Anyone tried right2drive.co.nz?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Anyone tried right2drive.co.nz?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059713 20-Jul-2018 23:28

MichaelNZ:

See here:

https://www.right2drive.co.nz/about-us

Yes. There's still no link to or quote of any legislation on that page. They claim to be licensed under a foreign jurisdiction's debt collection licensing regulation, but so do a whole lot of debt collection agencies, since NZ has no licensing regime they can use to attempt to prove legitimacy.

I was clearly citing an example.

No you weren't. You were saying they operate physically from Australia with ruthless disregard for New Zealand law, which is patently untrue given they physically operate in New Zealand, have done for years, and haven't been shut down by any government authority for ruthlessly disregarding New Zealand law.

That doesn't make sense.

Misrepresenting what someone wrote for the purpose of trying to prove it wrong is a strawman.

You said "just because they are Australian doesn't mean they have legal standing" which makes even less sense, since Right2Drive New Zealand Limited is not, in fact, Australian. They're clearly a company formed under the laws of New Zealand, and abide by New Zealand law. And they have legal standing because they exist in New Zealand and contract with New Zealand customers.

It's a major point, which is why (If you read the article linked by @shk292) the company in that instance tried to rope the hirer into court.

Quote from the article:

"The company says there is no question of Ashdown being charged legal fees or having to foot the hire bill if the court case fails: “Because the car hire documentation was in Ms Ashdown’s name she would have been named as the claimant if we were then forced to take the third party insurer to court."

It means even they think they don't have a leg to stand on so they will turn the hirer into a pawn in their game.

It's irrelevant, because courts in New Zealand and Australia do not in fact work like that. The general rule of insurance law in this part of the world is that prior to taking a subrogated claim against a tortfeasor (fancy word, but it's what's in the document), the insurer (or in this case, credit hire company) must offer an indemnity to costs incurred in respect of a failed claim. Hence, there is no way the UK situation described in the article would ever be relevant to New Zealand.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2059718 20-Jul-2018 23:52

MichaelNZ:
It is possible in my experience to get payment from the other party's insurance company for a rental vehicle but this amount has to be reasonable. Going and hiring a vehicle for well over $100 per day is unlikely to be accepted.

Furthermore, making a claim against your own insuarnce will very likely prejudice this.

To add to this, you can only claim for actual losses. You can't claim for betterment. And you have a duty to mitigate the loss.

EG, you own more than 1 car. The other party could say that they should only be liable for the cost of an Uber for you to go home and pickup your other car. Or The panel beater offers free courtesy cars.

Then there is also the legal concept of contributory negligence. EG, you are self employed, and you can't do your work without your car. Yet you have not paid for the rental vehicle cover extension to your car insurance policy. Or you don't have access to a spare car. The other party could then say that they are only liable for some of the rental costs. As you would have known, or ought to have known about the risk of being unable to do your job due to not having access to your car (for any reason). Yet you didn't take any steps to mitigate that risk.

Even though the at fault party would still be liable to reimburse your insurance company for the cost that the insurance company incurred to provide you with a rental car. If you did pay for the rental car cover extension.

MichaelNZ

1388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#2059817 21-Jul-2018 10:35

Kyanar:

It's irrelevant, because courts in New Zealand and Australia do not in fact work like that. The general rule of insurance law in this part of the world is that prior to taking a subrogated claim against a tortfeasor (fancy word, but it's what's in the document), the insurer (or in this case, credit hire company) must offer an indemnity to costs incurred in respect of a failed claim. Hence, there is no way the UK situation described in the article would ever be relevant to New Zealand.

You keep coming back with responses which don't respond to the point and instead are about something which was never said.

What you are talking about is security for costs awarded. This may be a help (of sorts) to the pawn in the case (the hirer) but does not change they are still a pawn, which was my point.

They took the rental car via a parallel and unapproved contract, the insurance process has concluded and now they want to get on with their life. But that outlier agreement is now coming back to them.

Why else is this company so keen to get their rental cars out there? Why do they claim stuff on their website which noone else in the rental car industry does? What is the agenda behind them being (in reality) both the creditor and debt collector? To me, this would be a warning sign to check the contract. While I have not read their specific contract (I could not find a link online), this discussion is about how CHC's operate and the consequencial media coverage.

Again, note the language used:

"Right2Drive Pty Ltd, is authorised to conduct Third Party Debt Collection in accordance with the Commercial Agents & Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 and Regulation"

https://www.right2drive.co.nz/about-us

??? Hold on, but aren't they the creditor (in reality) for the vehicle hire? Since when did they become a 3rd party? They could only be a "3rd party" if the hirer was held to be the creditor, and all the implications of this.

------

After having a think about this I realised the statement on their website about the other party accepting liability is, of course, no accident. Companies like this aren't going to break up their marketing hype for no reason.

