Anyone tried right2drive.co.nz?

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

quebec

570 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Topic # 239470 19-Jul-2018 19:33

Has anyone tried right2drive.co.nz? Just got hit from the back on the motorway and I know it’s not easy to get courtesy car these days. Bit of a wait with good panel beaters. So was wondering about these guys. Car is driveable though. Other party at fault and has accepted responsibility.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2727 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 285

Reply # 2058965 19-Jul-2018 19:41

Believe your own policy has to cover for a replacement/rental car. They just make it easy to arrange one

Not listed in policy, won't happen. (or be a lot harder to get it paid for I suspect)

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.

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059073 19-Jul-2018 22:00

One person supports this post

Looking at their website I'd give them a pass. It looks like their business model is to offer (considerably?) overpriced rental cars and then try and screw the other party or their insurance.

Thing is, the "law" they are relying on is Australian, not New Zealand.

Important information

Insurers don’t necessarily like what we do, but we uphold the rights of not at-fault drivers to ensure uninterrupted motoring when they are deprived of the use of their car due to someone else’s negligence. Right2Drive Pty Ltd, is authorised to conduct Third Party Debt Collection in accordance with the Commercial Agents & Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 and Regulation. Right2Drive Pty Ltd CAPI Licence No: 410889623

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

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/1f6159a9-5d35-ea86-bbf8-9ba124cf0d3f/2004-70.pdf

Based on my understanding of how New Zealand law works, how the insurance companies work (recent experince claiming against my insurance for damage caused by the load carried by a truck) and my previous experience in claiming a rental car as an uninsured 3rd party (I was a lot younger and a crappy car and 3rd party only insurance then) I think they will be hard pressed to pull it off here. I view them a lot like the Australian debt buyers, who have been in the news lately. The debt buyers base their business on intimidation but are impotent against someone who calls their bluff and tells them to get stuffed.

Basically, when you claim on your insurance, you are implicitly appointing them as your agent to sort the matter out. They will sort it out with the other party's insurance company and that's it. Basically, you get what your policy covers.

All the work which is done to fix your car is coded on an item by item basis and the panel beater gets the fixed contract rate. I doubt there is a code for 3rd party rental car agencies (ie: any who your insurance has no agreement with) and in any case, insurance companies are not stupid. They know what the going rate for every single item is. If they wrote your car off they will pay the agreed price or the book value, depending on your policy.

If the other party is uninsured, then potentially you could claim through the Disputes Tribunal, but I can't see that going well if the other party puts up a defence the rental costs are unreasonable. Basically, you could rent a car for $50 a day and here they are charging 3x that amount and more.

Furthermore, doing this side deal may be a breach of your insurance. The following is taken from AA, though I would expect IAG to have a similar policy:

What you must do

[.....]

not, without our consent, incur any expense or negotiate, pay, settle, or make any agreement in relation to any claim.

This could also have a consequence:

If there is consequential loss

There is no cover for loss of use of your vehicle or consequential losses of any kind. This includes any loss of income, loss of value, additional costs, expenses and liability incurred due to your vehicle not being able to be used.

https://www.aainsurance.co.nz/manage-policy/policy-documents/comprehensive-car-insurance-policy-document-.html

So they can't claim their rental on your insurance and it could be argued the claim has been settled and at-fault party and their insurer liability discharged by the other insurance company (in paying your insurance company) I would not be surprised if their claim ends up in a black hole. But it remains to be seen if it gets tested.

#deletefacebook

scuwp

3029 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1496

Reply # 2059139 20-Jul-2018 08:01

One person supports this post

Oblivian:

Believe your own policy has to cover for a replacement/rental car. They just make it easy to arrange one

Not listed in policy, won't happen. (or be a lot harder to get it paid for I suspect)

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.

So basically they are bail bondsmen but for cars?

Knock-for-knock agreements will preclude them getting much of anything out of insurance companies, who take on the right to represent for their client. Unless a replacement vehicle is in the policy, they will be out of luck. So that just leaves the other driver, who, has no claim to answer under NZ law (IANAL - just my opinion)

Seems like a flawed business model to me (aka scam?). Can't for the ife of me figure out how they would make money other than when their own customer defaults on their conditions of contract. I can't help but draw the conclusion this is something like those trucks selling goods at ridiculous prices to lock people in to huge HP deals, or loan sharks. Buyer beware I reckon.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059165 20-Jul-2018 08:43

scuwp:

Seems like a flawed business model to me (aka scam?). Can't for the ife of me figure out how they would make money other than when their own customer defaults on their conditions of contract. I can't help but draw the conclusion this is something like those trucks selling goods at ridiculous prices to lock people in to huge HP deals, or loan sharks. Buyer beware I reckon.

As an addendum to my previous post - I was thinking much the same - that they may be ultimately intending to collect from the hirer.

#deletefacebook

Kyanar

3016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2059291 20-Jul-2018 13:00

Their model is to rely on common law principle that a person harmed by another should be "made whole" and not left worse off as a result of the harm. Not sure of the legal name for the principle, but as a part of common law (not Australian law as said earlier in this thread) unless a specific law has been passed in New Zealand regarding the situation, the principle still applies as New Zealand is or was a common law country.

