18 year old female drivers...

[chiQ]

Good luck dude. I have a feeling that all of us will be thinking of you tomorrow

[reac]

Dunno about anybody else but I'm looking forward to hearing all about it.

[ZoSo]

Oh man, that family is just a sucker for punishment! Go BOYD

[Sgt Seb]

man that doesnt even seem that long ago....good luck

[Reality]

Looking forward very much to hearing the outcome and the fallout

[Heresy]

I said "Oh sweet!" out loud when I saw the title of this thread BOYD - keep the news flowing in!

[Dornak]

Well I'd add my good luck wishes but I dont think you need em.

That family must be a few cans short of a six-pack.

[Boyd-Work]

Cheers guys

If it goes well (once again, I don't see how on earth it could go any other way), I'll probably go have a pint at Murphy's to celebrate

[=ENDER=]

Boyd can you mention their (the "families") actions during the initial part of the drama?
I mean can you tell the arbitrator all about it? How they lied and conived. Using their job and job contacts to to try and get you to pay when the info that you were getting from their insurance company. This is the impression I was left with.
Because if you are allowed to then surely you have nothing to worry about. My experience with the small claims court is that the decisions are based more on how you are able to convince the arbitrator. Are you taking your father along? Please do if he has some interest (financial) in the out come .... a lie like "we both paid for the car".. (personaly I can't do shit like that) The reason that I am saying this is that possibly this will be being done by the troll and his foundling. I tend to think that left alone she may have paid and smiled (correct me if I'm wrong I don't wanna send positv e energy the wrong way).

[Morpheus]

I've read all the threads, never posted anything on it. But still, good luck BOYD
Not that you're gonna need it tho

[Hyper-USA]

Hey boyd

does this mean after u win you will have more time to come on icq and have a chat with me HEH

cheers hyp

[Rince]

BOYD - I might have moved 12000miles, but I'm still behind you...


go for it!

[Boyd-Work]

Leaving right now

Still not sure what I'm gonna say exactly, but I'm leaning towards something like "Yawn... anyone feel like a Lion Red?"



*fingers crossed*

[Mabd]

GL dude

[Boyd-Work]

Victory is mine! Muhahaha

The hearing lasted about an hour, purely by virtue of the fact that the court decided to hear the circumstances of the accident- even though I felt them to be irrelevant by now.

In any event, regardless of what the court did and did not hear, it was satisfying beyond words to see that stupid wench squirm because she was lost for words.

Her father was reprimanded for trying to pass her notes during the hearing too

I'll post a bit later with all the gory details but for now I'll just leave you all with the happy news that the wench and wench-daddy have right been put in their place. About bloody time.

[ZoSo]

Legendary.

[Whiplash]

w00000000t! GO BOYD!!!

[Reality]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAH AHA HAH.! fuck I ENJOYED THAT BOYD!! I'm having a bad day and needed cheerin up bad.

<font color="#FF0080" size= "7">HAHAHAHA</font>

[Ody-Work]

muahahahhahha


"Wench was shafted by BOYD's rod."



ownaagggggeeee
You got a demo posted anywhere of the court hearing? Oh wait.. still haven't got rebirth out of my system.

[Boyd-Work]

Hmm would be legendary if I could get a recording of it... not such a bad idea after all Ody

Speaking of which, be at work in 2 minutes. I gotta ring and find out what time I'm in tomorrow :/

[Hyper-USA]

1 word boyd: "l3333t"

[Boyd-Work]

Well, it's still kinda sinking in that I really did kick her ass and she's all finished with

But I thought I'd fill you guys in with some of the details. Now that the matter is truly settled, there's no reason to hold anything back

I don't know where I left off... but as far as I can remember it was at the point where I had received a letter from Graeme Day of EIG-Ansvar. This letter claimed that I was at fault in causing the accident, and also clumsily admitted that Hayley was silly for reversing on the carriageway. This letter was written on the 28th of September and I was unaware of it until well into October. Little did I know it was sent to the lady at NZI who was handling the claim, and little did I know that she had taken this letter as confirmation from my insurer that I was admitting liability. Only when I got the letter from NZI asking me to pay up within 14 days was I made aware of it... it caused a great deal of confusion and a fuck of a lot of hassle. Not to mention the fact that it was COMPLETELY inappropriate conduct on behalf of Messrs. Day and O'Neill.