As I see it, this serves two purposes -

1. Anyone who has admitted liability is foolish and this is why every insurance company in New Zealand requires in their T&C's the insured party does not admit any fault. If they have admitted fault, they are at far greater risk of loosing a case.

2. The hirer is warranting/representing to the CHC (credit hire company) the other party has accepted liability, which in my thinking could then leave them open to picking up the tab if this was not the case.

Moral of the story - listen to your insurance company when they say never admit liability.

------

Another thing which occurred to me was - there are 2 major insurance companies in NZ - Suncorp and IAG. So in any claim involving 2 parties there is a high chance they are both insured with the same company or group.

What would be the consequences for the hirer in being made the claimant in a court case against their own insurer?

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059868 21-Jul-2018 11:29

MichaelNZ:

You keep coming back with responses which don't respond to the point and instead are about something which was never said.

What you are talking about is security for costs awarded. This may be a help (of sorts) to the pawn in the case (the hirer) but does not change they are still a pawn, which was my point.

They took the rental car via a parallel and unapproved contract, the insurance process has concluded and now they want to get on with their life. But that outlier agreement is now coming back to them.

That's because you have no point to respond to. You go on about the not-at-fault person being "a pawn", yet for some reason you don't consider them "a pawn" when the insurance company files suit in their name? I'm confident it's not the cause, but it's almost like you work for an insurance company or have some other vested interest in seeing companies like this taken down.

Why else is this company so keen to get their rental cars out there? Why do they claim stuff on their website which noone else in the rental car industry does? What is the agenda behind them being (in reality) both the creditor and debt collector? To me, this would be a warning sign to check the contract. While I have not read their specific contract (I could not find a link online), this discussion is about how CHC's operate and the consequencial media coverage.

But there is no consequential media coverage, apart from a case in the UK which is totally irrelevant except insofar as where their laws align with the current state of Australian and New Zealand law. In the scenario described in the UK case, the laws do not align - a case of the hirer being held liable for costs for failed subrogated action cannot happen.

Again, note the language used:

"Right2Drive Pty Ltd, is authorised to conduct Third Party Debt Collection in accordance with the Commercial Agents & Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 and Regulation"

https://www.right2drive.co.nz/about-us

??? Hold on, but aren't they the creditor (in reality) for the vehicle hire? Since when did they become a 3rd party? They could only be a "3rd party" if the hirer was held to be the creditor, and all the implications of this.

For a start, it does not appear there even is a licensing regime for first party debt collection (seems like an oversight, but whatever). Second, they possibly also act for insurance companies (actually, ouch, that's probably like a fourth party collection then!)

But really, what does it matter? That has no real relevance to anything, given they're not required to hold any licenses at all. Not to mention you keep talking about these "implications" - there are none.

After having a think about this I realised the statement on their website about the other party accepting liability is, of course, no accident. Companies like this aren't going to break up their marketing hype for no reason.

As I see it, this serves two purposes -

1. Anyone who has admitted liability is foolish and this is why every insurance company in New Zealand requires in their T&C's the insured party does not admit any fault. If they have admitted fault, they are at far greater risk of loosing a case.

2. The hirer is warranting/representing to the CHC (credit hire company) the other party has accepted liability, which in my thinking could then leave them open to picking up the tab if this was not the case.

Moral of the story - listen to your insurance company when they say never admit liability.

Nowhere in their agreement (which is actually really easy to find, so I can't see how you can claim you could not find a link online) does it require that the other party admit liability. From my reading of it, provided you entered into it in good faith, if they cannot recover costs from the other party than you are liable for fuel, damages the hire car took while in your hands, tolls, and infringements. Same as any hire car. It explicitly says you are not liable for the hire costs.

Another thing which occurred to me was - there are 2 major insurance companies in NZ - Suncorp and IAG. So in any claim involving 2 parties there is a high chance they are both insured with the same company or group.

What would be the consequences for the hirer in being made the claimant in a court case against their own insurer?

None. People sue their insurers all the time, and it does not result in policy termination or blackballing. To the insurer, it's just part of their business - just ask pretty much every insurer involved in the Canterbury quakes.

Remember, there are only four major insurers in Australia too - Suncorp, IAG, QBE, and Allianz. If they wanted to get together and kill companies like this (which would attract the attention of the ACCC in Australia and the Commerce Commission in NZ) they could (before being promptly dragged before a court by the relevant commission).

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2059869 21-Jul-2018 11:30

And there is another risk. That you rent such a car, submit an insurance claim for the costs of doing so, and that claim gets declined. You now have a black mark on your insurance record. As whenever you apply for insurance, you have to declare if you have ever had a claim declined.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059874 21-Jul-2018 11:33

Aredwood: And there is another risk. That you rent such a car, submit an insurance claim for the costs of doing so, and that claim gets declined. You now have a black mark on your insurance record. As whenever you apply for insurance, you have to declare if you have ever had a claim declined.