What your insurance agreement says, and in fact even what the other person's agreement says, is completely irrelevant as they cannot just delete your rights. You are effectively filing a seperate claim against the at-fault person to "make whole" you as the not-at-fault person to ensure you are not made worse off as a result of their negligence. Namely, supplying you a vehicle for use while yours is repaired.

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059298 20-Jul-2018 13:21

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.

#deletefacebook

scuwp

3029 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1496

Reply # 2059329 20-Jul-2018 14:37

I guess the company could take the party that caused the crash to the Disputes Tribunal to recover costs for a rental car if they decline to accept liability. I could only guess that as part of the claim the company (or innocent party that suffered the loss) would have to notify the guilty party that they required the use of a vehicle and provide the guilty party an opportunity to agree or 'make right' some form of recompense. For example the 'guilty party' might have a spare car they could lend, or they may choose to pay for or provide a rental.

If the 'guilty party' isn't notified of the outset BEFORE a contract is entered into then any right to claim will fail miserably (i.e. you can't be held liable for a cost you were completely unaware of and were not given an opportunity to address)

I expect 9 times out of 10 (probably 99 times out of 100) the person using this service would end up paying for the vehicle as the costs were unrecoverable.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059331 20-Jul-2018 14:44

One person supports this post

Conditions of making a claim

You can make a claim by calling us at any time on 0800 500 216.

It is a condition of your policy that you must co-operate with us and give us any information or help we ask for in relation to your claim.

What you must do

Immediately after an event occurs, you or any driver of your vehicle must:

take all reasonable steps to prevent further loss or damage
inform the police in the case of theft, burglary or vandalism, or any attempt at these
not admit liability
not, without our consent, incur any expense or negotiate, pay, settle, or make any agreement in relation to any claim.

https://www.aainsurance.co.nz/manage-policy/policy-documents/comprehensive-car-insurance-policy-document-.html

Getting our permission first Yo u must ask for our permission before you : • incur any expenses in connection with a claim under this policy, or • negotiate, pay, settle, or admit any allegation that you are legally liable, or • negotiate, offer to pay or pay any reparation , including but not limited to, offers made as any part of any case management conference or sentencing hearing, or • do anything that may prejudice our rights of recovery.

https://www.state.co.nz/PDFs/State_Car_PW.pdf

There is no right to engage with or incur expenses with interlopers in conjunction with making a claim on your insurance.

Furthermore, it should be noted in many cases both parties will be insured with the same or related companies.

State, NZI, Lumley and AMI are all IAG. Aon is underwritten by IAG. Vero and AA are Suncorp. Policy holders who think they can rock the boat are being foolish.

#deletefacebook

Kyanar

3016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2059422 20-Jul-2018 16:21

MichaelNZ:

There is no right to engage with or incur expenses with interlopers in conjunction with making a claim on your insurance.

Furthermore, it should be noted in many cases both parties will be insured with the same or related companies.

State, NZI, Lumley and AMI are all IAG. Aon is underwritten by IAG. Vero and AA are Suncorp. Policy holders who think they can rock the boat are being foolish.

The whole point of these services are in cases where your policy will not provide a temporary replacement. The insurance company's policy cannot revoke your right to take civil action for costs incurred in relation to an event where they explicitly refuse to cover it, as your rights in those cases have not been subrogated to them so whatever's in their terms and conditions or policy statements is irrelevant. Your assessment that you need to deal with the insurance company is completely incorrect, except insofar as the at-fault party's insurance company acts in their place as subrogated defendant. This whole "rocking the boat" thing is hogwash.

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059428 20-Jul-2018 16:29

Kyanar:

The whole point of these services are in cases where your policy will not provide a temporary replacement. The insurance company's policy cannot revoke your right to take civil action for costs incurred in relation to an event where they explicitly refuse to cover it, as your rights in those cases have not been subrogated to them so whatever's in their terms and conditions or policy statements is irrelevant.

As I have mentioned in my previous posts, even if one can claim this cost (and I have done it successfully), the chances of getting paid fall greatly if the amount claimed is unreasonable aka "taking the piss".

In my case I rented a crapbox from a car dealer for $100 per week and got the $400 or so out of the other party's insurance. If it has been thousands, as it would have added up to that with this company, I think the chances would have been closer to nil.

Additionally, in your analysis, you have not allowed for claiming on your own insurance being legally held to be full and final settlement, a position which I think would prevail. This is further reinforced by the nature of the transaction taking place, namely, if the other party is not insured, you are transferring the right to sue them to your insurance company.

That is - in part - why the terms of the policy are as I have posted previously.

#deletefacebook

Kyanar

3016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2059513 20-Jul-2018 18:01

MichaelNZ:

As I have mentioned in my previous posts, even if one can claim this cost (and I have done it successfully), the chances of getting paid fall greatly if the amount claimed is unreasonable aka "taking the piss".

In my case I rented a crapbox from a car dealer for $100 per week and got the $400 or so out of the other party's insurance. If it has been thousands, as it would have added up to that with this company, I think the chances would have been closer to nil.

