Anyone tried right2drive.co.nz?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2060166 21-Jul-2018 21:56

MichaelNZ:

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

You realise you're obliged to do all the same stuff if your insurance company asks too right? They're not "roping you into" anything, they're just acting in your stead and obviously may need some co-operation from you - namely everything your insurance company would need.

Trolling would be more claiming that you have to act in the best interests of an insurance company even when it prejudices your own interests, when in actuality the insurance company is merely subrogating your interests, and where the policy does not fully cover the extent of loss you are entitled to separately seek reparations.

Insurance companies could deal with these companies pretty quickly if they felt so inclined - stop the stupid practice of charging extra for providing a hire car during repairs in not-at-fault incidents given they're just going to recover the cost off the at-fault party or insurer anyway. They do it in Australia since they realised it was idiotic not to (and look, R2D's prices in Australia are much more reasonable... I wonder why?) - it's just blatant profiteering. I mean it's not like they're even different insurers from those Australian companies!

MichaelNZ

1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 485

Trusted

Net Trust Ltd

#2060167 21-Jul-2018 21:59

Kyanar:

Insurance companies could deal with these companies pretty quickly if they felt so inclined - stop the stupid practice of charging extra for providing a hire car during repairs in not-at-fault incidents given they're just going to recover the cost off the at-fault party or insurer anyway.

Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-for-knock_agreement

When I lived in Australia car insurance was, like, twice the price it is here.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers | ZL2NET

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2060349 22-Jul-2018 11:14

MichaelNZ:

Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-for-knock_agreement

When I lived in Australia car insurance was, like, twice the price it is here.

So it sounds like it's a problem of the insurers own making. Good thing companies like this do exist then, to allow people to chase their own rights that their insurers have chosen not to.

In regards to the price, that's because half the price is bloody Stamp Duty. It's beyond archaic.

stagnant16

206 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#2063077 26-Jul-2018 17:43

Relevant to the conversation.

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/blumberg-v-frucor-beverages-ltd/@@images/fileDecision?r=800.921435524

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#2063081 26-Jul-2018 17:47

Yikes. If that's not a warning, I don't know what is.

$4m in 2 years!

Holy moley

R2D’s daily hire rate

$114.62 $138.92 $112.17
R2D’s delivery/pickup fee

$50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Rental period 14/4/2016-16/5/2016
(33 days)
16/5/2016-8/6/2016
(23 days)
11/3/2016-17/3/2016
(6 days)
R2D’s invoice (excl GST) $3,832.46 $3,245.16 $723.02
R2D’s invoice (incl GST) $4,407.33 $3,731.93 $831.47

MichaelNZ

1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 485

Trusted

Net Trust Ltd

#2063119 26-Jul-2018 18:15

The Insurers declining their invoices and the comparison in clause 52 shows that Right2Drive is taking the piss.

Unfortunately, it appears the only real solution to this will be for insurers to include rental car cover.

The case should also serve as a warning for anyone taking the 'free lunch' from Right2Drive. They may later regret this when they are made a party to a proceeding along with the inhernet risks-

Costs [78] Mr Ring and Mr Chisholm both ask I reserve costs. In my preliminary view given the nature of the proceedings, and the interests of the principal participants costs should lie where they fall.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers | ZL2NET

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#2063121 26-Jul-2018 18:25

Or at the least more than the usual hook sinker 'contact us now if this sounds awesome!' website they run. With an actual charges table (the delivery fee stated), and not need to dig into their T&C for the 'you're liable until proven otherwise' and a discount tier program for extended periods/days

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2063496 27-Jul-2018 11:51

MichaelNZ:

The Insurers declining their invoices and the comparison in clause 52 shows that Right2Drive is taking the piss.

Unfortunately, it appears the only real solution to this will be for insurers to include rental car cover.

The court finding that the rate R2D charges is actually reasonable (and Hertz charges actually exceeding R2D's charges in some cases with the budget rental company GO saying "Hertz's charges sound about right"), and ordering the defendants to pay show that you're taking the piss in making that statement.

You're right they insurers absolutely should be covering replacement vehicles for not at fault drivers in an accident though. That's not unfortunate though, unless you work for IAG or Suncorp.

The case should also serve as a warning for anyone taking the 'free lunch' from Right2Drive. They may later regret this when they are made a party to a proceeding along with the inhernet risks-

Costs [78] Mr Ring and Mr Chisholm both ask I reserve costs. In my preliminary view given the nature of the proceedings, and the interests of the principal participants costs should lie where they fall.

What inherent risks? As I explained earlier, if a third party as agent wishes to bring proceedings on behalf of a first party, they are required to offer indemnity against costs or the court will not allow them to bring action. This has been upheld numerous times by courts including in New Zealand. As such, in this case the costs were all borne by R2D and the defendants/their insurers. Ring and Chisholm are the QCs representing the various parties.

You're being profoundly dishonest in your defence of large Australian insurers in this thread. Which insurer do you work for?

