From groggyhimself@lemis.com Tue Oct 8 11:42:02 2019 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 11:42:02 +1100 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Non Fleet Recoveries Subject: Re: Letter of Demand | Claim Number: R005112442 Message-ID: <20191008004202.GA35785@eureka.lemis.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9zSXsLTf0vkW971A" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: LEMIS, 29 Stones Road, Dereel, VIC, Australia Phone: +61-3-5309-0418 Mobile: +61-490-494-038. Use only as instructed. WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/grog X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 699238 Lines: 9789 After receiving this message, I can only come to the conclusion that you are either unwilling or unable to read my messages, notably the email message I sent on Friday, 27 September 2019 13:12:04 +1000, message ID <20190927031204.GD19231@eureka.lemis.com> (attached). I repeat the salient points: 1. The damage to your client's vehicle is inconsistent with the incident for which you claim, but it does seem consistent with a single incident. I went into great detail to explain why this is the case. I thus dispute that I caused any damage whatsoever to your client's vehicle. 2. To be rid of the matter, and without acknowledgement of any obligation, I have offered the sum of $300 to close this matter. Your correspondence has been superficial, self-contradictory and infuriating. My offer of $300 stands, but I will retract it if you subject me to further annoyances, including the reference to your mercantile agent, whatever that may be. Please confirm that you have received this message and read it this far. If you have any questions, please contact me. If you accept the $300 offer, please inform me. Greg Lehey On Monday, 7 October 2019 at 5:53:27 +0000, Non Fleet Recoveries wrote: > Good Afternoon Greg, > > Thank you for your email. > > We refer to our previous email dated 26/09/2019 > > We maintain our reduced offer of $550 to settle the cost of repairs to our clients vehicle. > If you dispute, please refer to the complaint outcome letter to escalate the matter further (please see email attached) > > As the payment of $550 is overdue, we are now referring the matter to mercantile agent. > > Kind Regards, > > Arpana > CI Recoveries & Settlements > Investigations, Recoveries & Settlements > Ph: 1300 102 791 |??? Fax: 07 3031 2260 > Email: nonfleetrecoveries@suncorp.com.au > IPC: 4CI259 | PO Box 2159, Brisbane QLD 4001 > > Privacy > We appreciate privacy is important to you. We are committed to protecting your personal information. > For further information, please refer to our Privacy Statement and Suncorp Group Privacy Policy by visiting www.suncorp.com.au/privacy or call us on 13 11 55. > > ??? Please consider the environment before printing this email > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2019 1:12 PM > To: Fleet Recoveries > Subject: Re: FW: Letter of Demand | Claim Number: R005112442 > > On Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 6:23:55 +0000, Fleet Recoveries wrote: > > Is there a significance in the fact that you send this message from "Fleet Recoveries", while the previous messages were from "Non Fleet Recoveries"? > >> We have not had a response to the below email with what avenue you >> would like to take. > > Sorry, I was expecting a second message addressing the issues I raised. Your message of Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:54:00 +0000 appears to have been written without regard to these issues. > > On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 9:55 AM, Fleet Recoveries wrote: >> The damage done to the rear bumper bar is consistent with a reverse >> and impact with a tow bar with scraping on the side of the vehicles >> - specifically when reversing on a slight angle. > > I can only assume that you haven't read my message nor looked at the photos of the damage. > >> Regardless, > > Regardless of what? > >> the area that has been impacted has been the only area that has been >> repaired. Given that the rear bumper bar is one consistent panel, that >> entire panel needed to be replaced due to the areas of damage that has >> been caused by your vehicle. > > These statements appear to contradict each other. My assumption is that the repair (has it already been done?) would replace the entire rear bumper, as in the second of those two statements. This includes repair to at least two scratches that I did not cause. Your contradiction suggests that you agree and wish to explain it away. > >> These costs are fair and reasonable and true to the reflect the damage >> caused to our clients vehicle by your reversing vehicle. > > I dispute this claim. > > Getting back to the points I raise, and which you quote in your > message: > >> From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey >> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 3:33 PM > > Please note that you or your system have changed the time of the message and quoted it as "3:33 PM". You have also reformatted the text. To ensure that I get the correct text, I'm quoting the message as sent, not as you returned. > > On Monday, 23 September 2019 at 15:32:40 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 15:16:06 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >>> >>> You don't include the repair quote, but