P-plate Turbo Exemption Info?

[Cowboy1600]

Like i said in another thread - they will insure ANYTHING. You could own a 1000hp lambo.

Doesn't mean it is legal - that is the key issue.

Read the fine print of your agreement, you will find that it will make references to not being covered if driving illegally.

Driving a illegal/banned car for your license is no different to driving drunk, drugged or otherwise - they are all the same thing - illegal.

You are 100% incorrect.

If you look at your PDS it will explicitly state rules affecting your insurance and drink driving/drug use.

There will likely be no such clause for any other traffic infringement. And they cannot put in a clause that covers everything without specifically stating what will and what will not void your insurance. It is illegal. And if they take you money, knowing full well that your insurance will be void (if they do have a clause specifically regarding high powered vehicles) then they will still likely have to warrant your insurance as they took your money in "good faith".

[Cowboy1600]

From the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia.

Utmost Good Faith

Sections 12,13 and 14

The duty of good faith is central to and regulates all aspects of the contract of insurance, from inception through to the terms of the contract, to each party’s responsibilities in the event of a claim under the contract of insurance.

Information that is of vital importance is only known to one party to the contract. To make the dealing as fair as possible, the principle of utmost good faith was developed whereby the party possessing the knowledge owes a duty to disclose the material and relevant facts to the other party of the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking

ie. if an insurance company knowingly takes your money without letting you know that you will not be covered in an accident due to you driving a hogh powered car, they will likely have broken the good faith clause.

A brief history

At common law a contract of insurance is based on the principle that the insurer and insured act with the utmost good faith towards each other. The principle is known as “uberrima fides”.The principle was settled by the judgement of son of rajab Mansfield in Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905; 97 ER1162.son of rajab Mansfield said:

“Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other party into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.”

So on and so forth.

If an insurance company takes your cash without telling you the car you are insuring is illegal for you to drive, they have not acted in good faith and will likely have to honour any claims you make as per your contract with them.

[Charles89]

From the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia.

Utmost Good Faith

Sections 12,13 and 14

The duty of good faith is central to and regulates all aspects of the contract of insurance, from inception through to the terms of the contract, to each party’s responsibilities in the event of a claim under the contract of insurance.

Information that is of vital importance is only known to one party to the contract. To make the dealing as fair as possible, the principle of utmost good faith was developed whereby the party possessing the knowledge owes a duty to disclose the material and relevant facts to the other party of the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking

ie. if an insurance company knowingly takes your money without letting you know that you will not be covered in an accident due to you driving a hogh powered car, they will likely have broken the good faith clause.

A brief history

At common law a contract of insurance is based on the principle that the insurer and insured act with the utmost good faith towards each other. The principle is known as “uberrima fides”.The principle was settled by the judgement of son of rajab Mansfield in Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905; 97 ER1162.son of rajab Mansfield said:

“Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other party into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.”

So on and so forth.

If an insurance company takes your cash without telling you the car you are insuring is illegal for you to drive, they have not acted in good faith and will likely have to honour any claims you make as per your contract with them.

Something similar was mention in another thread by an actual lawyer too.

[nice 28]

From the Vicroads exemption form:

"What is a family type vehicle?

A family type vehicle is typically a sedan, station wagon

or hatch used to carry families with 4 or more seats and

when manufactured was equipped with child restraint

anchorages. A family type vehicle does not include

sports cars (eg a two door coupe) or the sports oriented

variant of a specific model range."

So to those asking whether you can get an exemption for cars such as a Territory Turbo, Golf GTI etc, you can't.

Too many people try to evade the law based on technicalities, and a lot of the time it doesn't work, especially with subordinate authorities who base their whole organisation around transport. I think people are forgetting that Vicroad's is not part of the government itself, they are a specialised organisation who base their existence upon transport, and for that reason know the in's and out's of it, unlike politicians, who try to know everything, about everything, and a lot of the time, do not.

[perzn_34]

i got a exemption to drive a turbo r34 on my p's

[Charles89]

i got a exemption to drive a turbo r34 on my p's

But didn't you post up on FireSport that the reason why you are selling your car is that you lost your license while driving your r34 to work one day? Because you are on your P's?

[Owgasm]

Hi guys,

Hope you don't mind me posting this.

