Thursday, June 30, 2005

The Second Explanation (Dtd 30Jun05)

After a few days of waiting, finally Mr Cho (The assessment officer of the case) replied. In my previous mail, I have requested for the two assessment reports of the accident.
Let's see what he had replied:

From: "Cho Lai Weng" cholw@income.com.sg
To: XXX@yahoo.com
CC: "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "Goh Peng Hong" , "DAVID TAN" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Chan Wai Hoe"
Subject: Fw: Third Party Claim No. 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:26:09 +0800

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 Sincerely

Cho Lai Weng
Claim Service Centre
NTUC Income
DID : 6877-3208


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second email to support his previous email:

From: "Cho Lai Weng" cholw@income.com.sg
To: XXX@yahoo.com
CC: "Goh Peng Hong" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Chan Wai Hoe" , "DAVID TAN" , "Lai Ah Kin"
Subject: Re: Fw: Third Party Claim No. 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381Xon the 06.05.2005
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:43:52 +0800

Dear Mr . Tan ,

Our Claims Committee and the original Assessor judgement on the case are also based on accident reports / photographs of the damaged vehicles , witnesses reports if available plus the BOLA system of assessing .

Hope it further clarifies .

Regards

Cho Lai Weng



Again...... NTUC Income could not give me what I wanted. I am asking for assessment reports not the general guidelines used to assess an accident. Anyone knows what are the differences between Guidelines and Assessment?

My reply to NTUC Income:
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 01:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:
XXX@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Third Party Claim No. 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
To: "Cho Lai Weng"
CC: "Goh Peng Hong" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Chan Wai Hoe" , "DAVID TAN" , "Lai Ah Kin"

Dear Mr Cho,

Please send me a detailed report in the form of a formal document, not further summaries of your discussions. If you are still not sure of my requirement, please let me know. Or if anyone in the CC list knows that I am referring to (e.g. a detailed report like a Word document), please send to me.

Regards,
Tan XXX XXXXX


Ok, let me discuss about the difference between "guideline" and "assessment":
Quoted from www.dictionary.com:
"Guideline - A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action"
"Assessment - the act of judging or assessing a person or situation or event"

An example to illustrate the difference:
Below are the guidelines in choosing a good water melon:
1) Hit on the fruit with your palm
2) Listen to the sound produced
3) Look at the colour of the skin
4) Try to weigh it with your hand

Below is the assessment when a water melon is tested:
1) The fruit is hit with my palm
--> It gives me a solid feeling, meaning it is juicy
2) The sound produced is solid and not hollow
--> meaning it is juicy
3) The colour of the fruit is in dark green
--> meaning it is ripe
4) The fruit is quite heavy
--> meaning it is juicy
Conclusion-->It is a good water melon.
Everyone gets the differences?

At the same time, another email from NTUC Income was sent to me for the explanation on the insurance premium:

From: "Cyndiie Yong" s000699@income.com.sg
To: XXX@yahoo.com
CC: "Goh Peng Hong" , "Edwin Wong" , "Belinda Sim"
Subject: Fw: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:12:50 +0800

Dear Mr Tan

We apologise for the delay in replying.

There is no claim loading imposed on the renewal premium of $1721. We have revised our rates for commercial vehicles with effect from 1 January 2005, hence it is higher as compared to last year. The revision is due to our increased claims experience and repair cost among commercial vehicles. The increase is between 5% to 10%, depending on the make and model of the commercial vehicles.

Please email/call me if you require further assistance.

regards
Cyndiie Yong
Executive, General Insurance dept
NTUC Income
Cooperative...Your Partner for A Better Life
DID : 6877-3074



I still do not know how they derived my new insurance premium...........
Therefore, I decided to ask again.....

Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: XXX@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: Fw: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
To: "Cyndiie Yong" , "Goh Peng Hong" , "Cho Lai Weng"
CC: "Edwin Wong" , "Belinda Sim" , "Alvin Tan Hock Wan - Gc" , "Bernard Han Cheung Yong" , "Sharon Han" , "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "DAVID TAN" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Alice Low" alow@income.com.sg

Dear Ms Yong,

Thank you for your effort in explaining my enquiry. Can you send me the referenc(Notice/Directives/Formulae Tables) to support the explanation on the figure derived?

Mr Goh: What do you think of the formula explained?

Mr Cho: Before the case is closed, I have already penalized for the third party claim against my policy (i.e. the 20% NCD that I am entitled is removed). Quoted from the email, "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".


Regards,
Tan XXX XXXX

Anyone can tell me what is wrong with the calculation??????????

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The Forwarded Email (Dtd 29Jun05)

That guy that replied to my mailed previously had forwarded my enquiry to the personnel in charge.

From: "Goh Peng Hong" gohph@income.com.sg
To: XXX@yahoo.com, "Edwin Wong"
Subject: Re: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XXX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:14:53 +0800

Dear Tan XXX XXX,

I have copy this email to our senior Underwriter to assist on your query on the tabulation of your premium.