I have received one in the >>> past showing damage to the rear of a car which is inconsistent with >>> any damage I might have caused to the vehicle. >>> >>> To summarize: while backing out of a parking space, I grazed a car >>> behind me with the towbar of my Holden Commodore VZ station wagon. I >>> got out and saw a scratch on the rear apron of the car, and I assumed >>> that I had caused it. Looking at the photos of the rear of the car, >>> however, I find that there were at least three separate scratches, up >>> to a metre apart and none of them consistent with the way I touched >>> the car. I cannot accept responsibility for more than one of these >>> scratches, and I have my severe doubts whether I caused any of them. >> >> A point I didn't mention is that there was no mark of any kind on my >> tow bar. I would have expected to see residues of paint, but there >> were none. I appreciate that this alone is no indication, but >> together with the other details it confirms my suspicion that any >> damage I may have done was not as significant as the damage shown on >> the assessor's photos. >> >>> If you have other information, please let me know. >> >> Specifically, I'm looking for any corroborative evidence that I caused >> any damage to the car at all. This could be measurements of the >> height of the scratches (they would have to match up to the height of >> the tow bar), or maybe witnesses (to the best of my knowledge there >> were none). Without such information I can't accept responsibility >> for the entire damage. > > You have not addressed any of this message. Your claims are untenable. The only charitable explanation that I can find is that you have not read this message, nor seen the photos that were provided in the message from Marvin on 29 May 2019 00:23:59 +0000 (as specified in the headers), Message-ID: > <55EB7C957C615D4EAF371CE2DF850F3325A1F3EC@PBNEMBMSX4101.int.Corp.sun>. > I have analysed these photos and made crops showing the individual damage. > > I am attaching a number of photos. The first three (Accident-1) show two separate scratches round the middle of the apron, at a height that appears to be too low to be caused by my car. This is why I asked (and you did not respond to): > >> This could be measurements of the height of the scratches (they would >> have to match up to the height of the tow bar), > > The next photos (Tow-bar-2 and Tow-bar-3) show the rear of my car. If you assume that one of the scratches in Accident-1 was caused by my car (which I dispute until proof of the contrary), it would be impossible for me to have caused the other scratches with this car. > > The final photo (Accident-2) shows a scratch that is clearly unrelated to the damage in the middle of the apron. No part of my car could have caused that damage, since it is indented in the curve of the apron. > > One point that I only now notice is: all three of these scratches are roughly at the same angle and the same length. This suggests that they were caused at the same time by the same impact. The angle is inconsistent with the kind of damage I could have done with the tow bar, where one would expect a horizontal or nearly horizontal scratch. > I have thus come to the conclusion that none of these scratches are my work. > > You gave me two choices in your message: > >> If you do not want to reopen your insurance claim, you are welcome to >> take the repair quote, invoice and images to an independent assessor >> and have them comment on what the cost they believe the damage would >> be on an approved letter head with an offer to settle this matter. >> >> Alternatively, to settle this cost on a commercial basis we are >> willing to reduce the cost and offer $550.00 to finalise this matter. > > I can take your first course, in which case I'm sure that the assessor will agree that the total damage is not consistent with the nature of the accident. In such a case I would deny any responsibility. > > Alternatively, given that I did in fact touch the car, I am prepared to pay a sum of $300 without recognition of any legal obligation. > This represents more than a third of your total cost, and I consider it more than a fair compensation for my carelessness. > > If you do not accept my offer, please supply me with responses to the following questions, which I now ask for the third time: > > 1. Any other photos you may have of the damage, or confirmation that > there are none. > > 2. Any testimony from third parties who witnessed the accident, or > (probably) confirmation that there is none. > > 3. Information about the heights of the scratches. > > Greg Lehey > -- > Sent from my desktop computer. > Finger groggyhimself@lemis.com for PGP public key. > See complete headers for address and phone numbers. > This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read https://clicktime.symantec.com/37qMMdAVKdYeWUDxJ5GNhMh7Vc?u=http%3A%2F%2Flemis.com%2Fbroken-MUA > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail is sent by Suncorp Group Limited ABN 66 145 290 124 or one of its related entities "Suncorp". > Suncorp may be contacted at Level 28, 266 George Street, Brisbane or on 13 11 55 or at suncorp.com.au. > The content of this e-mail is the view of the sender or stated author and does not necessarily reflect the view of Suncorp. The content, including attachments, is a confidential communication between