I work for Channel 9 in Brisbane and am trying to speak to someone about this exact topic.

I want to speak to someone who is on their P plate and has an legitimate reason for exemption.

Are any of you Brisbane based and willing to have a chat? Email me on [email protected]

Cheers

if you're serious, send me a pm or email, [email protected].

Please outline what it is for and what you intend to do with any information.

I'm in Brisbane and have held an exemption since my red Ps.

I skimmed through some of the posts.

Yes to being one specific car and not a model etc.

My reason was not for work either.

Whoever wants info, just send me a message or reply here.

Don't mind helping people if I can.

[perzn_34]

But didn't you post up on FireSport that the reason why you are selling your car is that you lost your license while driving your r34 to work one day? Because you are on your P's?

haha.. it actually wasn't me who lost his license, my brother did and that was while i was in the process of applying for the exemption and etc, and i shat my self when he came home.. but the exemption is too restricted, and does my head in

[Owgasm]

I sent the person from Channel Nine an e-mail to see if I could help with any exemption questions.

There will be a segment on TV tonight at 6pm

"Hi,

Sure, the story is about P plate drivers who have exemptions to drive high powered vehicles.

You can catch it on Nine News tonight at 6pm

Tessa"

I wonder what it is.

[PENGUYEN]

Hah, This is going to be the first time I've watched channel 9 news in months

[Owgasm]

Anyone catch that?

Only 10% of applicants have been rejected.

Once again, a stupid segment.

Always showing one side of the story.

They should check, of those that received exemptions. How many are still alive? Compared to a similar sample from the rest of the population.

Also should check traffic offence history etc, just to compare and see if there is any difference.

[Birds]

From the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia.

Utmost Good Faith

Sections 12,13 and 14

The duty of good faith is central to and regulates all aspects of the contract of insurance, from inception through to the terms of the contract, to each party’s responsibilities in the event of a claim under the contract of insurance.

Information that is of vital importance is only known to one party to the contract. To make the dealing as fair as possible, the principle of utmost good faith was developed whereby the party possessing the knowledge owes a duty to disclose the material and relevant facts to the other party of the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking

ie. if an insurance company knowingly takes your money without letting you know that you will not be covered in an accident due to you driving a hogh powered car, they will likely have broken the good faith clause.

A brief history

At common law a contract of insurance is based on the principle that the insurer and insured act with the utmost good faith towards each other. The principle is known as “uberrima fides”.The principle was settled by the judgement of son of rajab Mansfield in Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905; 97 ER1162.son of rajab Mansfield said:

“Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other party into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.”

So on and so forth.

If an insurance company takes your cash without telling you the car you are insuring is illegal for you to drive, they have not acted in good faith and will likely have to honour any claims you make as per your contract with them.

No you're not and no they don't.

Driving a car that you are not meant to does not automatically disqualify you from making a claim against insurance.

Read any insurers PDS and you will not find anything to suggest such under the "We will not pay your claim" section.

There will be some specifics, such as DUI and Drug driving, but if there is no specific about driving a vehicle above the power limit or in the off limits list, then they are still required to pay out. They cannot protect themselves carte blanche with a statement about you doing the right thing.

Also if an insurance takes money off you for a premium, in good faith, on a vehicle that they know you aren't meant to be driving, they will be placing themselves in a situation where it would be practically impossible for them to get out of paying a claim on this basis.

It doesn't disqualify you from making a claim, it certainly gives them grounds to dismiss a claim though. I did read my insurer's PDS. Taken from page 20 of the Just Cars Comprehensive Insurance PDS:

Are you covered?

