Unable to change Sub riders under Hire-Purchase

[ah_ba]

Hi all,

 

I've recently came across this scenario in which the bike shop which the bike was purchased from, does not allow the owner to change the sub-riders once after you confirm during the initial phase. The insuring company is Liberty Insurance, and the insurance was out-sourced to WTT Insurance.

 

So when we called up Liberty Insurance first, and was told that changing of sub-riders are allowed, and referred us to WTT Insurance, which apparently, was the insurance company which the bike shop deals with.

WTT Insurance states that we need to contact the bike shop for such changes.

 

When owner called up the bike shop to enquire about the change of sub-riders, stating that the existing sub-rider had his license suspended, the shop stated that "you may remove the sub-rider, but you cannot add a new one". Does this kind of policy even exist?

 

So we went through the contract, and there is this clause : -

 

" The Hirer shall not add or change named rider(s) or substitute rider(s) at any point of time during the entire hire-purchase period. The Hirer agrees to full settle the outstanding loan plus early settlement fees and processing fees immediately if the Hirer adds or changes named rider(s) or substitute rider(s) at any point of time during the entire hire-purchase period."

 

 

Question now is:

 

1.

Does a bike shop has the jurisdiction on empowering consumers which insurance to apply for, at the point of sales, or even upon renewal?

 

2.

What is an actual hire-purchase agreement? is there any rule and regulation for hire-purchase? Or the owner can, freely comes up with their own terms and conditions?

 

3. What happens if a shops ties down with an insurance company, and as a result, monetary gain was benefitted, but non-disclose to consumers? Would this be a fair trade?

 

I'd hope if there's anyone out there with some answers that can help me out here.

[lkm]

Contract law. You AGREED to the clause when you signed it.

[ah_ba]

Contract law. You AGREED to the clause when you signed it.

 

There isn't anything known as the contract law in the first place.

 

I understand the signing of contract is the owner's will.

Just know to know what if there's no disclosure on the merchant side before signing? And if the contact did not states that hirer cannot change insurer, would that clause still stays if owner change insurer?

 

And can the merchant dictate which insurer to take up from or can the consumer have the freedom to choose?

[Orleng]

Interesting question.

 

Did a little digging.

 

Under the Hire-Purchase Act (CHAPTER 125)

 

PART VI

 

INSURANCE

 

Owner may require insurance cover for goods

 

25. An owner may, subject to section 26, require any goods comprised in a regulated agreement to be insured in the names of the owner and the hirer against any risk that he thinks fit for the period of the agreement at the expense of the hirer.

[7/2012]

 

Restrictions on owner’s rights to require insurance

 

26.—(1) An owner shall not require a hirer to insure any such risk with any particular licensed insurer.

[11/2013]

 

(2) An owner shall not refuse to enter into a regulated agreement with a person who effects insurance of the goods for the period of the agreement against such risks and subject to such reasonable terms, conditions and exceptions as are required by the owner in the names of the owner and the hirer with a licensed insurer if the owner has no other grounds upon which the owner could reasonably refuse to enter into the agreement.

[7/2012; 11/2013]

 

(3) An owner shall not require a hirer to obtain insurance against risks or subject to terms, conditions and exceptions that the owner would not require if he arranged the insurance.

 

(4) Where any goods comprised in a regulated agreement are insured in the joint names of the owner and the hirer against any risk with a particular licensed insurer, there shall be an implied condition in the agreement that the hirer shall not, during the period of the agreement, insure those goods against any risk with another licensed insurer without first informing the owner.

[38/2004; 7/2012; 11/2013]

 

Benefit of rebate to pass to hirer

 

27.—(1) Where, in respect of the insurance of goods comprised in a regulated agreement, the insurer allows any rebate including a no-claim rebate or rebate of a similar nature (as distinct from legitimate agency commission payable to an owner who is also a bona fide agent of an insurer and who arranges the insurance on behalf of the hirer) the hirer under the agreement is entitled to the benefit of the rebate.

[7/2012]

 

(2) Any person who knowingly pays or allows any rebate referred to in subsection (1) to an owner shall be guilty of an offence.

Contents of contracts of insurance

 

28. Every copy of a policy of insurance (not being a policy of third-party insurance) and every statement, served upon a hirer under section 4, shall —

 

(a) identify the goods or the part of the goods to be insured;

(b) contain a statement of the amount and period for which the goods are insured or are to be insured; and

© if the amount for which the goods are or are to be insured will vary during the period of the agreement, contain a statement showing the varying amounts.

 

 

 

 

Can somebody with legal knowledge chime in on this?

 

Does this mean that the owner, cannot force any person to go with 1 particular insurance company? So long as the vehicle is sufficiently covered for the risks determined by the owner (TPFT in most cases).

 

Did not read the rest of the HPA, maybe there is a clause that allows the shop to write in such terms as to dictate a particular insurance agent as long as the hirer agrees to it in writing.

[Orleng]

Further expanding on that.

 

Avoidance of certain provisions

33. Any provision in any regulated agreement whereby —

(a) any right conferred on the hirer by this Act to determine a regulated agreement is excluded or restricted;

(b) the hirer is subject to any greater liability on the determination, in any manner, of the regulated agreement or of the bailment under the regulated agreement, than the liability to which he would be subject if the regulated agreement were determined in accordance with this Act;

© the hirer is required to pay interest on any overdue instalment at a rate per annum exceeding that as may be prescribed by the Minister by notification in the Gazette;

(d) the owner is relieved from liability for the acts or defaults of any person acting in connection with or in the course of the negotiations leading to the entering into the regulated agreement;

(e) the owner or any person acting on his behalf is authorised to enter upon any premises for the purpose of taking possession of goods comprised in a regulated agreement otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is relieved from liability for any such entry;

(f) the operation of the regulated agreement is determined or modified or any person is authorised to repossess any goods comprised in a regulated agreement if the hirer becomes bankrupt or executes a deed of assignment or a deed of arrangement (whether all or any of those events are named); or (g)

except as expressly provided by this Act, the operation of any provision of this Act is excluded, modified or restricted,

 

shall be void and of no effect.

[ah_ba]

Interesting question.

 

Did a little digging.

 

Under the Hire-Purchase Act (CHAPTER 125)

 

PART VI

 

INSURANCE

 

Owner may require insurance cover for goods

 

25. An owner may, subject to section 26, require any goods comprised in a regulated agreement to be insured in the names of the owner and the hirer against any risk that he thinks fit for the period of the agreement at the expense of the hirer.

[7/2012]

 

Restrictions on owner’s rights to require insurance

 

26.—(1) An owner shall not require a hirer to insure any such risk with any particular licensed insurer.

[11/2013]

 

(2) An owner shall not refuse to enter into a regulated agreement with a person who effects insurance of the goods for the period of the agreement against such risks and subject to such reasonable terms, conditions and exceptions as are required by the owner in the names of the owner and the hirer with a licensed insurer if the owner has no other grounds upon which the owner could reasonably refuse to enter into the agreement.

[7/2012; 11/2013]

 

(3) An owner shall not require a hirer to obtain insurance against risks or subject to terms, conditions and exceptions that the owner would not require if he arranged the insurance.

 

(4) Where any goods comprised in a regulated agreement are insured in the joint names of the owner and the hirer against any risk with a particular licensed insurer, there shall be an implied condition in the agreement that the hirer shall not, during the period of the agreement, insure those goods against any risk with another licensed insurer without first informing the owner.

[38/2004; 7/2012; 11/2013]

 

Benefit of rebate to pass to hirer

 

27.—(1) Where, in respect of the insurance of goods comprised in a regulated agreement, the insurer allows any rebate including a no-claim rebate or rebate of a similar nature (as distinct from legitimate agency commission payable to an owner who is also a bona fide agent of an insurer and who arranges the insurance on behalf of the hirer) the hirer under the agreement is entitled to the benefit of the rebate.

