From A : AM I BEING PLAYED????

[ah lian]

if it wud allow the parties, A, B, C, D, E to resolve their differences, why not let them try to resolve that first. honestly, they are the only ones who NEED closure.

hope dat all involved will reach a settlement soon because its not easy to live amongst these conflicts. good luck to all. Cutiepie, tell them dat!

 

[kevster30]

The tealady has spoken....kudos!

 

[Daredevil]

Office Bearer Perspective

I reckon it's time someone from the office bearer provide some feedback on this unfortunate case. Here are some input both as a committee and also a forumer who shares the same passion when it comes to protecting and appreciating the prestigious roundel.

Firstly, this matter is definitely relevant to be shared in this forum. As Bundy correctly puts it, this forum is about sharing of our BMW experience and also an avenue for our dear members to voice their windfall whenever they're bestowed with one and also their greviences when bad luck such as this befall them. So I don't see anything wrong with this thread at all. Just imagine yourself in Mr A's shoes. Wouldn't you want some advice or opinions from fellow members? It could happen to anyone of us. So let's be reasonable and let the victim gather and weigh out whatever information he needs before deciding on the next step.

From the office bearer's perspective, such culprit (if identity be made known) who has been an active member of this forum will be placed under strict scrutiny and evaluation when it comes to obtaining an official club membership. The committee will not condone such irresponsible self-centric individuals in this club as he/she has high chances of creating negative /undesirable vibes which will tarnish the image of the club.

The committee's roles and responsibilities is to ensure proper governance of club related issues and that rules are adhered to. But it is highly crucial to note that personal opinions of club advisors or committees should not be misconstrued as those representing Club Constitution. It doesn't mean committees are andriods who just uphold the law as programmed and do not have a mind of their own. Everybody has their own rights to voice their opinions and it is totally up to the affected parties' judgement to take heed or not.

Putting myself in Mr A's shoes, the culprit will be lucky to get away with a 50-50 settlement. I won't even settle for a 5% discount as it is absolutely no fault of mine. E.g. if the driver in front suddenly decides to jam brakes and being the driver behind, your reflex wasn't quick enough to stop on time to avoid a collision. You kiss the car's ass. No arguments. According to the law, the driver behind is definitely wrong. Can the person who knocked into someone's back step up, say sorry and ask for a 50-50 settlement? HELL NO!!!!! So the answer is staring at our faces pretty clearly.

As fellow forumers, I believe we should just chip in our thoughts and advice so that the victim are exposed to more options. Please do not add fuel to fire, hurl unnecessary accusations at anybody or start swearing and calling names.

This thread will not be closed until this matter has been resolved. But the mods will be watching this space carefully and any off topic postings will be deleted without further warning. Please remember, if you do not have anything worthwhile to say, don't say anything.

 

[shaifulo]

i didn't read all the posts...but I hope a police report has been made for the accident, this is imminent despite whatever proposed settlement terms.

the owner shud claim 100%...what 50/50?

 

[Zoggee]

I'm just curious. DVST8 joined the forum in Nov, 2005. And only has 8 postings for the whole year. Very vocal aren't you.

I was told , that the poster and anuder poster are on the same IP..???? huh..???? duh..!!???? posted within minutes????

Who ARE they ah???? stated from US but IP manyak dekat, not far la.

 

[ALBundy]

i didn't read all the posts...but I hope a police report has been made for the accident, this is imminent despite whatever proposed settlement terms.

the owner shud claim 100%...what 50/50?

I heard reports are being made as we speak, its getting fugly.

 

[bimmer73]

I have read all posting and would like to refer my case in terms of the claim part of 100% if the lawyer says it can be done and some of you say that it should be 50/50 i would like to get my car back the way it was before the accident.

Damages beyond recognition

broken engine, broken suspensions (KONI), back caved in, broken rims 18 Inch AC 3 you name it. it all there just to cut my story short to see if i can claim 100% or get my car back to it original state before the crash due to a blown brand new tyre that could have hit a rock 3 months later. I was not driving my friend was. the car is 12 years old. My friend payed me a RM1000 deposit to book the car for purchase we were on a outstation journey and we took turns driving. Bottom line is he was driving.


Cost of repairs from 90K, insured amount 65k. claim amount way less than 40k excluding amount that i have spent on the car previously. what are my options

A. Take 40K and ask the driver to pay the balance of 50k plus the upgrades that i
have done on my car and not get my car back at all and bear all finance cost,
NCB of 55% and travelling cost as it is my only car that helps me to put food
on the table. I love my car too.