If the driver of your car was not licensed or authorised to drive it. NO

But your car was being driven without your consent. YES

Source: http://www.justcarinsurance.com.au/library...ve-Brochure.pdf

Given high powered vehicles are a licence restriction, a policy holder is NOT LICENSED and/or authorised to be driving that vehicle. Interpret this wording how you like, it does not say "unlicensed" (referring to the state of not having a licence at all), it says "not licensed...to drive it". Then there is that gem of a word "authorised" - note that this does not refer to consent, as consent is interpreted beneath it and answered. So who else can authorise (or not) the policy holder to drive the vehicle? The law. This may also refer to an automatic licensed P plater driving a manual vehicle. Or someone who is required to wear glasses when driving. All are technically uninsured as they are in breach of the terms written out in the PDS. You might as well be driving a B double with a drivers licence as far as the law and your insurance company is concerned. If an insurance company does enough of a background check on the policy holder and discovers they are not licenced to be driving a high powered vehicle...no matter the interpretation of law or PDS your lawyer tries to put forward, you will go down in flames. And the lawyer will not care, because they will get payed either way. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer who would take that on though. *waits for lawyer to chime in and prove me wrong*

Where the "loophole" exists for an insurance company to LEGALLY insure you as a P plater with a high powered vehicle...is in the fire, theft and uninsured second party clause of a comprehensive or third party policy. Put through a claim for fire, theft or uninsured third party and it will 100% be paid out (assuming it's legitimate)...because you weren't driving the vehicle at the time of the incident (aka not driving it illegally and therefore uninsured). This is why they can legally take your premium without breaching contract, and you are legally insured...for fire and theft, or uninsured third party claims. They aren't concealing anything, it's right there in black and white. And you can't claim you haven't read your PDS as a form of ignorance to the contract. They don't need to mention you're not insured for certain situations when taking your money over the phone, it's already in the PDS which you are meant to have read...along with not driving intoxicated. My friend was lucky enough to have a kind Just Cars sales assistant/rep inform him of all this before his decision to purchase a WRX on his P plates. So why don't they state specifically that you are technically not covered when driving a high powered vehicle? My guess is that insurance companies like Just Car would lose alot of financial fans...this is business gentlemen, insurance companies have some very clever and highly paid people working behind the scenes. You best believe every word of that PDS has been carefully chosen to screw you over when/if they want to.

Most insurance claims go through a turnstile process and largely unscrutinised. I know of people who have successfully put through comprehensive claims after racing their cars on public roads even with police and medical records describing the events. Wasn't scrutinised by the insurance company because it was a minor claim in their eyes. But a claim big enough to turn heads in the claims department will more likely be scrutinised - unfortunately this is the kind of claim that would screw you should the insurance company knock it back on the terms of their PDS. Me, I wouldn't do it myself, driving a high powered vehicle on P plates that is...not even on the word of a lawyer happy to make a dollar out of me in learning a lesson for himself/herself. But each to theirs...

[scotty014]

oh noe's 'birds' is at it again, your filling up the internets

[Matt350Z]

Can someone send me the reason for applying exemption?

[Birds]

oh noe's 'birds' is at it again, your filling up the internets

If people didn't call bullshit on my statements I wouldn't have to tl;dr them to death

[Charles89]

Anyone catch that?

Only 10% of applicants have been rejected.

Once again, a stupid segment.

Always showing one side of the story.

They should check, of those that received exemptions. How many are still alive? Compared to a similar sample from the rest of the population.

Also should check traffic offence history etc, just to compare and see if there is any difference.

But maybe 90% of the people that applied actually had legit reasons, and the other 10% are import drivers

[Owgasm]

But maybe 90% of the people that applied actually had legit reasons, and the other 10% are import drivers

Are you implying something ?

[Charles89]

Are you implying something ?

[trance]

Charles

PS: What is ever so wrong with having a non turbo, non modified car while on your Ps? Either imports have dropped too low in value, or parents don't mind splashin' cash and risking the lives of their young.

[Charles89]

Charles

PS: What is ever so wrong with having a non turbo, non modified car while on your Ps? Either imports have dropped too low in value, or parents don't mind splashin' cash and risking the lives of their young.

Nothing's wrong with having a NA I did import my own R33 GTS when I first got my P's... So you can't say I didn't try lol, unlike some other people out there.

FYI, I paid for my own cars, parents didn't splash anything at all, only thing they splashed was words to tell me not to get a Skyline lol

But back onto topic, I mean if one were to buy a turbo Skyline and drive it on their P's, it's their choice, they should know the penalty if caught and should definitely cop it on the chin, so trying to find a legal excuses to apply for exemption to drive an illegal car is just silly, because VicRoads isn't stupid....

And for those who did get an exemption for driving a turbo Skyline on P's, well good on you. But for those who are trying to find an excuse, then good luck.