Me vs Car - part II

[Colapop]

Yep told her that - "That would be the minimum amount IAG would accept." I'll check it out with CAB.

[Grahameeboy]

Yep told her that - "That would be the minimum amount IAG would accept." I'll check it out with CAB.

That is crap Col. I used to work for IAG and they used to accept $10 per week for years. They are just trying to stone wall you as they cannot dictate a minimum when the Court would only expect you to pay what you can afford.

The Referee should have discussed the payments at the Hearing and got agreement.

You may have to do some figures and present these to Court /IAG.

Keep me informed.

[RantyDave]

How much do I have to pay?

Well, nearly three and a half grand by the sounds of things. Talk to Merv about he ended up never getting the money because according to 'them' (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/cour...on_against.pdf) it's just a question of process - one that you'll end up paying for. Again.

How about you try to arrange payment of $55/month for five years = $3300. It doesn't account for 'time value of money' but hey. It'll also be a lot cheaper than (say) getting a bank loan for the amount. Suck suck suck.

Dave

[Grub]

What I'd like to know is what I absolutely have to do? How much do I have to pay?

Alright. My recollection is that if you pay a regular amount, somebody mentioned $10/week and you never miss one ... they can't do diddly squat.

I'm also fairly certain that since they chose the Disputes Tribunal, they forgo any rights they might have to take you to the District Court to have you "examined as to your means" and force an accelerated recovery.

In any event, this is all bush-lawya talk. Free legal advise is available at a Community Law Centre. Your circumstances are exactly why they're there. You'll get a proper legal opinion from a simple visit. You can't use them as your full-time lawyer but they love sorting out your rights when you're being bullied by a 'system'

[Nasty]

they have to be reasonable about your ability to pay, almost all companies that i know of try to be reasonable and allow people to pay it off. I can't see IAG being any different .... they should be able to arrange a payment plan .. give them a call.

[Grub]

Well, nearly three and a half grand by the sounds of things. Talk to Merv about he ended up never getting the money because according to 'them' (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/cour...on_against.pdf) it's just a question of process - one that you'll end up paying for. Again.

Bugger, looks like I've just failed Bush Lawyering 101. I'm not quite sure what Ranty is saying there but that pdf is pretty clear about what happens if you do nothing. What happened to Merv? I suppose it's not relevant anyway. An individual doesn't have the time and resources to chase payment but big organisations do and the cost is irrelevant to them - its the principle they're protecting.

I am pretty sure about the $10/week thing though

[Macktheknife]

Bugger to hear about this mate, seems to rain more on some folks than others some days.
Get yourself down to the community law office and take it from there, they will give good advice and it will be factual. Then take that information, work out what you can afford, and present the IAG with a payment plan and see what they say. This is all you can reasonably do, if they refuse ask them if they have any jobs going that would suit you and arrange to have it drawn from your salary.
Best of luck mate, call me if there is a way I can help.
Mack

[RantyDave]

What happened to Merv?

Sorry, my bad - it was you, not Merv. The case you won but then didn't manage to extract $'s.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...81&postcount=8

The point is that if there is no way for IAG to actually force Col to pay then he certainly has significant leverage over the company. But I imagine insurance companies have entire (vast) departments turned over to doing this sort of thing.

Dave

[Sanx]

Col, I'd still like to know how the guy driving, and his insurance company, managed to ignore the 'thou shalt indicate three seconds prior to manouvering' rule?

[Paul in NZ]

It's through the disputes tribunal. The first line of the letter states "The Tribunal hereby orders: The respondant 'Colapop' to pay IAG New Zealand Ltd the sum of $4275.34"

Ferk me - $4,275.34c what did you do to the car mate? Hug it to death?

[EJT]

The point is that if there is no way for IAG to actually force Col to pay then he certainly has significant leverage over the company. But I imagine insurance companies have entire (vast) departments turned over to doing this sort of thing.

Dave

IAG can apply to the District Court to have a Collections Officer or Bailiff visit and demand payment, and seize assets if payment is not made. They can only take things which are owned by you (ie not a vehicle with finance owing on it). This is the most drastic step, so I'm sure it won't come down to that if you try to negotiate somethign with them. It can only apply to the Court to do this if you don't comply with the tribunal order.

[Colapop]

Ferk me - $4,275.34c what did you do to the car mate? Hug it to death?

The damage was actually pretty minor. Two door skins. The car was (at the time) a six week old Golf GTI. That's why he needed the huge turning radius.

Col, I'd still like to know how the guy driving, and his insurance company, managed to ignore the 'thou shalt indicate three seconds prior to manouvering' rule?

The judgement states that the adjuDICKator accepts that the complainant did indicate in enough time prior to the turn.

IAG can apply to the District Court to have a Collections Officer or Bailiff visit and demand payment, and seize assets if payment is not made. They can only take things which are owned by you (ie not a vehicle with finance owing on it). This is the most drastic step, so I'm sure it won't come down to that if you try to negotiate somethign with them. It can only apply to the Court to do this if you don't comply with the tribunal order.

Can they do that although this was through the disputes tribunal?

[swbarnett]

The judgement states that the adjuDICKator accepts that the complainant did indicate in enough time prior to the turn.

From your description it certainly sounds to me like they indicated as they turned, not before. Did they have witnesses to when they started indicating? Perhaps you need to seek legal advice for an appeal? Can you appeal a Disputes Tribunal ruling?

[EJT]

Can they do that although this was through the disputes tribunal?

Yeah - unfortunately. It is one way of enforcing decisions if they are ignored. Fortunately, that is the last resort for them, and it is a bit of a hassle, so I don't think they will do it. If you can't afford it, they can also apply to the court to have you examined re you assets. Again, a bit of a hassle for them. But if it appears you can't pay (which should have been brought up at the hearing), then the court can make orders on repayments.