After that, there were heaps of phonecalls between myself and NZI sussing out what was gonna happen. On about the 14th of Oct., I was telephoned by the lady I mentioned above to let me know that everything was sweet and that the assessor was gonna come round the next week and see what damage had been done and to make sure my quote from the panelbeater was legit. On the 18th, I received formal and written confirmation on letterhead from her Team Manager (Graham Edwards) at NZI, accepting liability and also requesting that I withdraw my proceedings in the DT (Disputes Tribunal). I did so a few days later, once my car had been returned in satisfactory order.

This is important. I ONLY withdrew my claim because NZI had accepted liability. If they had not, it would've been my case there today and not Hayley's.

So my car was then fixed at considerable (read: $1,000) expense, and I was happy. Until the 1st of November, when another letter from Mr. Edwards landed in my inbox... er, mailbox

It said that NZI was changing its mind, and no longer accepted liability. This was AFTER they had told me to get my car repaired and AFTER my panelbeater had incurred big expenses doing the job.If that sounds like bad form, that's because it WAS.

I rang Mr. Edwards and we had several heated arguments over the next few days... basically I protested because I found it unacceptable for them to tell me to go get the repairs made and then say "whoops, sorry"- thereby forcing ME to pay for them. If I'd known the costs were to be incurred by me, I'd not have had the repairs made until I had the money for it.

So there was a bit of to-and-fro with that, and Mr. Edwards didn't back down. Until of course when I got in touch with the CEO of NZI himself, and explained the situation. I was then assured by the Man (tm), that the matter would be immediately resolved.

Sure enough, the very next day Mr. Edwards called me to apologise and inform me that they were once again reimbursing the assessor as they'd originally said they would.

Skip forward to February.

I thought everything was sweet, and my father and I were plotting our revenge against the O'Neills when a claim form landed in my inbox ( ), to let me know that I was to appear in Court today.

The Claim was for $945, and was based around the circumstances of the accident; IE that I was at fault when I made the turn out of the Mobil station.

Next day I went to my solicitor and we discussed. He laughed and told me to relax, and that he would prepare papers to show at the DT hearing. Here's what that letter said:

-----

1. At your request, we have reviewed the matter in accordance with the 3 page statement that you made entitled "circumstances surrounding accident on 23.9.99".

2. We have not seen all documents referred to in that statement, but we have specifically viewed a latter from NZI to you dated 18 October 1999, and a carbon copy of a notice of hearing and particulars fo claim under the DT Act 1988 by <name removed> O'Neill dated 28 October 1999, claiming the sum of $945. We are confident that the opinion we give below would not change regardless of what was contained in any of the documents we have not seen.

3. Although we have not viewed a copy of the contract of insurance between the owners of the vehicle driven by Ms. O'Neill and NZI, it is usual for such contracts ti include clauses allowing the insurance company yo take over the conduct of any claim against an insured and generally appointing the insurance company as the agent of the insured.

4. Presumably, it is under this power that NZI entered into negotiations and correspondence with you when you made a claim against Ms. O'Neill as an insured driver of the vehicle which collided with you.

5. Accordingly, the actions of the insurance company are in law treated as the actions of the insured.

6. Therefore, it is our opinion that the agreement reached between you and NZI on behalf of Ms. O'Neill, settled all matters in relation to the accident, the terms of such settlement being that there would be no further proceedings and you would be reimbursed for the cost of repairs to your car. You performed your obligations by withdrawing the DT proceedings you had issued, and despite some subsequent attempts by NZI to renege on this agreement, NZI paid on behalf of Ms. O'Neill for the repairs to your car.

