After someone from the Quality Service Department called me regarding my enquiries/requests, I received two letters from NTUC Income on 01 Sep 05:
My Reply to NTUC:Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: XXX@yahoo.comSubject: Re: Response on liability & premium calculation: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
To: "DAVID TAN"
CC: "Eddie Loke" , "DAVID TAN" , "Jenny Pe" , "Stella Soh" , "Goh Peng Hong" , "Cho Lai Weng" , "Edwin Wong" , "Belinda Sim" , "Alvin Tan Hock Wan - Gc" , "Bernard Han Cheung Yong" , "Sharon Han" , "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Alice Low" , "Goh Peng Hong"
Hi MR DAVID,
Thank you for your reply. Attached are the replies that I have received from you. Below are the replies by MR CHO:
Reply on 23/06/05:Dear Mr . Tan , Originally , based on available material evidence including your additional inputs contained in your e-mail to us dated on the 27 / 05 / 2005 , our Assessor had determined that the driver of XXX9999X to bear greater liability in the accident which occurred on the 06.05.2005 but since you persist in the liability dispute and to ensure consistency in the liability determination process , we decided to forward the case to our Claims Committee which includes our Head of Claims Department to conduct a review of the case . The findings of our Claims Committee is out and I regret to inform that their decision synchronise with our earlier stand that the driver of XX9999X had more liability . Under BOLA ( barometer of liability assessment ) system of assessing which is recommended by the Traffic Police , in the absence of independent unbiased witnesses and with both parties claiming traffic lights in their favour , onus is on the turning vehicle . Consequently , when there is liability , under policy conditions , NCD will be negatively impacted by Third Party claim no. 6048683 . However , as assessment is done without prejudice , if you still do not accede to our decision , you may agree with the appointment of an outside independent adjudicator ( see attached for details ) to perform another round of investigation .If the independent adjudicator rules in your favour i.e liability to be 20 % or less , we shall reinstate your NCD accordingly . If you are amenable to the independent adjudicator scheme , please contact me by the 30th June 2005 and I shall make the necessary arrangements for that purpose . If you need further assistance in this matter or have any query , please feel free to contact me .
Reply on 30/06/05:Dear Mr. Tan , Liability assessment is based on the accident reports / photographs of the damaged vehicle of both parties , witnesses statements if available and very importantly , adherence to the BOLA system of assessing which is recommended by the Traffic Police. Firstly , our Assessor had to ascertain whether the damages inflicted on both vehicles are consistent with the accident or not . In a nutshell , whether the said mechanical damages can be generated based on both reports . If the damages are not consistent , then doubt will be cast over the integrity of one's report . In this accident , our Assessor had concluded that the damages are in tune with both reports . Next , we look at the availability of witnesses statements . In this context , no such statements produced from both parties . Finally , the BOLA system comes into play , and as I had mentioned before , in the absence of independent , unbiased witnesses statements and both parties claiming green lights in their favour , onus is on the turning vehicle. Based on our experience , we felt that in order to fight this case , the presentation of an independent , unbiased witness statement to substantiate that your goodself has the right of way is of paramount importance in this accident scenario. If not , the availability of a Police Investigation report which revealed that the Third Party was charged successfully for traffic offences eg. careless / inconsiderate driving can help tremendously your case . Unfortunately , both the witnesses statements and Police Investigation report are not available and reciprocally , we have to come to that decision which regrettably not to your favour . We hope the above explanation answer your queries and please let us have your response regarding the adoption of the Independent Adjudicator scheme to conduct a review of the case . If we do not hear from you by 4th July 2005 , I am afraid we need to proceed to settle the Third party claim against you . Thank You Yours SincerelyCho Lai WengClaim Service CentreNTUC IncomeDID : 6877-3208
Firstly, as you can see what Mr Cho had explained are just the General Guidelines used when assessing an accident. Do you know what are the differences between the guidelines and the assessment prior to the accident?
Secondly, at this moment, I am asking for the two assessment reports for references in the future if similar accidents happen to me. I am not talking about the liability portion yet. If NTUC Income do not have such assessment reports, please say so and not trying to beat around the bushes and waste everybody's time here.
Thirdly, please answer all my enquiries correctly. When someone asks you why your name is called David, answer him/her with a start of "It is because" or "It is due to" and NOT "We will take note of that". I do not know what kind of answer is that. (What is your educational level?)
By the way, please think carefully before you reply. Do not forget that you are representing NTUC Income and make a fool of yourself and disgrace NTUC Income. If you can not handle this case, please forward this to your supervisor. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Tan XXX XXX**I have learnt a new answer if my boss asks me
WHY my project is delayed?, The ans will be "I will take note of it". I cannot imagine what will happen to me if I really reply my boss using that answer. Btw, if those primary or secondary school students answer their comprehension tests/exams' questions in this way, they will definitely fail! :P