Suncorp and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, including attachments, is unauthorised and expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. > ??? > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail is sent by Suncorp Group Limited ABN 66 145 290 124 or one of its related entities "Suncorp". > Suncorp may be contacted at Level 28, 266 George Street, Brisbane or on 13 11 55 or at suncorp.com.au. > The content of this e-mail is the view of the sender or stated author and does not necessarily reflect the view of Suncorp. The content, including attachments, is a confidential communication between Suncorp and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this e-mail, including attachments, is unauthorised and expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. > ??? > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:23:55 +0000 > From: Fleet Recoveries > To: 'Greg 'groggy' Lehey' > Subject: FW: Letter of Demand | Claim Number: R005112442 > Message-ID: > > Good afternoon Greg > > We have not had a response to the below email with what avenue you would like to take. > > Please find the complaint outcome letter attached with the new total price of $550 due to Resilium by the 03.10.19. > > Kind regards, > > Emily Davy > Technical Advisor > Fleet Investigations, Recoveries and Settlements > Motor Claims > > PO Box 2988, Brisbane, QLD 4001 > > > > ??? Please consider the environment before printing this email > > You can be confident that any personal information you provide us is treated with care. Personal information is collected, used and disclosed by your insurer GIO General Ltd. In accordance with the privacy regime and the Suncorp Group Privacy Policy. You can obtain a copy of our Privacy Policy via our website on www.gio.com.au > > > > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2019 9:55 AM > To: CI Claims Upload > Subject: FW: Letter of Demand | Claim Number: R005112442 > > > Good morning Greg > > Thank you for your email. > > We have been contacting you in relation to the motor vehicle accident that occurred between yourself and our client on the 05.03.19 in Bendigo where you have reversed into the rear of our parked vehicle. > > The letter of demand which we have posted to you is for the cost of repairs to our clients vehicle. > In relation to the liability, you acknowledge that you have reversed into our clients parked vehicle and a claim was lodged with RACV. > This claim has since been withdrawn by you with your insurance company advising us to contact you directly for these costs. > > I have attached the repair quote, repair invoice and images of the damage to this email. > > I have confirmed with our client that there was no pre-existing damage, and that the damage obtained matches the accident description provided to our office by both you and our client. > The damage done to the rear bumper bar is consistent with a reverse and impact with a tow bar with scraping on the side of the vehicles - specifically when reversing on a slight angle. > Regardless, the area that has been impacted has been the only area that has been repaired. Given that the rear bumper bar is one consistent panel, that entire panel needed to be replaced due to the areas of damage that has been caused by your vehicle. > > The quote is broken down into labour, paint and parts. > The remove and refit of the rear bumper bar at $49.20 The paint materials and labour which is a requirement to any damage received at $202.75 New bumper bar with clips to attach at $398.75 Totalling (less gst) $650.70 > > These costs are fair and reasonable and true to the reflect the damage caused to our clients vehicle by your reversing vehicle. > > If you do not want to reopen your insurance claim, you are welcome to take the repair quote, invoice and images to an independent assessor and have them comment on what the cost they believe the damage would be on an approved letter head with an offer to settle this matter. > > Alternatively, to settle this cost on a commercial basis we are willing to reduce the cost and offer $550.00 to finalise this matter. > > These options will remain open for 7 days. > Please advise how you wold like to proceed. > > Kind regards, > > > Emily Davy > Technical Advisor > Fleet Investigations, Recoveries and Settlements Motor Claims > > PO Box 2988, Brisbane, QLD 4001 > > > > ??? Please consider the environment before printing this email > > You can be confident that any personal information you provide us is treated with care. Personal information is collected, used and disclosed by your insurer GIO General Ltd. In accordance with the privacy regime and the Suncorp Group Privacy Policy. You can obtain a copy of our Privacy Policy via our website on www.gio.com.au > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey > Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 3:33 PM > To: Non Fleet Recoveries > Subject: Re: Letter of Demand | Claim Number: R005112442 > > Please forward to Emily, > > Emily, thanks for your call back, but in the meantime I have decided to proceed in writing from now on. The call I received earlier this afternoon greatly annoyed me, and I think it is better to do things in writing. > > This is particularly the case because I don't understand the purpose of the call. All I could establish is that your consultant (who identified herself