Rental company insists NSF owes it $67,000

[Mustank]

 

http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/...015-377765.html

 

Rental company insists NSF owes it $67,000

 

SINGAPORE - You wrecked our car so you must pay.

 

The amount?

 

A whopping $67,000, to be coughed up within a week.

 

That was the ultimatum handed to full-time national serviceman (NSF) Alan Tan Jun Rong by car rental firm Neo Rental And Resources after he crashed a rented Honda Civic car along Bedok South Avenue 1 on the morning of Aug 12.

 

The 20-year-old, who was driving alone towards the East Coast Parkway, lost control of the car and collided with a centre divider, causing significant damage to the vehicle.

 

He also fractured his right arm in the crash.

 

"I had just got my driving licence the week before the accident and I wanted to celebrate with friends," said Mr Tan, who has a brother, aged 10.

 

He had paid $388 to use the car for four days, but claimed that he was not told about the insurance for the car at the time.

 

Most big rental companies like Avis require drivers to be between 23 and 74 years of age and in full possession of a valid driving licence with at least one year of qualified driving experience at the time of rental.

 

RELATED STORIES

- Rental company disputes claims

But a car rental industry source told The New Paper that probational plate holders - who are at least 26years old - can rent a car from smaller companies.

 

He said this is done because the smaller companies need the business. As for insurance, anyone who does not meet the driving experience required will usually have to pay the excess of $10,000.

 

"Assuming the damages total to $15,000, the customer will pay the excess of $10,000 and the rental company will foot the rest," said the source.

 

When asked to recount the accident, Mr Tan admitted his error.

 

"While driving, I lost control because I was too tired, I had stayed up late meeting some friends the night before," he said apologetically.

 

Mr Tan said he called the police immediately after the crash and called the rental company to inform them of the accident as well.

 

 

He said: "But they were not happy I called the police and scolded me. I thought that was odd, shouldn't the police be informed of such incidents?"

 

A tow truck hauled the wreckage and the rental company picked him up at the accident location, said Mr Tan. It also picked up his dad, Mr Tan Choon Tsien, from his shop at Hougang Green Shopping Mall.

 

Both were then taken to the offices of Neo Rental And Resources at MacPherson Road.

 

The father, a 37-year-old shopkeeper, said they were kept on the premises until they signed papers agreeing to pay for the damage.

 

Police report

 

In a police report made on Oct 3, the elder Mr Tan alleged that the rental company forced them to sign papers agreeing to pay $67,000 for the damages on the car.

 

In the police report, he alleged: "I went to the company's office to discuss further on the payment... they then asked me to sign an agreement (for payment) without any explanation."

 

Mr Tan said no physical threats were made against him or his son.

 

But he said during the negotiations, the staff members of the rental firm were "very fierce", insisting Mr Tan "sign the agreement on that day or they will not allow me to see my son".

 

"I (then) complied (to their terms) without full understanding of the agreement," he added.

 

A police spokesman confirmed that the report was lodged, but the case has been classified as one of civil dispute.

 

An employee from another rental car company who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that such demands are "unheard of in our business".

 

He said: "In normal accident cases, even when the rental car has been totally damaged, the rental company would claim damages from their insurance company and not the hirer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RELATED STORIES

- Rental company disputes claims

 

 

 

"The hirer is usually liable to pay the excess amount of the insurance, which ranges from $2,000 to $10,000, depending on the policy.

 

"Demanding cash over the excess is not the industry practice, unless an accident occurred while the driver was intoxicated or speeding."

 

When he spoke to TNP, the elder Mr Tan said the demands made by the rental company had caused his family stress.

 

He added: "I told them I cannot afford such an amount. I went there because I was told my son was injured as a result of the crash."

 

The younger Mr Tan is contesting the demands made by the company and he has hired lawyer Satwant Singh from law firm Satwant & Associates.

 

In a letter sent to the lawyers of Neo Rental And Resources, Mr Singh argued that the agreement Mr Tan and his father signed with the rental company after the accident was made under "duress and coercion".

 

The younger Mr Tan also said he was not told of the insurance procedures when he rented the vehicle.

 

Rental company disputes claims

 

SINGAPORE - The rental company involved in the spat is disputing the Tans' version of events.

 

The owner of car rental firm Neo Rental And Resources - who wanted to be identified only as Mr Neo - told The New Paper that his employees drove the son to Mr Tan's store in Hougang Green Shopping Mall after they learnt of the accident.

 

"When we reached the mall, the father whacked the son in public, (and) we had to separate them because we didn't want them to be violent," said Mr Neo.

 

In a bid to calm the situation, he said his employees suggested they go to the rental company's office at Macpherson Road.

 

"But at our office, the father again slapped the son, who then hid in the manager's office," said Mr Neo.

 

"So we told the father that his son admitted he caused the crash because he was tired. This is deemed a collision and not an accident," he added.