7. In simple terms therefore, this matter is settled.

8. In any event, regardless of any settlement, it appears to us that Ms. O'Neill could have no claim agaist you in relation to this matter. She is not the owner of the vehicle and has suffered no loss by the vehicle being damaged. If she has suffered loss by virtue of having to reimburse her parents for the costs of repair, it can only be on the basis that she negligently failed to take reasonable care of the vehicle whilst it was in her possession. If she was negligent in that ergard, we fail to see how anyone can claim against you for the accident.

9. A further point worth noting is that the particulars of the claim do not say what the $945 represents. If that represented the cost of repairs to the car, we would have expected the particulars of the claim to say so. To us, the amount seems suspiciously similar to the amount of the repair costs for your car. We would expect there to be an excess payable under the insurance contract with NZI and it might be that Ms. O'Neill is simply attempting to recover this excess. That would be like denying liability in the first place. Liability for the accident having been settled, there is no basis on which she cam claim.

10. In summary therefore, and without even considering what happened in the accident, it is our view that Ms. O'Neill's claim against you is hopeless.

Yours Faithfully,
<name removed>

-----

So, going into the hearing today, I was feeling pretty confident

The judge we had was not concerned with whatever settlements had been made between the insurance companies, which in law is wrong. I had concerns about this before the hearing, because a lot of the referees in the DT are laypeople and may not have a total acquaintence with the law (to put it mildly).

So that was a little disturbing... but anyway Ms. O'Neill spoke first, she basically outlined the circumstances of the accident as she saw them.

Her contention was that it was my obligation to give way to all vehicles when moving onto the carriageway. This is of course, true. And it's also exactly what I did.

She also contended that I was able to see her reverse lights clearly before I exited the Mobil station. I don't know how she assertains that, because she was in her own car and not mine, but she contended as much nonetheless. Of course, I'm obviously sime suicidal idiot who enjoys driving behind cars which I note have reverse engaged :P

She used pictures to back this up... this is where it gets amusing

The pictures she took were from at LEAST 20 feet to the right of my position when I left the Mobil. This is important, if you visualise how it happened, I was turning right from behind her, to get to the lane to the left of her. I could not see her reverse lights from where I was, even if she had had them engaged.

So the fact that the pictures she used as evidence were taken from at LEAST 20 feet (probably considerably more, I'm being very conservative here) to the left, GREATLY exaggerated the visibility of the rear of all cars in the queue she was in at the time of the collision.

She said something along the lines of "I was about the 4th of 5th car back and as you can see, the rear of this car is very visible".

Of course, I was going to have none of that. I quickly pointed out that the pictures were bullshit, for the reason I explained above, and that was that.

I then decided to get on her case about the "4th or 5th car back" comment. She had said that when she reversed, she moved about 2 metres.

Now, isn't the average length of a car about 3 metres?

When she said "about 4th or 5th car back?" I asked her "well which was it? 4th or 5th?". I thought it was pretty relevant really, since the difference between 4th and 5th is more than the total distance she claims to have moved in her manoeuvre.

She didn't know. I pointed as much out too

Then I witnessed what is possibly the most faith-eroding, blindly stupid act I have ever known from another human being.

She actually introduced the letter from Graeme Day (her daddy's boss, see way above if you've forgotten) into evidence HERSELF, before I had even been given a chance to speak.

She was trying to use it as evidence to back up her claims that she was not at fault.

Guess she never expected the judge to be all over her wench back asking why her father had been soliciting inappropriate advice from uninvolved parties. She was speechless to explain herself

At this point her father was madly scribbling down notes for her, and of course, you can't DO that in a DT hearing. She speaks on her own, by herself, and for herself. So while Mr. O'Neill was madly trying to show her what to say, he got a nice little lecture from the judge

So right about now I was sitting back, smiling to myself at the image of her and her father looking at each other knowingly. Knowing of course, that they were about 5 minutes away from losing the claim that they themselves had brought forward.