variously as Apansa and Amol) does not seem to understand the content of my letter, not even when I read it out to her. I'm attaching the relevant parts: > > On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 15:16:06 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 3:58:39 +0000, Non Fleet Recoveries wrote: >>> Based on the information provided to us, we have determined that you >>> are responsible for the loss incurred by our insured. >> >> What information is this? To the best of my knowledge, you have no >> information beyond what your insured told you, and he was not present >> at the accident. Based on his actions, I have cause to doubt his good >> will. >> >> You don't include the repair quote, but I have received one in the >> past showing damage to the rear of a car which is inconsistent with >> any damage I might have caused to the vehicle. >> >> To summarize: while backing out of a parking space, I grazed a car >> behind me with the towbar of my Holden Commodore VZ station wagon. I >> got out and saw a scratch on the rear apron of the car, and I assumed >> that I had caused it. Looking at the photos of the rear of the car, >> however, I find that there were at least three separate scratches, up >> to a metre apart and none of them consistent with the way I touched >> the car. I cannot accept responsibility for more than one of these >> scratches, and I have my severe doubts whether I caused any of them. > > A point I didn't mention is that there was no mark of any kind on my tow bar. I would have expected to see residues of paint, but there were none. I appreciate that this alone is no indication, but together with the other details it confirms my suspicion that any damage I may have done was not as significant as the damage shown on the assessor's photos. > >> If you have other information, please let me know. > > Specifically, I'm looking for any corroborative evidence that I caused any damage to the car at all. This could be measurements of the height of the scratches (they would have to match up to the height of the tow bar), or maybe witnesses (to the best of my knowledge there were none). Without such information I can't accept responsibility for the entire damage. > > I would like to reiterate that I am prepared to cover any damage that I may have caused. I acted in good faith by reporting the incident when I could simply have ignored it. But I don't believe that your insured is acting in good faith by expecting me to repair damage that I did not cause. > > Greg Lehey > -- > Sent from my desktop computer. > Finger groggyhimself@lemis.com for PGP public key. > See complete headers for address and phone numbers. > This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read https://clicktime.symantec.com/3DjgMv3YyYwqNDHi4BwaPrn7Vc?u=http%3A%2F%2Flemis.com%2Fbroken-MUA -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger groggyhimself@lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:12:04 +1000 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Fleet Recoveries Subject: Re: FW: Letter of Demand | Claim Number: R005112442 Message-ID: <20190927031204.GD19231@eureka.lemis.com> References: <0F213A2DC17F4A4484042C23F86B215925443C4A@PBNEMBMSX4101.int.Corp.sun> <20190918051606.GH31311@eureka.lemis.com> <20190923053240.GA88944@eureka.lemis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="08ATZu8fEq0x2T3M" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: LEMIS, 29 Stones Road, Dereel, VIC, Australia Phone: +61-3-5309-0418 Mobile: +61-490-494-038. Use only as instructed. WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/grog X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) --08ATZu8fEq0x2T3M Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="liqSWPDvh3eyfZ9k" Content-Disposition: inline --liqSWPDvh3eyfZ9k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 6:23:55 +0000, Fleet Recoveries wrote: Is there a significance in the fact that you send this message from "Fleet Recoveries", while the previous messages were from "Non Fleet Recoveries"? > We have not had a response to the below email with what avenue you > would like to take. Sorry, I was expecting a second message addressing the issues I raised. Your message of Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:54:00 +0000 appears to have been written without regard to these issues. On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 9:55 AM, Fleet Recoveries wrote: > The damage done to the rear bumper bar is consistent with a reverse > and impact with a tow bar with scraping on the side of the vehicles > - specifically when reversing on a slight angle. I can only assume that you haven't read my message nor looked at the photos of the damage. > Regardless, Regardless of what? > the area that has been impacted has been the only area that has been > repaired. Given that the rear bumper bar is one consistent panel, > that entire panel needed to be replaced due to the areas of damage > that has been caused by your vehicle. These statements appear to contradict each other. My assumption is that the repair (has it already been done?) would replace the entire rear bumper, as in the second of those two statements. This includes repair to at least two scratches that I did not cause. Your contradiction suggests that you agree and wish to explain it away. > These costs are fair and reasonable and true to