[7/2012]

 

(2) Any person who knowingly pays or allows any rebate referred to in subsection (1) to an owner shall be guilty of an offence.

Contents of contracts of insurance

 

28. Every copy of a policy of insurance (not being a policy of third-party insurance) and every statement, served upon a hirer under section 4, shall —

 

(a) identify the goods or the part of the goods to be insured;

(b) contain a statement of the amount and period for which the goods are insured or are to be insured; and

© if the amount for which the goods are or are to be insured will vary during the period of the agreement, contain a statement showing the varying amounts.

 

 

 

 

Can somebody with legal knowledge chime in on this?

 

Does this mean that the owner, cannot force any person to go with 1 particular insurance company? So long as the vehicle is sufficiently covered for the risks determined by the owner (TPFT in most cases).

 

Did not read the rest of the HPA, maybe there is a clause that allows the shop to write in such terms as to dictate a particular insurance agent as long as the hirer agrees to it in writing.

 

 

Wow Orleng, u good man! Managed to get so much info on this.

 

I just find that there is no logical basis on not allowing the owner to change the sub riders of the vehicle. Maybe can consult some legals on this.

[lkm]

There isn't anything known as the contract law in the first place.

 

I understand the signing of contract is the owner's will.

Just know to know what if there's no disclosure on the merchant side before signing? And if the contact did not states that hirer cannot change insurer, would that clause still stays if owner change insurer?

 

And can the merchant dictate which insurer to take up from or can the consumer have the freedom to choose?

 

Really? http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercial-law/chapter-8

 

The disclosure is on the contract. And signing or executing it is akin to accepting the disclosed clause.

[Yahmarhuh]

It's likely to deter COI arrangements

[ah_ba]

It's likely to deter COI arrangements

 

How would COI affect the sub riders arrangements? I mean end of the day, the owner of the bike should pay for the installment regardless. So if he buys the bike and someone took over COI, and should the installment failed to be paid on time, the shop will have the right to go after the owner.

 

So then again, how would changing of sub riders affect this arrangement?

And mainly why can't we take up our own insurer, and have to renew with the delicated insurers offered by the shop?

[pufferfis]

How would COI affect the sub riders arrangements? I mean end of the day, the owner of the bike should pay for the installment regardless. So if he buys the bike and someone took over COI, and should the installment failed to be paid on time, the shop will have the right to go after the owner.

 

So then again, how would changing of sub riders affect this arrangement?

And mainly why can't we take up our own insurer, and have to renew with the delicated insurers offered by the shop?

 

Its not because you can't take up your own insurer....Its because the bike shop still own your bike as long as you have a bike loan with them...you are only renting from them

Also bike shops only want to have their own dedicated insurers because...

1)they want to earn money from you

2)they have special price from these insurers and jack up the price when quoted to you...

3)they need you to take minimum fire and theft insurance so in the event that your bike touch wood...got stolen...they have their own regular insurance which they know what does cover and what doesnot.....I have a feeling they are scared even to let you take up fire and theft insurance with other insurance companies as maybe ..yes maybe they do not meet the claiming requirements or more stringent...equals to more leceh or mahfan for them.....

 

End of the day....as long as the bike has not been transferred to your name tru LTA....u basicallly have to suck thumb and follow the bike shop rules and regulations......save up and pay higher cash or full cash so you are stuck with a shorter lease and hey the bike is yours at last!

 

cheers

[leong77]

Well, it is well known that hire purchase or loan agreement has always been very sticky.

 

I got a house loan and am forced to purchase a fire policy from an appointed insurer. I have to do that even though the coverage is not as good as what I have purchased.

 

The moral of the story is always look thru and ask when signing contracts. Or simply dunn go into a hire purchase company.

[GuiNNeSS]

No Contract Law?????

 

Then my certificate in Contract Law from Singapore Poly is illegal??????