Undisputed - absolutely true that you can only claim reasonable expenses, the common law doctrine of "obligation to mitigate cost" being involved as well. I suspect their fee structure only stands because they've calculated a level that an insurer would consider low enough to simply write off as uneconomic to defend.

Additionally, in your analysis, you have not allowed for claiming on your own insurance being legally held to be full and final settlement, a position which I think would prevail. This is further reinforced by the nature of the transaction taking place, namely, if the other party is not insured, you are transferring the right to sue them to your insurance company.

That is - in part - why the terms of the policy are as I have posted previously.

New Zealand law and Australian law are much the same on this point - totally silent, falling back on the common law and contract law doctrines that form much of the basis of modern civil law. This particular company and their similars have survived for quite some time because what they do is very much backed up by the underlying legal system, and you've missed another point - that no claim is full and final unless a full and final settlement agreement has been signed (which would generally only occur when the insurer deems the cost of repair as uneconomic and chooses to terminate the policy and payout instead).

As your insurer does not provide you a courtesy vehicle to drive while yours is being repaired, there is nothing to preclude you taking separate action to recover reasonable costs of getting one - regardless what the policy says - because you are not unjustly enriched (i.e. double dipping) and it does not prejudice their claim against the at-fault party.

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059522 20-Jul-2018 18:12

The "law" they quoted is state law, not Australian law.

Considering there is basically only 2 insurance companies in NZ - if said company starts becoming a PITA - the insurance companies may well decide to defend it, that is, if right2drive decides to take their chances in court.

But, more likely, based on my reading of the 'cut of their jib' it appears their business model is based on trying to intimidate with a probable fallback to the renter. This is in much the same way as Australian debt buyers operate. Have you ever heard of any court cases here involving them? I haven't. Yet, it is well established they operate (physically within Australia) with ruthless disregard for the laws of New Zealand and have done so for some years.

So just because they are Australian doesn't give them legal standing. There is plenty of rackets in the world and it's my observation Australia is one of the more abrasive western countries.

Also keep in mind, the aggreived party is not right2drive but the other driver.

#deletefacebook

shk292

1488 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 754

Reply # 2059578 20-Jul-2018 18:51

One person supports this post

This became quite a big thing in the UK a while ago, until I think the insurance companies pushed back against it. Typical article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/28/car-insurance-and-credit-hire-agencies

I'd avoid them; there's only one source of income for these sharks and that's our insurance premiums

Kyanar

3016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2059649 20-Jul-2018 21:10

MichaelNZ:

The "law" they quoted is state law, not Australian law.

They don't quote any law. There's no link to the NSW legislation on the R2D website at all, that's just someone in this thread grabbing the title of the credit provider legislation of the jurisdiction they're apparently registered in and punching it into a Google search to see what comes up. It's irrelevant to their position in this circumstance, as New Zealand doesn't even require licensing of debt collection agencies.

Considering there is basically only 2 insurance companies in NZ - if said company starts becoming a PITA - the insurance companies may well decide to defend it, that is, if right2drive decides to take their chances in court.

This is likely if they decide to try it on. I note their daily rates in NZ are significantly higher than their daily rates in Australia.

But, more likely, based on my reading of the 'cut of their jib' it appears their business model is based on trying to intimidate with a probable fallback to the renter. This is in much the same way as Australian debt buyers operate. Have you ever heard of any court cases here involving them? I haven't. Yet, it is well established they operate (physically within Australia) with ruthless disregard for the laws of New Zealand and have done so for some years.

I don't know where you get that they operate physically in Australia with ruthless disregard for NZ law. They operate physically out of branches in Mt Wellington, Halswell, Te Rapa, and Te Aro and have done for a couple of years at least - pretty sure those places are in Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch and Wellington respectively which are not in Australia unless you know something the rest of us don't.

So just because they are Australian doesn't give them legal standing. There is plenty of rackets in the world and it's my observation Australia is one of the more abrasive western countries.

No, just because they have legal standing, they have legal standing. You're not wrong on the second part though.

Also keep in mind, the aggreived party is not right2drive but the other driver.

Which has precisely zero relevance.

MichaelNZ

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123

Trusted

Reply # 2059651 20-Jul-2018 21:13

Kyanar:

They don't quote any law. There's no link to the NSW legislation on the R2D website at all, that's just someone in this thread grabbing the title of the credit provider legislation of the jurisdiction they're apparently registered in and punching it into a Google search to see what comes up.

See here:

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

Kyanar:

I don't know where you get that they operate physically in Australia with ruthless disregard for NZ law. They operate physically out of branches in Mt Wellington, Halswell, Te Rapa, and Te Aro and have done for a couple of years at least - pretty sure those places are in Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch and Wellington respectively which are not in Australia unless you know something the rest of us don't.

I was clearly citing an example.

Kyanar:

No, just because they have legal standing, they have legal standing. You're not wrong on the second part though.

That doesn't make sense.

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

Kyanar:

Also keep in mind, the aggreived party is not right2drive but the other driver.

Which has precisely zero relevance.

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.

#deletefacebook

1 | 2 | 3 | 4