 

Though he did not elaborate, he might have been referring to the highly-publicised case involving Chinese national Ma Chi, who died after crashing his Ferrari at Bugis on May 12. The insurers, AXA, are arguing before the courts that the incident was a collision and not an accident.

 

 

Authorised workshop

 

On the Neo Rental And Resources' website, it states that the cost of repair for any vehicle damaged will be assessed by its authorised workshop.

 

"If any insurance claims are made by a third party, the hirer has to bear an excess of $10,000 as stated by our Motor Car Insurer," it added.

 

But Mr Neo said the company is not allowing the Tans to claim insurance because they have classified the crash as a "collision and not an accident".

 

Said Mr Neo: "We told them we will not allow them to claim insurance and they have to bear the cost of the damages themselves.

 

"Both the son and the father agreed to this."

 

But did they do so under duress?

 

"To say they signed the agreement under threat is impossible," insisted Mr Neo.

 

"Since he has agreed to pay for the damage, why should we claim insurance?"

 

But the elder Mr Tan disagreed with Mr Neo's version of events, especially the suggestion that he had hit his son in public.

 

"Yes, I was very angry with my son at that time, but I did not beat him.

 

"I also did not agree to pay the sum, despite what he says," he said.

 

"I am telling you this story because I want other people to know what we went through, to be careful and know the rules before you sign for something."

Edited October 18, 2012 by Mustank

[Mockngbrd]

betcha the car not fully covered under insurance

[Sosaria]

Something fishy with this company. That's why they didn't want the police involved in the first place. The two versions of the event are so different. This is where witnesses or video will reveal the truth.

 

In shopping centre or the company premises probably have CCTV that recorded the whole thing?

 

Anyway, which company in the right mind would rent out a car, to a 20-year old that just got his license?? Too young to handle the VTEC lah...

Edited October 18, 2012 by Sosaria

[Mustank]

betcha the car not fully covered under insurance

 

maybe never buy the rental insurance? so insurance dont want to cover?

[Sp4wn]

maybe never buy the rental insurance? so insurance dont want to cover?

 

thats what i was thinking...

 

didnt the dad also co-sign the rental for his son?

[PorkChong]

VTEC KICKS IN YO!!!

[Mustank]

thats what i was thinking...

 

didnt the dad also co-sign the rental for his son?

 

when this case go to court, then got free show

[Soya]

maybe never buy the rental insurance? so insurance dont want to cover?

 

 

or simply maybe the car is a used car and not a registered rental car? that's why no rental car insurance.

[Mustank]

or simply maybe the car is a used car and not a registered rental car? that's why no rental car insurance.

 

dai ji tua tiao liao i think even lta will come and catch

[Mcscot]

I think the company was angry with the son cos the son had called the police and given the statement stating that he was tired (which is the truth!) therefore probably voiding the insurance policy (ie collison vs accident).

 

In the first place, should the "boy" even be allowed to rent the car! Aren't "P-Plate" drivers supposed to be driving under supervision? Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Galantspeedz]

I think the company was angry with the son cos the son had called the police and given the statement stating that he was tired (which is the truth!) therefore probably voiding the insurance policy (ie collison vs accident).

 

In the first place, should the "boy" even be allowed to rent the car! Aren't "P-Plate" drivers supposed to be driving under supervision? Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

you are wrong.

 

P-plate is just to highlight to other driver on the road to give more tolerance to driver with P-plate because just pass licence

 

where you get this notion from anyway?

[Lala81]

very fishy car rental company.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Lala81

[Mustank]

very fishy car rental company.

 

http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/Owner...121-116054.html

 

LTA has scheme to rent out car legally

 

 

Wed, Jan 21, 2009

The New Paper

 

 

 

THE Land Transport Authority (LTA) said 12 car owners had been caught renting out their private cars illegally last year, up from 11 in 2007 and six in 2006.

 

Said an LTA spokesman: "Private cars that are rented out illegally do not have insurance coverage, and the car owner and hirer are both liable to be dealt with under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act".

 

The maximum penalty is a fine of $1,000 and a jail term of three months.

 

The offenders will also be disqualified from holding a driving licence for a year.

 

But you can rent your car out on weekends and public holidays under the Private Car Rental Scheme.

 

This applies from 7pm on Fridays to 7am on Mondays and from 7pm on the eve of public holidays to 7am on the first following working day.

 

The spokesman said: "The objective of the scheme is to provide more opportunities for non-car owners to have access to private transport for special occasions during weekends and festive holidays.

 

"Under this scheme, car owners who are renting out their cars are responsible for providing adequate insurance coverage for the period of the rental."

 

The car must be registered under the name of a private individual and owners must have adequate insurance coverage for the rental period.

 

This article was first published in The New Paper on Jan 19, 2009.

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2635374

 

ELECTRIC NEWS

 

Firm helped pay car owner's monthly instalments for his vehicle

Fined for renting out car illegally

By Hedy Khoo

 

February 23, 2009

 

 

 

 

CAN'T afford to pay the monthly instalments on your car loan? Renting out your car might seem an attractive option. But beware.

