<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Car vandalised, elderly driver must pay $2,000
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->ONE evening last month, my husband and I were alerted by the police that my car was badly damaged by someone who had thrown something onto it.
We checked our car in the HDB carpark and found the roof caved in and the rear windscreen smashed. We found a burst red balloon on the back seat of the car. Shattered glass and water were scattered inside and over the boot.
The police photographed the damage and collected evidence. After we lodged a report, the police told us that the case, classified under 'mischief', would be hard to investigate as there were common corridors above in the HDB block.
Subsequently, I took my car to my insurer's AIG-approved workshop to file a claim and have the damage assessed and repaired. I was told to pay $550 in excess. But what shocked me was that I was told to pay $2,000 more because I was classified as an elderly driver.
I appealed to the AIG officer on the phone to waive the $2,000 charge because I was not driving the car when the damage occurred. The car was vandalised while it was parked in an HDB car-park.
AIG offered me the use of a car for 10 days but insisted that the excess fee of $2,000 could not be waived. I refused the offer and appealed again. My appeal was rejected. The AIG officer who dealt with my case told me that $2,000 charge could not be waived because I was old.
Is this fair? Wong Wan Yue (Mdm)
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->ONE evening last month, my husband and I were alerted by the police that my car was badly damaged by someone who had thrown something onto it.
We checked our car in the HDB carpark and found the roof caved in and the rear windscreen smashed. We found a burst red balloon on the back seat of the car. Shattered glass and water were scattered inside and over the boot.
The police photographed the damage and collected evidence. After we lodged a report, the police told us that the case, classified under 'mischief', would be hard to investigate as there were common corridors above in the HDB block.
Subsequently, I took my car to my insurer's AIG-approved workshop to file a claim and have the damage assessed and repaired. I was told to pay $550 in excess. But what shocked me was that I was told to pay $2,000 more because I was classified as an elderly driver.
I appealed to the AIG officer on the phone to waive the $2,000 charge because I was not driving the car when the damage occurred. The car was vandalised while it was parked in an HDB car-park.
AIG offered me the use of a car for 10 days but insisted that the excess fee of $2,000 could not be waived. I refused the offer and appealed again. My appeal was rejected. The AIG officer who dealt with my case told me that $2,000 charge could not be waived because I was old.
Is this fair? Wong Wan Yue (Mdm)
