avoid stress over an accident that's not my fault.

    No way should you even be considering such fraud. It is more than a lie, it is a crime. Don't even let them think you will do it.
    In insurance policies I've seen, if you don't pay the extra premium for a younger driver, it just means a bigger excess.
    They need to pay that excess if claiming on their insurance, otherwise you have to deal with them.
    Try sending a letter of demand, and they might pay that excess real fast.

    • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:35
      +6

      Yeah exactly, 400 bucks a year vs 1000 plus for comprehensive wasn't worth it for my 10k car I figured. Rethinking that now though!

      • Cherry12 on 16/11/2022 - 20:58
        +2

        You have to shop around, those numbers dont add up. There are cheaper and good insurance companies.

        • lgacb08 on 16/11/2022 - 22:47
          +3

          Shop around won't help much if you live in high risk areas (pretty much Sydney and Melbourne metro and maybe other metropolitan areas too) only in regional areas comprehensive is lower and might worth considering.

          • Cherry12 on 17/11/2022 - 22:46

            @lgacb08: Ohh, wasn't aware that CBD or inner areas are much more expensive.

    • kerfuffle on 16/11/2022 - 12:37
      +4

      I have comprehensive, even though my car is old, partly for just this reason: to avoid stress over an accident that's not my fault.

      Same here. It's paid off multiple times.

      • mauricem on 16/11/2022 - 13:46
        +4

        Same here. It's paid off multiple times.

        Exactly how many accidents have you had!

        • kerfuffle on 16/11/2022 - 15:31
          +4

          Five not at fault in my old car alone … Which like the OP, got written off from a T-Bone (but unlike OP, I had comprehensive insurance and the reason why I have comprehensive is because people keep driving into me …)

          • Lichen6420 on 16/11/2022 - 17:24
            -4

            @kerfuffle: Wow… need to look into your defensive driving skills. That is a ridiculous amount of accidents to be in, even if you weren't at fault.

            Keep going on this path and your insurance renewals will end up getting declined / cancelled, and then it's basically impossible to obtain insurance.

            • kerfuffle on 16/11/2022 - 17:57
              +2

              @Lichen6420: How is it my fault people rear end me, T-Bone me by running red lights when I have the green (so now I have no car), merge into my car in bumper-to-bumper traffic or don't give way to me?

              And that was just the old car. My car prior to that also had people rear ending or merging into me. I always said that if I died of unnatural causes, it would be from a car accident …

              • danyool on 16/11/2022 - 20:39
                +6

                @kerfuffle: It might not be your fault in a legal sense - but it's something which you can mitigate to some extent:
                - slowing down well beforehand and leaving space in front of you, then checking your rear view mirror. (Not just breaking at the last second)
                - checking the intersection is clear before taking off at the lights
                - merge - be vigilant and ready with the horn!

                • kerfuffle on 16/11/2022 - 20:46
                  +4

                  @danyool: And how is it my fault when people rear end me when I’m already stationary? Three of my accidents happened when I was stationary. So explain how I’m supposed to mitigate people not paying attention and driving into me when I have no control over their actions, or people choosing to ignore the Give Way signs as well as the Give Way markings on the road where I clearly have right of way?

                  Why are you making it out to be my fault when it isn’t? Sounds like you’re victim blaming.

                  • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 12:16
                    +6

                    @kerfuffle:

                    how is it my fault when people rear end me when I’m already stationary

                    @danyool literally wrote:

                    not be your fault in a legal sense - but it's something which you can mitigate

                    …and you've taken exception to it?

                    You sound like someone who would see a semi-trailer hurtling down a street as you approach a pedestrian crossing. You would KNOW there's no way it could stop in time but you step onto the crossing anyway and get mowed-down.

                    When you regain consciousness you slowly raise your arm in its plaster cast and proclaim self-righteously proclaim "But I was in the right!".

                    The Slater & Gordon lawyer by your bedside nods, gives you a reassuring pat on the head and says "You're absolutely right champ! And we're going to get you the best paraplegia specialist and motorised wheelchair that money can buy."

                • CurlCurl on 16/11/2022 - 22:23
                  +3

                  @danyool: Ok, you must be one of the 80% who think they are good drivers.

                  - slowing down well beforehand and leaving space in front of you, then checking your rear view mirror. (Not just breaking at the last second)

                  Rear enders are usually caused be drivers following to close or inattention and not by sudden braking.

                  - checking the intersection is clear before taking off at the lights

                  How long do you check an intersection for? I.'ve seen people come through an intersection 30 seconds after the red. What if your are travelling through the green at 80kph (the legal limit) and some dick comes through the red. By your advise they should have checked the intersection.

                  *- merge - be vigilant and ready with the horn! *

                  I didn't know the horn would stop a jerk off from ramming the side of my vehicle. Thanks for the tip.