the reflect the > damage caused to our clients vehicle by your reversing vehicle. I dispute this claim. Getting back to the points I raise, and which you quote in your message: > From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey > Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 3:33 PM Please note that you or your system have changed the time of the message and quoted it as "3:33 PM". You have also reformatted the text. To ensure that I get the correct text, I'm quoting the message as sent, not as you returned. On Monday, 23 September 2019 at 15:32:40 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 15:16:06 +1000, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> >> You don't include the repair quote, but I have received one in the >> past showing damage to the rear of a car which is inconsistent with >> any damage I might have caused to the vehicle. >> >> To summarize: while backing out of a parking space, I grazed a car >> behind me with the towbar of my Holden Commodore VZ station wagon. I >> got out and saw a scratch on the rear apron of the car, and I assumed >> that I had caused it. Looking at the photos of the rear of the car, >> however, I find that there were at least three separate scratches, up >> to a metre apart and none of them consistent with the way I touched >> the car. I cannot accept responsibility for more than one of these >> scratches, and I have my severe doubts whether I caused any of them. > > A point I didn't mention is that there was no mark of any kind on my > tow bar. I would have expected to see residues of paint, but there > were none. I appreciate that this alone is no indication, but > together with the other details it confirms my suspicion that any > damage I may have done was not as significant as the damage shown on > the assessor's photos. > >> If you have other information, please let me know. > > Specifically, I'm looking for any corroborative evidence that I caused > any damage to the car at all. This could be measurements of the > height of the scratches (they would have to match up to the height of > the tow bar), or maybe witnesses (to the best of my knowledge there > were none). Without such information I can't accept responsibility > for the entire damage. You have not addressed any of this message. Your claims are untenable. The only charitable explanation that I can find is that you have not read this message, nor seen the photos that were provided in the message from Marvin on 29 May 2019 00:23:59 +0000 (as specified in the headers), Message-ID: <55EB7C957C615D4EAF371CE2DF850F3325A1F3EC@PBNEMBMSX4101.int.Corp.sun>. I have analysed these photos and made crops showing the individual damage. I am attaching a number of photos. The first three (Accident-1) show two separate scratches round the middle of the apron, at a height that appears to be too low to be caused by my car. This is why I asked (and you did not respond to): > This could be measurements of the height of the scratches (they > would have to match up to the height of the tow bar), The next photos (Tow-bar-2 and Tow-bar-3) show the rear of my car. If you assume that one of the scratches in Accident-1 was caused by my car (which I dispute until proof of the contrary), it would be impossible for me to have caused the other scratches with this car. The final photo (Accident-2) shows a scratch that is clearly unrelated to the damage in the middle of the apron. No part of my car could have caused that damage, since it is indented in the curve of the apron. One point that I only now notice is: all three of these scratches are roughly at the same angle and the same length. This suggests that they were caused at the same time by the same impact. The angle is inconsistent with the kind of damage I could have done with the tow bar, where one would expect a horizontal or nearly horizontal scratch. I have thus come to the conclusion that none of these scratches are my work. You gave me two choices in your message: > If you do not want to reopen your insurance claim, you are welcome > to take the repair quote, invoice and images to an independent > assessor and have them comment on what the cost they believe the > damage would be on an approved letter head with an offer to settle > this matter. > > Alternatively, to settle this cost on a commercial basis we are > willing to reduce the cost and offer $550.00 to finalise this > matter. I can take your first course, in which case I'm sure that the assessor will agree that the total damage is not consistent with the nature of the accident. In such a case I would deny any responsibility. Alternatively, given that I did in fact touch the car, I am prepared to pay a sum of $300 without recognition of any legal obligation. This represents more than a third of your total cost, and I consider it more than a fair compensation for my carelessness. If you do not accept my offer, please supply me with responses to the following questions, which I now ask for the third time: 1. Any other photos you may have of the damage, or confirmation that there are none. 2. Any testimony from third parties who witnessed the accident, or (probably) confirmation that there is none. 3. Information about the heights of the scratches. Greg Lehey -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger groggyhimself@lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA