I wrote to Mr. Lui Tuck Yew, Minister for Transport again 9 July 2014:-
"Dear Mr. Lui,
Sir, with reference to this matter, MAS has their limitations.
Why should I seek my own legal advice when this issue concerns rules gazetted by government?
LTA is the best party for the ministry to consult if my evidence on the roundabout rules is valid or NTUC Income's opinion is correct.
FIDREC's role is that of an Alternative Dispute Resolution institution, they are not responsible for this dispute, they did not accept the roundabout rules and I can reject their decision. Therefore MAS should not use them as an excuse and say they cannot do anything.
NTUC Income quickly closed this case and refused to respond to my query. I am their policyholder and they allowed another party to claim my insurance without my consent.
I requested for a report of this claim through MAS and they still refuse to give me. I want to know exactly what words they use as evidence to justify this payout.
FIDREC's style is non-transparent but NTUC Income should be transparent in its payout/claim process with policyholder.
It is made mandatory to have a motor insurance to drive on the road. Insurance companies collected our premiums and need to obey the rules set in the highway code manual for all settlement of claims. That is why I need the government to step in when insurance companies' opinion speak louder than rules.
Can the government do something to increase our trust and not push responsibility around when there is discrepancy.
Best regards,
Mr. Han JK "
I received NTUC Income reply as follow:-
I still did not get any answer to why this accident has zero liability on the other party and 100% liability on me.
My reasoning is not from my opinion, I produced proven rules from the Highway Code manual whereas NTUC Income opinion is my car need to be on the left lane to exit the roundabout.
NTUC Income mentioned in this letter that I was given the opportunity to present my case at FIDREC and why liability was not in my favor.
Then let us examine what "opportunity" I was given.
FIDREC's mediator agreed with NTUC Income that Pandan Circle is not a roundabout and therefore the roundabout's rules does not apply.
I protested and said there is this roundabout's "triangle signboard" planted on the entrance to Pandan Circle. But the mediator refuse to acknowledge it as roundabout and concluded 100% liability to me.
Then I paid FIDREC $250 to proceed further for adjudication to challenge this 100% mediator indication.
I don't believe what he said as he also did not produce any document to support it.
What "opportunity" do I have at FIDREC to defend my case? They need not produce any documentary prove to support their statement and just pass a judgement of 100% liability to me.
After this, I managed to find the Singapore Road Traffic Act website and found the actual rules for roundabout:-
The Act did allow vehicles on the wrong lane( left-lane) to proceed to the next exit. This should be what the adjudicator refer to.
However there are 4 conditions to it which the adjudicator did not mentioned.
One of the condition is "you do not inconvenience other drivers". He caused an accident and isn't this considered as inconvenience other drivers ? Another condition is Obey right-hand rule:- he should watch out for vehicle on his right.
If these 4 conditions does not exist, then it is meaningless to have have this general rules' diagram !
I also wrote to FIDREC and this was their reply:-
1. Thank you for your email of 7 July 2014
2. We have carefully investigated your complaint against the Adjudicator, retired District Judge XXX XXX XXX.
3. We regret to inform you that we do not find sufficient grounds to substantiate your allegations against retired Judge XXX XXX XXX
4. FIDReC’s Adjudicators are independent and impartial. They include retired judges and lawyers with years of experience. The Adjudicator for your case XXX XXX XXX is a retired Judge with more than 20 years’ experience on the Bench. He had heard and considered relevant evidence adduced by both parties (written and oral) and their submissions thereon. Based on the facts and merits of your case, the Adjudicator decided that no award would be made in your favour
5. As explained to you, the decision of the Adjudicator is only binding on the Financial Institution and not on you. Since you disagree with the Adjudicator, you remain free to pursue your claim against the Financial Institution through other avenues such as legal action
6. In view of the foregoing, although we can understand your dissatisfaction and disappointment, we have to regretfully say that we are unable to interfere with the decision of the Adjudicator
7. You may also wish to seek independent legal advice on your rights and options including but not limited to advice relating to any legal limitation period which may adversely affect your claim(s).
8. Thank you for writing to us and we wish you a pleasant day
Thank you & warm regards,
Rick Koh
Assistant Deputy Head, Complaints Centre
Complaints Management Division
Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd (Co. Reg. No. 200502125D)
I can understand NTUC Income and FIDREC are not expert in traffic rules.
I just don't understand why don't they consult LTA on this type of case and use LTA answer to reply me. I will then challenge LTA if I am not satisfy with their explanation.
Most motorists self-learn their highway code from the manual which is simple and easy to pass without fully understand its detail whereas I learn mine during NS time at SAF's School Of Driver Training. The course is about 3 months and they taught intensively into highway code details.
I already checked with LTA and they agreed with the roundabout rules and had enhanced the road marking there to help those unfamiliar with roundabout to exit correctly.
NTUC Income's traffic investigator is incompetence on traffic rules, but being incompetence is forgivable if one is willing to acknowledge it and correct it. Everybody will make some mistake and must learn from their mistake to improve. By hiding mistake and don't want to own it is lack of integrity.
I also notice NTUC Income used the in-house Barometer Of Liability Chart (BOLA) on roundabout to support its case.
There is an error in this chart. The person who drafted this chart also don't understand the rules.
The general turning rules for roundabout can only be shown in arrow diagram because it is so important to indicate ( in the form of dotted line & arrow) where the vehicle ENTER the roundabout inorder to determine if it turning left, go straight or turn right. But the BOLA chart did not show where they enter and how to know who is going straight and who is turning left or right. So how to determine who is in the wrong lane?
This is a claim case between me and NTUC Income. FIDREC is not a party involve. Ultimately NTUC Income still have to answer for their decision and not use FIDREC to close the case.
My motor insurance policy is also from NTUC Income too and it was "comprehensive" coverage. Yet I unable to claim any damage and my NCB deducted. Ntuc Income paid the other party damage which is higher than my claim. If there is no government on motor insurance companies, then motor insurance policy should not be made mandatory for car owners.
I am writing to Mr. Lui Tuck Yew again and hope he will get NTUC Income to settle this case out of court.
I believe Mr. Lui want NTUC Income to be an organisation with INTEGRITY.
In fact there is no need to settle in court as it is basically about understanding roundabout rules which LTA know best.
I like to know where I was wrong too and learn from mistake to improve.