MichaelNZ

1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 485

Trusted

Net Trust Ltd

#2063497 27-Jul-2018 11:57

Kyanar:

That's not unfortunate though, unless you work for IAG or Suncorp.

[.....]

You're being profoundly dishonest in your defence of large Australian insurers in this thread. Which insurer do you work for?

I'm just aware enough to understand the simple reality that insurers - like all businesses - need to make a profit. If costs go up, so do premiums.

If you want any more evidence of this, look at what Joe-Average pays for car insurance in Australia, UK or any other market where parties are litigation happy.

Ambulance chasing is a wealth transfer from the plebs to the lawyers. It's not a free lunch.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers | ZL2NET

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2063551 27-Jul-2018 12:13

MichaelNZ:

You clearly have nothing more to add because you have resorted to conspiracy theories.

I'm just aware enough to understand the simple reality that insurers - like all businesses - need to make a profit. If costs go up, so do premiums.

No, the one with nothing to add is you, who keep repeating statements that are in direct conflict with the evidence.

If you want any more evidence of this, look at what Joe-Average pays for car insurance in Australia, UK or any other market where parties are litigation happy.

Ambulance chasing is a wealth transfer from the plebs to the lawyers.

Weird. I just did a quote with State on a vehicle that's essentially the same as mine - the quote came back at pretty much the same as I currently pay RACQ (though obviously factoring in currency conversion, and negating the Stamp Duty component of my policy which is a wealth transfer from plebs to government, and accounts for more than 10% of the cost, and GST which is not charged on insurance in NZ but is in Australia accounting for another 10%). Where is this huge markup on insurance you keep talking about? You yourself even admitted that insurance companies don't usually charge each other anyway.

The massive cost of CTP insurance, which is the equivalent of the ACC Levy on car registrations, is another story entirely - and you will not find me disagreeing that NZ's no fault, no sue method of handling personal injury claims is far superior.

Peppery

919 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 188

Trusted

#2063694 27-Jul-2018 14:59

Slightly off topic, but the neighbours decided to decorate my car with their one last year. Took it in to one of the panelbeaters mentioned in the Blumberg v Frucor case above & was *heavily* pushed into getting a loan car from Right 2 Drive. Stayed away as their business model seemed questionable at best.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MichaelNZ

1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 485

Trusted

Net Trust Ltd

#2063710 27-Jul-2018 15:37

Peppery:

Slightly off topic, but the neighbours decided to decorate my car with their one last year. Took it in to one of the panelbeaters mentioned in the Blumberg v Frucor case above & was *heavily* pushed into getting a loan car from Right 2 Drive. Stayed away as their business model seemed questionable at best.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. I recently made a claim and got quotes from 2 out of 3 of the panel beaters in this area. One seemed to be quite keen to rachet up the price as soon as he found out it was an insurance job.

Yes, the other person's insurance paid. But I still felt a moral obligation - and acted on this - to get the cheapest price for a appropriately-commercial/professional job.

The panel beater I selected loaned me their crapbox which at 300,000km had 10x the mileage of my car. No power steer or AC either. Crap stereo. Manual gearbox (brings back memories). But I was happy to have a set of wheels for the interim.

From my point of view, I had a right to be restored back to where I was before it happned. And that's it.

And I was. No big deal in the greater scheme of things and no further consequences afterwards.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers | ZL2NET

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#2068730 6-Aug-2018 15:26

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/105998164/judge-rules-innocent-drivers-can-get-crash-replacement-car-paid-for

Should a driver at fault in a crash pay for a replacement vehicle while the innocent driver's car is out of action?

Yes, they or their insurers should, a High Court judge has decided.

In a test case between a company that provides replacement vehicles and insurers, Justice Jagose found that the cost of a replacement car was a reasonable and proper expense sustained by drivers who were not at fault in a collision.

The case involved three plaintiffs who had used Right2Drive's (R2D) replacement vehicle service. The company does not charge not at-fault drivers for the rentals; instead pursuing those responsible or their insurers. In each case the insurers had not paid the plaintiffs' charges, totalling almost $9000.

The judgment said since R2D entered the New Zealand market in 2016, insurers had declined to pay $4.22 million of its charges.

"The real question I am to determine here is 'Is the at-fault driver liable to the not at-fault driver for the price of the replacement vehicle charged by R2D'," the judge said.

Lawyers for the defendants and their insurers argued that the plaintiffs had not actually suffered losses because R2D had met the costs of the replacement cars.

If they were found liable for damages the insurers argued that R2D's charges were not reasonable compared to market hire rates. The plaintiffs had other, cheaper options from conventional rental car companies, from insurers and repairers and not considering those was "the very definition of unreasonableness".

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#2068732 6-Aug-2018 15:28

Here's an interesting update on this topic, from the judiciary:

Judge rules innocent drivers can get crash replacement car paid for

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#2068733 6-Aug-2018 15:29

You beat me to it by two minutes @scuwp lol

1 | 2 | 3 | 4