That's not a risk at all, since you don't submit an insurance claim. This company pursues the costs from the at-fault party or their insurer directly (in order to avoid the risk of regulation coming down like a ton of bricks, it's highly likely they simply write off or accept greatly reduced amounts from uninsured parties).

So long as the insurer's claim is not prejudiced (which it wouldn't be, since these are costs incurred in addition to the insured amount) it can occur in parallel.

MichaelNZ

1388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#2059879 21-Jul-2018 11:48

Kyanar:

That's not a risk at all, since you don't submit an insurance claim. This company pursues the costs from the at-fault party or their insurer directly (in order to avoid the risk of regulation coming down like a ton of bricks, it's highly likely they simply write off or accept greatly reduced amounts from uninsured parties).

If this happens it won't be out of forebearance (they are licensed debt collectors who reveal in some claimed notoriety that insurance companies don't like them), but because of the costs and likelyhood of succeeding in their claim.

"Not at-fault drivers may be eligible for a “No Fault, No Cost” accident repair rental car, provided the cost of the rental vehicle can be recovered from an at-fault party or their insurer."

Kyanar:

Nowhere in their agreement (which is actually really easy to find, so I can't see how you can claim you could not find a link online) does it require that the other party admit liability. From my reading of it, provided you entered into it in good faith, if they cannot recover costs from the other party than you are liable for fuel, damages the hire car took while in your hands, tolls, and infringements. Same as any hire car. It explicitly says you are not liable for the hire costs.

Granted, I have now found a copy of the agreement linked on their website.

The agreement sets up quite a few scenarios where the hirer could become liable by virtue it places a lot of potentially vague and wide obligations on the hirer, which if they don't fufill, they become contractually liable for the hireage.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059887 21-Jul-2018 12:10

MichaelNZ:

If this happens it won't be out of forebearance but because of the costs and likelyhood of succeeding in their claim.

"Not at-fault drivers may be eligible for a “No Fault, No Cost” accident repair rental car, provided the cost of the rental vehicle can be recovered from an at-fault party or their insurer."

Why do you think that? Even insurance companies rarely pursue uninsured drivers beyond token efforts, because there's just no point. You might get a judgement, but it's worth two fifths of sod all when it gets repaid at $5 a week until the heat death of the universe. And there's no point burning up limited/nonexistent goodwill trying to chase that.

The likelihood of succeeding is almost certainly quite high, and the costs probably not all that high because an insurer will mostly decide defending is uneconomic, and an uninsured party will be unlikely to afford decent representation.

MichaelNZ

1388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#2059888 21-Jul-2018 12:14

Kyanar:

The likelihood of succeeding is almost certainly quite high, and the costs probably not all that high because an insurer will mostly decide defending is uneconomic, and an uninsured party will be unlikely to afford decent representation.

Because their charges are considerably higher than what panel beaters charge, and cars could be rented elsewhere, which would explain why they are so keen to get in quickly to the point of offering to deliver to an accident scene. Some panel beaters even offer loaners at no extra cost.

Insurance companies have their own arrangements for rental vehicles for good reason - to keep costs down.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059957 21-Jul-2018 13:35

MichaelNZ:

Because their charges are considerably higher than what panel beaters charge, and cars could be rented elsewhere, which would explain why they are so keen to get in quickly to the point of offering to deliver to an accident scene. Some panel beaters even offer loaners at no extra cost.

Insurance companies have their own arrangements for rental vehicles for good reason - to keep costs down.

They're obviously out to make a profit, no question about that. Their charges in NZ are curious, given their Australian charges are pretty much on par with what you'd expect from a rental car company - I don't have an answer for that one to be honest.

For what it's worth, most insurers will even pay for the taxi trip from the tow yard to the rental car company to collect the rental. However, this only applies if the insurance company arranges a rental car at all. Most of them in NZ will not unless you pay extra for the rental car option (of note is that in Australia, if it's a not-at-fault accident, most insurers will actually provide a rental car anyway as the cost is likely to be recoverable) - it seems in your opinion those people should just suck it up and take the bus, which is actually antithetic to the legal principle that one should not one significantly worse off as a result of another's negligence, hence why companies like this exist to fill in a gap. A gap the insurers themselves created.

MichaelNZ

1388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#2059959 21-Jul-2018 13:44

Kyanar:

it seems in your opinion those people should just suck it up and take the bus, which is actually antithetic to the legal principle that one should not one significantly worse off as a result of another's negligence, hence why companies like this exist to fill in a gap. A gap the insurers themselves created.