I was given the chance to speak and I did... I went through all of what I had explained above, basically showing the Court just how underhanded and deceitful the O'Neills had been at every step along the way.

The judge took a 5 minute break to deliberate, and came out and laid the good news down

My dad was pretty happy, he didn't hesitate to drop the old "you're a fucking waste of time" comment before we left the room

If I ever hear from the O'Neills again, I will be sure to let you know but not after I've dragged them through the High Court for damages and harrassment.

And that's how it went

(please excuse my typing, I wasn't able to look at the screen for most of this and it's pretty long... I'll try and edit it but it's bound to be full of errors. I think you'll get the idea though )

[Theo]

F**cken A mate!

I heard a similar story recently, where some young kid was driving daddy's car, and crashed it with passangers while on a restricted license.

The innocent made a claim, but the guilty little sh*t got his parents and *boss* involved, several rude phone conversations followed (from the rich mummy bitch), before they got roasted for trying to place the blame on the innocent victim.

Good to hear the good guy won again

[Mabd]

Ditto BOYD. This is what we have all been expecting since you brought it up. Glad to see you dad kept his head and didn't walk out without saying something

Congrats dude.

A hearty YAK to ya!

[Boyd-Work]

Mabd: LOL

Thanks everyone, really appreciate it Maybe I'll shout you a drink at Rebirth 2

[Juju]

Im just trying to visualise the incident boyd.... Were you turning right onto Anzac St or onto Barry's point? It just baffles me

Good stuff though, its sad to think that there are people on this world that uselessly defend themselves to the point of utter humiliation.

[Sgt Seb]

HAHAHA that rocks....kinda like judge judy nz style (idea for a show? :P) but yeah good to see that the legal system works after all the crap you hear about it

[Ab]

I have been having the crappiest day imaginable at work today, and I now feel uplifted.

<font size=+1>YOU GO BOYD!</font>

Seriously though, good on ya mate for sticking to your guns through this.

[Asmodeus [RD]]

I so understand the comment about DT referees not always adherring to the law....
With my little experience with it this has been the case.....whereas a lawyer would say it's a clearcut case
Nice to know they do come through sometimes and smack down the evil !

[Layzeeboy]

Hooray! The system works! Sometimes.

[Boyd-Work]

/me wipes a tear



You guys rule! (and girl too- for chiQ )

[This message has been edited by Boyd-Work (edited 18 April 2000).]

[Boyd-Work]

Juju: Ok

I was leaving the Mobil station, turning right ONTO Anzac St from one of the driveways on that side... yeah there's 1 on BP Road too but that's not what I meant.

So yep turning right onto the road to go home (Hurstmere Rd), this lady was in the queue to turn right INTO BP Road, when she decides she wants PETROL.

Instead of going round the corner into the BP Road driveway (sorry but the Shore guys will know what I mean), she reversed up the street at the same time as I was making the turn :/

And that was just the beginning

[Boofhead]

LOL
It's so satisfying when idiots get what they deserve...

[OdditY]

Ownage BOYD, good one mate

[Dredd]

Thanks BOYD for above explaination ... i had all these cardboard cutouts and everything on me desk trying to suss it out..

Good when something comes through..

ever thought about putting in a claim for wasted time :-) MUHAHAHAHAH

[Ab]

LOL, I did the same thing with my wallet, a cellphone, and a keyboard.

"Now, this wallet is BOYD, and the keyboard is the servo..."

[Boyd-Work]

How about I draw up a diagram when I get home? heh

[Juju]

Yup sweet, I can see it prefectly now Ta.

(I always thought there was a traffic island in the way though? *shrug*...guess im wrong)

[ZoSo]

Yeah, I can see how she would think 'you' were in the wrong with that one. Skills bitch.

[Ab]

When daddy was passing notes to her in the hearing, you should have done the same...

1 0\x/|\| j00, 8147<h!



ph33r,



BOYD