                  • danyool on 17/11/2022 - 09:24
                    +2

                    @CurlCurl: I didn't say you could eliminate them completely - but that there were some strategies to mitigate them happening - but I guess some people would rather be in the right than drive defensively to try and prevent other people's mistakes.

                    • kerfuffle on 17/11/2022 - 10:32

                      @danyool: Like I said, how do I mitigate strategies for people ignoring Give Way signs and markings? I expect people to obey them, not blatantly disregard them. Or people rear ending me when stationary at the lights or a roundabout? Why should I be the one responsible for other people's mistakes when they should take more responsibility and not ignore Give Way signs and pay attention to stationary cars?

                      • danyool on 17/11/2022 - 13:11

                        @kerfuffle:

                        I expect people to obey them

                        Yes - they should but you need to plan for the possibility that they might not. Slow down a bit - scan the intersection and see what they are doing. Even if they're got an indicator on, don't take that as gospel.

                        I would also add, if you've got an older car that does not have day running lights, I'd turn on the headlights even during the day to help make you more visible.

                        • jatyap on 19/11/2022 - 00:50
                          +1

                          @danyool: I grew up in Asia, and tended to do that on the couple of practice drives I had before applying to have my licence converted over.

                          According to the instructor:
                          - Scanning the intersection - yeap good
                          - Make yourself more visible - yeap good, as well
                          - Slowing down approaching an intersection - don't ever do this, especially not in the exam. You can sudden brake to avoid an incident, but right of way is right of way - do not unnecessarily slow down people who have right of way.

                    • stumo on 17/11/2022 - 11:25
                      +1

                      @danyool: But there are some things you can do to get rear ended more often.

                      The sure-fire way is to turn left at a busy intersection that has a slip lane for left turn. The kind where you have to look over your shoulder to see if the way is clear. Stop and wait for the way to be clear, and wait for someone to be waiting behind you. Then floor it to merge onto the road, but then immediately brake hard to a complete stop for no reason. Brace for impact.

                      slowing down well beforehand and leaving space in front of you

                      This is also a pretty good way of doing it, although not quite as sure-fire as above. Braking hard and inappropriately at an intersection. Most good drivers will judge the distance to the intersection where they have to stop, allowing for cars in front etc, to achieve a smooth safe ride as they come to a stop. If some tool in front of them suddenly decides to brake hard to leave a 15m gap to the car in front of them for no reason (other than they are such a safe driver), then they also need to brace for impact.

                      • danyool on 17/11/2022 - 13:21

                        @stumo:

                        Most good drivers will judge the distance to the intersection where they have to stop, allowing for cars in front etc, to achieve a smooth safe ride as they come to a stop

                        Yes. Smooth braking is what I was talking about, not a hard stop. But a lot of people brake hard and late and leave no room for the twat behind.

                        • stumo on 17/11/2022 - 13:29

                          @danyool:

                          Smooth braking is what I was talking about

                          Yes thats fine for you in front. But unbeknownst to those behind you, you secretly plan to leave an unfeasibly large gap to the car stopped in front of you. Its the person behind, who was also doing the same smooth braking, but not expecting to be forced to stop 20m before where they pre-judged that they normally would be, They have to then brake hard, and so on behind them.

                      • bigticket on 18/11/2022 - 14:11
                        +2

                        @stumo:

                        Most good drivers will judge the distance to the intersection where they have to stop, allowing for cars in front etc, to achieve a smooth safe ride as they come to a stop. If some tool in front of them suddenly decides to brake hard to leave a 15m gap to the car in front of them for no reason (other than they are such a safe driver), then they also need to brace for impact.

                        What a ridiculous and illogical statement. The object of interest/responsibility is the vehicle in front (amongst others) and most good drivers allow adequate space to stop if the vehicle directly in front brakes hard at any time.

                        The only tool I see here is the driver who prejudges the expected stopping positions of the cars in front and rear ends someone.

                        • stumo on 18/11/2022 - 14:57

                          @bigticket:

                          The only tool I see here is the driver who prejudges the expected stopping positions of the cars in front and rear ends someone.

                          Next time you are pulling up to an intersection where the light has just changed to red, think about what you just said, and what you are doing braking wise as the traffic slows to a stop.

                          You will hopefully find that you are automatically pre-judging your expected stopping point and applying the brakes smoothly to reach that point.

                          The only alternative is to violently brake when you reach your set distance to the car in front, then release the brake, then violently brake again when that threshold is crossed again, repeat until stopped. I really hope you don't drive like that. Hopefully you are already applying the pre-judged braking force whether you realise it or not. And making adjustments to that pre-judged force due to the car in front.

                          The problems occur when a tool in front screws up that natural deceleration by aiming to stop unfeasibly far back from the expected point, and that can cause unnecessary violent braking for those behind.