Damn straight people should act in the best interests of their insurer when making a claim. It's even in the policy wording, in so many words.

Rental car coverage is readily available on pretty much any comprehensive policy so if the insured party doesn't have it, it's their choice which they made to get lower premiums. If they have it, their own insurer will pay for a rental car and it will probably cost them around $50 a day, not 3 - 5x that.

New Zealand car insurance premiums are low compared to the other members of 5-eyes.

Ambulance chasing (which is the feel of their website) is not something we want to take a hold in NZ - in the gap between our historic commercial-culture - which has been largely oriented towards a concept of fairness and against naked greed and boundary pushing - and government regulation.

That gap is the same one inhabited by truck shops, some loan companies and debt buyers.

The destination of this path is increasing the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. Just look at the USA, where making money at any cost is commercial-culturally seen as a noble pursuit. The relevance in this context is higher insurance premiums.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059971 21-Jul-2018 14:36

MichaelNZ: Damn straight people should act in the best interests of their insurer when making a claim. It's even in the policy wording, in so many words.

Rental car coverage is readily available on pretty much any comprehensive policy so if the insured party doesn't have it, it's their choice which they made to get lower premiums. If they have it, their own insurer will pay for a rental car and it will probably cost them around $50 a day, not 3 - 5x that.

The law does not support your view. You're not required to act in the best interests of the insurer for a start, you're only required to not do anything that will prejudice their claims, and to do so in good faith.

If they refuse to give you a rental car, the law actually supports you making a parallel claim for that as the effect of them doing so is to waive subrogation for that cost. Doesn't matter what the policy says - if you are worse off as a result of the claim, you are legally entitled to pursue any excess over the policy's liability limit. Rare is the law that allows a party to contract out of your rights.

MichaelNZ

1388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#2059973 21-Jul-2018 14:45

Kyanar:

The law does not support your view. You're not required to act in the best interests of the insurer for a start, you're only required to not do anything that will prejudice their claims, and to do so in good faith.

That's a strawman, because I did not mention the law. I was talking about the contract.

In any case, this discourse has become a waste of time. Your position sounds like taking the path of most resistance*. Good luck with that.

*Much like the contract of Right2Drive, where they can rope the hirer into all sorts of additional stuff.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2059977 21-Jul-2018 14:53

MichaelNZ:

That's a strawman, because I did not mention the law. I was talking about the contract.

Of course you remove the second sentence where it explicitly says "doesn't matter what the policy says". Speaking of straw man...

In any case, this discourse has become a waste of time. Your position sounds like taking the path of most resistance*. Good luck with that.

*Much like the contract of Right2Drive, where they can rope the hirer into all sorts of additional stuff.

You're right, it's definitely a waste of time. You're making an awful lot of statements not supported by fact - like that second line there, which after reading the contract you're referring to includes absolutely no roping of the hirer into anything.

MichaelNZ

1388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#2059978 21-Jul-2018 14:58

Kyanar:

You're right, it's definitely a waste of time. You're making an awful lot of statements not supported by fact - like that second line there, which after reading the contract you're referring to includes absolutely no roping of the hirer into anything.

"2.10 You and the driver of your vehicle agree to provide all reasonable assistance to us in recovering the Hire Charges and the cost of recovering them, to include if necessary attending an adjudication or court hearing."

"R2D will use its best endeavours during the Credit Period to recover the Hire Charges from the TP. On condition that the hirer fulfils their obligations under the Agreement and Authority to Act, the hirer will be released from liability for the Hire Charges except for the Additional Charges as defined for which the hirer shall remain liable."

ie: Act in the hirer's name.

"The hirer authorises R2D, its nominated agents, representatives and solicitors to bank relevant cheques made payable to the hirer into their or R2D's nominated Trust Account."

What cheques are these? Why are they made out to the hirer?

"The hirer irrevocably appoints R2D (and/or its nominated Debt Recovery Agent) as the hirer's agent, representative and attorney, to recover the Hire Charges by whatever means including, in R2D's absolute discretion, the commencement and carrying-on of legal proceedings in the name of the hirer."

"The hirer understands and accepts that R2D shall appoint and give instructions on behalf of the hirer to legal advisers in respect of the recovery process."

"Obligations & Termination

The hirer is obliged to do the following:

The hirer must promptly provide all documents reasonably required by the TP;

The hirer must provide all reasonable assistance to R2D in respect to the implementation and conduct of the recovery process which the hirer acknowledges may require the hirer to provide statements, documents, and appear in court as a witness; and

-----

In short to deny the existence and/or relevance of all of the above quotes, indicates you are trolling or have not read their terms. I think trolling because you have made several posts claiming the law says something, but can't read/understand a legal contract and it's consequences?

https://www.right2drive.co.nz/agreement

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

1 | 2 | 3 | 4