B. Sue the insurance company for not paying out the total value of the car plus
upgrades that i have done before the accident.

C. Sue the tyre manufacturer for the default in the tyre after 3 months of using
the tyre.

D. Sue the highway operators for the accident and claim all damages cost and
incured.

E. Sue the driver.

How do determine the cause of the accident? The Car or the driver at fault or any other cause.

Who is responsible for the incident?
Who is to compensate me so that I get my car back to the original state be fore the accident?


Having said that.

I get my car back every thing in place. Welded chasis to straighten the body. everything done let say 40k. I take the car back drive it for about a month and I am not satisfied with the way my car handles and then go to another workshop for second opinion and the workshop guys says that the job was not done properly. I go back to the 1st workshop and ask the cost of the repairs done on my car.

I go back to the paymaster after 1 month of receiving my car back and say that the second workshop that I went to says that it will cost another 60k to straighten every thing properly.

My question should I, when i took the car on the very first day after the repairs was done drive it for a couple of hours and feels that i am not satisfied with the condition of the car after the repair was done and does not feel like it originally was before the accident and tell the paymaster at that material time that I will not accept the car in this condition on the very first day.


OR

Still drive it around for 1 month and then make a second claim just be cause I am not 100% satisfied. Then I try to gain sympathy for the rest of the world by putting an add in the media seeking everyones opinion whether I have been played out.

The way i see it Mr. A should have taken the car to his prefered workshop at the point of the accident with MR. B, BC or BB or whoever to come to an agreement of how much the cost should have been not after 1 month.

If Mr. A is entitle to a 100% claim or 50/50 for that mater after 1 month. Then I should also have the same right to claim 100% after my accident.

Asking for a second claim after giving consent for the car to be send to Mr. B's workshop wit the help of BB and BC or BD is out of the question in my opinion. If Mr. A thinks that Mr. B's workshop did not have the proper tools to fix the car then he should have taken the car out of that workshop immediatly not wait and let Mr.B's workshop finish the job and then get a second opinion.

It is like going to Clinic A to check your testicals and doctor says operate to align the testicals. You agree however after the op you cannot pee straight than you get a second opinion from Clinic B. Clinic B surgeon say to correct you need to pay and additional to correct what Clinic A did to your testicals. hehehe


Well some of you may not agree with what i have to say however this is just my opinion Mr. A & B should have come to an agreement before fixing the car not after. It is way too late now.

 

[ALBundy]

My question should I, when i took the car on the very first day after the repairs was done drive it for a couple of hours and feels that i am not satisfied with the condition of the car after the repair was done and does not feel like it originally was before the accident and tell the paymaster at that material time that I will not accept the car in this condition on the very first day.


OR

Still drive it around for 1 month and then make a second claim just be cause I am not 100% satisfied. Then I try to gain sympathy for the rest of the world by putting an add in the media seeking everyones opinion whether I have been played out.

The way i see it Mr. A should have taken the car to his prefered workshop at the point of the accident with MR. B, BC or BB or whoever to come to an agreement of how much the cost should have been not after 1 month.

If Mr. A is entitle to a 100% claim or 50/50 for that mater after 1 month. Then I should also have the same right to claim 100% after my accident.

Asking for a second claim after giving consent for the car to be send to Mr. B's workshop wit the help of BB and BC or BD is out of the question in my opinion. If Mr. A thinks that Mr. B's workshop did not have the proper tools to fix the car then he should have taken the car out of that workshop immediatly not wait and let Mr.B's workshop finish the job and then get a second opinion.

It is like going to Clinic A to check your testicals and doctor says operate to align the testicals. You agree however after the op you cannot pee straight than you get a second opinion from Clinic B. Clinic B surgeon say to correct you need to pay and additional to correct what Clinic A did to your testicals. hehehe


Well some of you may not agree with what i have to say however this is just my opinion Mr. A & B should have come to an agreement before fixing the car not after. It is way too late now.

Dude, please read the original post carefully. Here it is...the relevant part to your post.

Dear members,


B called his brother BB for help. BB said to a that he will settle this issue and told A not to worry. BB's friend, BC offered to send it to his friend's workshop as it is close by. A has no issues as he believes that BB will do the right thing.

A and his good friend SS went the next day to the workshop to document the damage and to take pictures of the damage. A and SS also talked to the workshop man in regards to damage. The workshop guy said for the chassis works, he will send it to another guy who does this kind of things

After 2 weeks BC called A to tell that A's car is ready. BC also said that the rim and exhaust is not done yet and BC advised for A to get it done and claim the repair amount from BB. A agreed. To A's dismay, the only repair job that was done to his car was the torn chassis was welded back to his railing and covered with a plate. All other chassis damage, not to mention the mechanicals, was not even repaired.