Regards

Goh Peng Hong
Claim Service Centre


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: "Edwin Wong" ewong@income.com.sg
To: "Goh Peng Hong" , XXXX@yahoo.com, "Belinda Sim"
CC: "Edwin Wong"
Subject: Re: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:16:12 +0800


Belinda - pls assists, renewal case. Thx


Everything seems to be on the right track.... so I shall assume that I will be getting an satisfactory answer from NTUC Income soon.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Game Begins (Dtd 28Jun05)

After two days, one of the NTUC Income staff replied to my email. Although I do not know who he is, I am grateful that he took the effort in replying....... But is it a good thing to start from??

From: "Goh Peng Hong" gohph@income.com.sg
To: XXX@yahoo.com, "Cho Lai Weng"
CC: "Alvin Tan Hock Wan - Gc" , "Bernard Han Cheung Yong" , "Sharon Han" , "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "DAVID TAN" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Alice Low"
Subject: Re: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:00:13 +0800

Dear Tan XXX XXXX,

We take note of your request and will revert within 2 days..

Meanwhile, we apologise for the impression that your goodself have on us when you mentioned that the staff of NTUC income had been very reluctant to provide you with their employee number ( I have highlight the para in blue below ).

We must talk to customers so as to better feel the case which is helpful in the judgement process.

We will bring this feedback in our next internal review.

Thank you

Goh Peng Hong
Claim Service Centre


Who is he??? No designation or introduction!!! Don't forget he mentioned that NTUC Income will revert to me within 2 days time leh.......

Thinking that he might be someone who can makes decision, I decided to communicate with him instead:

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:
XXXX@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: TP claim: 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX1381X on the 06.05.2005
To: "Goh Peng Hong"
CC: "Alvin Tan Hock Wan - Gc" , "Bernard Han Cheung Yong" , "Sharon Han" , "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "DAVID TAN" , "Tan Chiew Hua" , "Alice Low" , "Cho Lai Weng"

Dear Mr Goh,
Recently, I have received a renewal notice from NTUC Income for my vehicle. The premium stated in the notice has increased from $966 (last year) to $1722. I am very interested to know how NTUC Income calculates this year's premium.

The premium of last year was calculated as below:
Gross Premium: $1207
Less 20% No Claim Discount
Net Premium: $966
The premium of this year was calculated as below:
Gross Premium: $1722
Net Premium: $1722

According to one of the officers that I have spoken to, if the damages claim for both parties is not more than $5000, only the ncd will be affected and the overloading of premium will not be imposed. However from the above amounts given, I do not understand how NTUC Income comes out with the sum. Could this caused by a malfunctioned calculator/system used by NTUC Income or because NTUC Income does not wish to continue to insure my vehicle? Please enlighten me with fact and reference on how the sum is calculated.

I agree that talking to customer will be good, however, a conversation which the content was not recorded or taken noted of is redundant, that is why I had to repeat myself when a different officer spoke to me over the phone.


Regards,
Tan XXX XXXXX

Saturday, June 25, 2005

The Review (Dtd 25Jun05)

It took NTUC Income about a month to review on this case. I have waited till my neck damn long. However, the conclusion is still the same as the previous.

The email from one of the NTUC Income officer:
From: "Cho Lai Weng" cholw@income.com.sg
To: XXXX@yahoo.com
CC: "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Peng Hong" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "DAVID TAN" , "Tan Chiew Hua"
Subject: Third Party Claim No. 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX 1381X on the 06.05.2005
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:32:59 +0800


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 XX 9999 X (My vehicle) 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 XX 9999 X (My vehicle) 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 .


Thank You

Yours Sincerely

Cho Lai Weng
Claims Service Centre
NTUC Income
DID : 6877-3208



*None of the guidelines is the same as the accident

My reply to this mail:
Date:Sat, 25 Jun 2005 04:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:
XXX@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Third Party Claim No. 6048683 --- Accident between XX9999X & XXX 1381X on the 06.05.2005
To: "Cho Lai Weng"
CC: "Lai Ah Kin" , "Goh Peng Hong" , "Goh Swee Kiang Yvonne" , "DAVID TAN" , "Tan Chiew Hua"
tanch4@income.com.sg

Dear Mr Cho,

Thanks for your reply. I respect the decision you have come up with. However, I demand the detailed reports of the two assessments done by you and the Claims Committee. Till now, I have no idea how the conclusion is reached, except for the BOLA which has just one vague reference to the example of a Y-junction. Bear in mind that a Y-junction is different from a cross-junction with traffic lights. What you have shown me is still a GUIDELINE you based your assessment on and NOT the process to your conclusion. The reports need to include the step-by-step process to the conclusion of your verdict and the employees and their employee numbers involved in the investigation. By the way, the staff of NTUC income had been very reluctant to provide me with their employee number. If there are no discrepancies in the report, I believe the employee number is no secret, especially when I am a customer of your company and I have the right to know who is assisting me in this case.

I will keep the two reports for further reference. Should a similar case happen again, i.e. where the assessment is based on the statements of parties involved in the accident, I will insist that I was going straight and the other party was making a right turn so that I will win the case by your BOLA guidelines.

Please do not contact me via the phone anymore as there is no record on the information that has transpired. I look forward to receiving your two detailed reports by 30th June.

Thank you very much.

Regards,
Tan XX XXXX



**NTUC Income could not explain to me how the accident is assessed, and how the verdict is concluded.