                          • bigticket on 18/11/2022 - 15:34

                            @stumo:

                            You will hopefully find that you are automatically pre-judging your expected stopping point and applying the brakes smoothly to reach that point.

                            No, I am not doing that. If my prejudged stopping distance is not met, I do not rear end the car in front.

                            Any normal driver will take note that the lights changed to red and only observe the matter of relevance, that is, the breaking of the car in front and break accordingly. It is irrelevant what the other cars further in front are doing or where you expect them to stop.

                            The only alternative is to violently brake when you reach your set distance to the car in front, then release the brake, then violently brake again when that threshold is crossed again, repeat until stopped. I really hope you don't drive like that.

                            This is nonsense and does not require a response.

                            • stumo on 18/11/2022 - 15:42

                              @bigticket:

                              the breaking of the car in front and break accordingly.

                              Yeah its not "break" or "breaking" lol.

                              This is nonsense and does not require a response.

                              How much "breaking"force are you applying though in between, given that its governed ONLY by your distance to the car in front. If you haven't pre-judged your stopping point like you claim to be doing, that implies no braking, and full braking, nothing in-between. I agree, its nonsense.

                              • bigticket on 18/11/2022 - 17:31
                                +1

                                @stumo:

                                that implies no braking, and full braking, nothing in-between.

                                How you arrived at the conclusion that it implies anything is baffling.

                                Everyone is different, some will slowly coast to a stop, others will do it last minute and others may skid to a stop. There is a whole spectrum of stopping scenarios. A "good driver" will anticipate the possibilities and drive to leave a safe space between their vehicle and the car in front to stop. "Simples"

                                • stumo on 18/11/2022 - 17:46

                                  @bigticket:

                                  A "good driver" will anticipate the possibilities

                                  Which means always instantly slamming on the brakes, because its always possible that the tool in front is going to do that, right?

                                  • bigticket on 18/11/2022 - 18:40
                                    +1

                                    @stumo:

                                    Which means always instantly slamming on the brakes,

                                    No, it definitely does not mean always, it means on the rare occasion this happens, you have to stop abruptly to avoid collision. Predominately this is not the case. The concept of leaving a safe space between vehicles is important, and if you do not understand that and are distracted by working out how many cars are in front and speculating how much space you should end up with you may find your self running into @kerfuffle.

                                    • stumo on 18/11/2022 - 19:24

                                      @bigticket:

                                      Predominately this is not the case.

                                      Yes thats because almost everyone brakes naturally towards their pre-determined point.

                                      • bigticket on 18/11/2022 - 20:29

                                        @stumo: Its not *their pre-determined point." That "point" solely depends on where the car in front has stopped

                                        Yes thats because almost everyone brakes naturally
                                        …
                                        that implies no braking, and full braking, nothing in-between.

                                        How do you reconcile these statements?

                                        • stumo on 18/11/2022 - 20:52

                                          @bigticket: Let me try and spell it out.

                                          " That "point" solely depends on where the car in front has stopped.

                                          The car is still moving, and you don't know where that car is going to actually stop. You only know where that car would normally stop given most people stop around 2-4m from the car in front of them.

                                          So you have a point where you would normally come to a stop. And you brake accordingly. This doesn't mean you ignore the car in front, it just means you are applying your normal braking effort to reach that point.

                                          What I'm saying is, if that tool in front decides to leave a 10m gap because they are such a "safe" driver, you will have to apply harder braking than you initially did. Harder than normal braking. This has a flow on effect to those behind you. I'm just saying people that leave a huge gap are tools who are causing accidents and claiming to be safe drivers.

                                          • bigticket on 18/11/2022 - 21:13

                                            @stumo: How are these apparent "tools" causing accidents? The car behind just stops normally, provided that an appropriate safe distance is maintained to stop. There is a flow on effect, in that everyone stops safely, just a little further back.

                    • CurlCurl on 17/11/2022 - 13:41

                      @danyool: I notice you didn't address any of my questions.

                      To difficult hey!

                      • danyool on 17/11/2022 - 14:06

                        @CurlCurl: Questions? Plural? You mean this one.

                        How long do you check an intersection for?

                        Always scanning

                        I.'ve seen people come through an intersection 30 seconds after the red. What if your are travelling through the green at 80kph (the legal limit) and some dick comes through the red. By your advise they should have checked the intersection.

                        Yes. See above.

                        *- merge - be vigilant and ready with the horn! * I didn't know the horn would stop a jerk off from ramming the side of my vehicle. Thanks for the tip

                        Yes. If you're looking around you could see a potential problem which could be avoided. It might stop some jerk offs, but you're right, not all…they keep coming back for more and more ..

                • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 11:28
                  +2

                  @danyool: Defensive driving 101. Good call.