BC and BB called A thru the phone and adviced that the repair job was the best that they can do as the chassis was rusted and the car was in a very bad condition. A called BC's mechanic to check out the repair cost, which was rm700.

A was not happy. A took his car to a trusted chassis repair guy to check out the damage. The chassis repair guy said the repair was shoddy and the amount needed to repair it correctly - including all mechanical damage - was rm5K. The mechanic also confirmed that the chassis is not rusting and the damage was from the impact.

Isn't it obvious Mr. A wasn't happy with the shoddy repair work when he got his car back from the workshop??

 

[fabianyee]

If based on the first posting, there were some trust from B's side on getting it sorted. I would say A's mind was already in a disarray after seeing his car wrecked and trusted the other party on getting proper repair.

Anyway, let the 2 parties resolve the matter. No point deliberating now over here. Won't solve any problems.

 

[bimmer73]

If I was the second workshop I will definitely charge you a bomb if you bring me a car that has been done by another mechanic. RM5k why not just get a new chasis and how do you justfy RM5k for the job.





Anyway I was trying to summrise the whole thread. You should read the beginning of my post and the the last part of my post.




this is what i posted in case you didn't see.

I have read all posting and would like to refer my case in terms of the claim part of 100% if the lawyer says it can be done and some of you say that it should be 50/50 i would like to get my car back the way it was before the accident.



Well some of you may not agree with what i have to say however this is just my opinion Mr. A & B should have come to an agreement before fixing the car not after. It is way too late now.


I have pictures of my car can post it as the internet is too slow to upload.

 

[ALBundy]

Yes Bimmer73, I disagreed with your opinion and hence I cut and pasted the relevant part of Ding Chavez's post to highlight where your opinion went wrong.

The critical part here is to provide constructive inputs so that both parties could resolve this amicably. By arguing on the technicalities and hence trying to absolve Mr. B of his responsibilities aint gonna help. To make matters worse, most of the technicality arguments doesnt hold any water at all.

 

[bimmer73]

Yes Bimmer73, I disagreed with your opinion and hence I cut and pasted the relevant part of Ding Chavez's post to highlight where your opinion went wrong.

The critical part here is to provide constructive inputs so that both parties could resolve this amicably. By arguing on the technicalities and hence trying to absolve Mr. B of his responsibilities aint gonna help. To make matters worse, most of the technicality arguments doesnt hold any water at all.

Weather you agree is not that is up to you. No offence taken.

But however the inputs don't seem to be constructive it is more of a one sided thing having not heard the other side of the story. All we can do is argue bass on technicalities until there is a second side. correct? But by encoraging police reports and legal action probably violence which is yet to come, (hopefully it doesn't go that far) does not help either. When it goes to legal proceedings all arguements will be bassed on technicalities at the point of incident and what took place after and the judge will probably dismiss it as a petty issue.

Atfer asking Mr. A

did you allow Mr. B to drive your car,(yes)
is your car insured (yes)
and why didn't you make a claim then.(No)
Did Mr. B fix you car. (yes)

Technically there is a consent by the onwer.

At the end of the day only the lawyers will be the one smiling to the bank. Mr. A gets nothing but spends money paying legal fees.

 

[XXX]

I think in this situation we live it to A & B to sort it out, if they become enemies after that or best of friends its not exactly our problem we can just give our
opinions but by the look of things its causing friction amongst us who are not directly involved. Like I said life is not fair otherwise i would be driving a Ferrari and my wife is Miss World.

 

[ALBundy]

Atfer asking Mr. A

did you allow Mr. B to drive your car,(yes)
is your car insured (yes)
and why didn't you make a claim then.(No)
Did Mr. B fix you car. (yes)

Technically there is a consent by the onwer.

At the end of the day only the lawyers will be the one smiling to the bank. Mr. A gets nothing but spends money paying legal fees.

Yes, there is consent by the owner to let Mr.B test drive the car in view of his interest in purchasing the car. So what's the issue here?? Just because he has given consent for him to test drive the car, does that mean Mr. B can thrash the car without being responsible for the consequences???

Yes, the car is insured but how many people here would buy first party insurance for a vehicle that is more than 20 years old?? If the car was insured under First Party Insurance, I am sure Mr. A would have claimed his insurance rather than posting his grievances here.

And lastly, how could you justify the car as being "fixed" when there are so many things that were not done (as per Ding's post)?? If there are 10 problems, and you have only provided 1 solution to it, do you consider the other 9 problems solved??