 

 

QUIET: The office of Starzfocus Car Rental where Lawrence Yong rented out his car in return for it paying his monthly car instalments.

An owner handed over his car to a car rental company in return for the company paying his monthly instalments.

 

But what Lawrence Yong Shao Ping, 30, did not realise was that he did not have the required motor insurance for such a transaction.

 

He had to cough up a fine of $500 and was disqualified from driving for a year for renting out his car illegally.

 

He was caught when a hirer who took his car from the rental company was stopped at Ang Mo Kio in September 2007 by a Land Transport Authority officer.

 

In 2005, Yong had handed over his car, which he bought in 2004, to Starzfocus 2 Rental Enterprise in return for the rental company paying $800 for his monthly instalment.

 

Starzfocus then leased the car to one Mr Jeevan Shanmugam from September 2007.

 

Professional

 

According to court papers, Yong had been recommended to Starzfocus by a friend who told him that 'it was a reputable company'.

 

He also noticed that the company was 'well furnished and appeared to be run in a professional and experienced manner', and 'there were many cars on the premises'.

 

This gave him the 'confidence that he was dealing with professional, experienced and honest persons'.

 

Yong was introduced to a director of the company, Alan Goh, and told that the company would pay $800 for the car's monthly instalments.

 

In mitigation, Yong's counsel said his client thought the rental company was 'fully aware and conversant and in compliance with the laws, rules and regulations relating to the motor trade and motor rental business'.

 

The car company also informed him that it had its own insurance policy to cover the rental of vehicles.

 

He was shown the standard terms and conditions which a hirer would have to sign and told that the hirer could take out an insurance policy for the duration of the hire.

 

He was further assured that he could make a third party claim in the event his vehicle was involved in an accident involving other drivers.

 

His mitigation plea stated that Yong did not gain financially and continued to suffer a loss.

 

He was only trying to reduce his losses by renting out his car, instead of selling it.

 

Assured

 

While his car was with Starzfocus, the company had settled numerous traffic fines and even settled insurance claims from two major accidents the car was involved in without using Yong's insurance coverage.

 

This further convinced him that the company's assurances to him were true.

 

Yong claimed that he had been misled and was unaware that the rental arrangement was illegal until informed by the LTA.

 

District Judge Salina Ishak considered that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but said that companies which offer such services are 'very much prevalent and a growing phenomenon', such that they 'give credence that such practices are acceptable and legal'.

 

She pointed out that the rationale for the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act is to ensure that pedestrians and the motoring public will be able to recover compensation from an offender if he injures or kills someone.

 

As Yong's car was registered as a private vehicle, the insurance policy for the car would be for private use and not for reward or hire.

 

She noted that generally, private car owners are not permitted to rent out their vehicles unless they do so under the Private Car Rental Scheme introduced by the LTA.

 

)Under the scheme, private cars can be rented on weekends from Friday 7pm to the following Monday 7am. But owners have to ensure adequate insurance coverage for the period of rental.

 

The judge pointed out that as a car owner, Yong should have checked that his car was properly insured.

 

But he had chosen to 'turn a blind eye' and rely on the assurances made by the representatives of the rental company.

 

So the judge said Yong was 'not without blame but in fact is wholly to blame for his misfortune'.

 

He could have been fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to three months.

[Gizmore]

I think the company was angry with the son cos the son had called the police and given the statement stating that he was tired (which is the truth!) therefore probably voiding the insurance policy (ie collison vs accident).

 

In the first place, should the "boy" even be allowed to rent the car! Aren't "P-Plate" drivers supposed to be driving under supervision? Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

kong si mi jiao wei...

 

 

Qualified Driving License (QDL) - full license. On passing the Practical Driving Test, a driving license will be issued. The license holder will undergoes a 1 year probation period, in which he is required to display the probationary license plate, a triangular plate, at the top right portion of the front windscreen and the rear windscreen. Within the probationary year, the license holder can only accumulate up to 12 demerit points, or else the license will be revoked.

 

 

[Deckbuild]

What is the difference btw collision and accident? How come the rental company can deem that it's a collision and not accident?

[Mustank]

kong si mi jiao wei...

 

 

Qualified Driving License (QDL) - full license. On passing the Practical Driving Test, a driving license will be issued. The license holder will undergoes a 1 year probation period, in which he is required to display the probationary license plate, a triangular plate, at the top right portion of the front windscreen and the rear windscreen. Within the probationary year, the license holder can only accumulate up to 12 demerit points, or else the license will be revoked.

 

He must have curly hair because :

 

Tao more q q, gong Wei boh lee you

[Kyrios]

Typical gangster company lah..

 

when all else fails..only know how to make threats

[Scion]

very fishy car rental company.

 

 

can the company take the money from Tan father and son, then claim insurance?

 

take money from both sides!