                  • Ryballs on 18/11/2022 - 08:21

                    @[Deactivated]: Ever considered that @kerfuffle might just live in an area with bad drivers and the accidents they were in were unavoidable? Yes I know it's hard to believe but some accidents are 100% unavoidable, even by armchair defensive driving experts such as yourself and @danyool. The victim blaming by you two in this thread is pathetic, grow up.

                    • [Deactivated] on 18/11/2022 - 08:31

                      @Ryballs: I think I understand you and I mitigate risk of arguing with idiots/trolls by blocking them.

                • co doonunda on 18/11/2022 - 09:46

                  @danyool: It's not a coincidence when certain people are involved in multiple car accidents.

          • factor on 17/11/2022 - 23:24

            @kerfuffle: The government produced some good information on assigning blame on the roads - 1973 and still entirely relevant today:
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fUndGF6QiQ4

    • Mokr on 16/11/2022 - 13:14

      No way should you even be considering such fraud. It is more than a lie, it is a crime. Don't even let them think you will do it.

      Tons of people lie to insurance companies

      Oh the car I rear ended actually pulled Infront of me and broke very hard. I doubt they had to face anything once the insurance company did and investigation.

      Even though that is fraud.

    • JDMcarfan on 16/11/2022 - 13:43
      +1

      you're probably right with the 'not worth much' assumption
      however, for some vehicles and younger drivers (myself) its not worth the premium for Comp simply because the insurer decides that a certain car is not worth anywhere near what actual market value is and also dictates that if on Comp they keep the wreck when W/O.
      This is a double whammy as they both under value the car (trying to argue market value is a PITA) and keep the car, thus prevent us from parting out valuable bits for cash/replacement vehicle. Going TPPT for such cars and drivers (where TPPT is about 30-50% of Comp) is somewhat worthwhile, and whilst it has its risks, if you pick a more full service provider (I'm with NRMA) they will process claims when NAF on TPPT (I've had this happen and didn't even need to argue, just got told we'll take care of it)

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/11/2022 - 12:30
    +5

    On a side note, another driver's dashcam was on but only saved the aftermath because it deletes old recordings, or
    there's some kind of 1min recording interval?

    1. Get a dash cam, seriously, black friday is coming up, $150 well spent.

    2. Yes it deletes old recordings, but only if no impact is recorded, and you can mark the important ones so it doesnt delete.
      In event of crash detection or impact it will also lock the recording against deletion. SPEND THE MONEY on a GOOD SD card - I cannot stress this enough. It's like.. $30 max.
      You can also get fancy and have it wired into your car battery so it's always on - good for detection of impact when you're away eg someone backs into you or similar.

    • bargaino on 16/11/2022 - 12:33

      You can get a whole dashcam for $30 delivered. A lot better than nothing - you don't need to be able to read number plates.

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/11/2022 - 12:36

        Yeah you right, I draw the line at a129 duo though, good value and pretty decent footage with option for support of back camera feed too and GPS.

      • hrayn3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:37
        +1

        Might have had to in this case - both cars were the exact same haha!

      • dcep on 16/11/2022 - 16:18

        30 bux dash cam ? where ?

        • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/11/2022 - 16:35

          ali probably

        • bargaino on 16/11/2022 - 16:57

          $20 on ebay. Enough to show who ran red, or how fast you reversed before being hit in the carpark.

      • Poor Ass on 17/11/2022 - 01:53

        Surely something more than $30

        But if ya gonna be cheap might as well get the $10 one at reject shop

  • Ghost47 on 16/11/2022 - 12:32
    +7

    If they’re driving a car that’s insured under another family member’s name they should be nominated as a driver of the vehicle.

    Don’t lie about it. They can consider this punishment for not bothering to sort out their paperwork.

    We need more people with integrity in this country, not less.

    • banana365 on 18/11/2022 - 15:30

      They don't typically need to be nominated on the policy if they're only an occasional driver. Nominated or not, there's usually an increased excess for inexperienced and/or younger drivers.

  • mreddie on 16/11/2022 - 12:32
    +14

    10 points for a bit of ASCII

  • Seraphin7 on 16/11/2022 - 12:40
    +14

    FMD. Beyond the whole criminal fraud aspect of this, let's consider another angle … you put all of this fraudulent information together and then "the mum" denies being there and presents evidence that she was out of the country at the time. Where does this put you?

    • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2022 - 12:47
      +4

      Where does this put you?

      Given where OP lives and the nature of the mooted offence, it think it would put them at 250 William St, Melbourne VIC 3000

    • coffeeinmyveins on 16/11/2022 - 13:12
      +3

      . Where does this put you?

      Before a magistrate for insurance fraud and unable to ever get any type of insurance ever again :)

  • SF3 on 16/11/2022 - 12:53
    +5

    It may seem helpful by lying for the other party, it may seem like a good idea in the moment, but you'll regret it later on.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join