 

[azwanb]

Yes, there is consent by the owner to let Mr.B test drive the car in view of his interest in purchasing the car. So what's the issue here?? Just because he has given consent for him to test drive the car, does that mean Mr. B can thrash the car without being responsible for the consequences???

Yes, the car is insured but how many people here would buy first party insurance for a vehicle that is more than 20 years old?? If the car was insured under First Party Insurance, I am sure Mr. A would have claimed his insurance rather than posting his grievances here.

And lastly, how could you justify the car as being "fixed" when there are so many things that were not done (as per Ding's post)?? If there are 10 problems, and you have only provided 1 solution to it, do you consider the other 9 problems solved??

It is rather strange in my opinion for some members and even committee members to be so emotionally charged on this matter and quite frankly this has nothing to do with the roundel. The simple read from the thread is that most of you are buddies of A and and clearly knows who B is and so forth and your opinions are understandable but coloured somewhat.

The key differences of opinion seems to be "what is right and should be done" versus what is executable in the eyes of the law. B should pay but who can verify that A's car did not have problems prior to the test drive needing some of those repairs anyway? Rust an all... this is just too difficult and will eventually end in stalemate. So maybe a 50-50 settlement can in fact be fair given that 100% value cannot be verified in this case.

Lesson learnt is that make sure you are fully insured before letting someone else drive your car - test drive or drive to the market. Saying that nobody does comprehensive insurance on a 20 year old car will just not cut it in court...

In any case I think B will no longer have friends driving Beemers...

My dua sen - and I have no idea who's ABCDEFG.... I also think Bimmer73 comments are fair.

 

[sithwarrior]

Bimmer73, Azwan B,

Honestly if it was your rides, you would feel much diffrently. Dont assume that the most of us here are only siding A. It doesnt matter if the car had rust or not, it takes someone with the mental capacity of a napkin to drift in someone elses jalopy. The damage is now severe simply because of the accident and so the person at the wheel should be responsible. I disagree with bimmer73's little legal skit there. Speaking to someone ( a lawyer ) before this I just learned that theres a little thing called " The Thin Skull Case " or something something to that effect. Perhaps the lawyers here can elaborate more on this.

Sith

 

[okow]

My turn with my opinion on this issue:
As I have read, A ONLY consented B to test drive the car as B was an interested party to purchase. It wasnt a joy ride.
With the intention to purchase a test drive was allowed.
B "broke" it, B should buy it at the reasonable price A wanted for it. I dont believe A is asking for 100% more than the initial purcase price. Afterall, where's the intergrity.
"Once broken, considered SOLD!"

 

[ALBundy]

Lesson learnt is that make sure you are fully insured before letting someone else drive your car - test drive or drive to the market. Saying that nobody does comprehensive insurance on a 20 year old car will just not cut it in court...

Honestly I can't see the logic behind this insurance thingy presented by you whereby the owner is to be blamed for not having full insurance coverage and hence it will not cut it in court.....

 

[ALBundy]

The key differences of opinion seems to be "what is right and should be done" versus what is executable in the eyes of the law. B should pay but who can verify that A's car did not have problems prior to the test drive needing some of those repairs anyway? Rust an all... this is just too difficult and will eventually end in stalemate. So maybe a 50-50 settlement can in fact be fair given that 100% value cannot be verified in this case.

I believe this is partly the reason why the previous negotiation talks broke down.

To make things simple, the obvious solution in my humble opinion that is fair to both parties is for Mr. B to purchase the said vehicle. Mr. A should give some "goodwill discount" in order for them to find some common ground. Mr. B then can decide what to do with the car, there are various options available which I think its a win-win situation in lieu of the circumstances both parties are facing.

I'd hope both parties will sit down and try to negotiate for a final time before proceeding to seek legal action. Afterall we are all in the same community.

Cheers.

 

[teejay]

I believe this is partly the reason why the previous negotiation talks broke down.

To make things simple, the obvious solution in my humble opinion that is fair to both parties is for Mr. B to purchase the said vehicle. Mr. A should give some "goodwill discount" in order for them to find some common ground. Mr. B then can decide what to do with the car, there are various options available which I think its a win-win situation in lieu of the circumstances both parties are facing.

I'd hope both parties will sit down and try to negotiate for a final time before proceeding to seek legal action. Afterall we are all in the same community.

Cheers.

Well said, and hope the appropriate parties will consider this option seriously, after all A's intention was to sell his car and get a bigger 4 door sedan

Another option I can add is , B, buy a 4 door sedan, change ownership with A and B can then do whatever is necessary to get the car roadworthy again