There are always 3 sides to a story – the one side, the other side and the truth!! How does this impact on my expectations that my car insurance claim will be settled and the damages to my vehicle paid?

There is most often not a simple answer to this question.

We would like to share a request from a visitor to the Car Insurance Blog and the response received from Justice Project South Africa:

“WE WERE INVOLVED IN AN  ACCIDENT. OUR CAR IS NOT INSURED BUT THE PERSON WHO MADE A U-TURN IN FRONT OF US IS. HE SAID WE COULD CLAIM AGAINST HIM AND HE DID ADMIT ON THE ACCIDENT SCENE THAT IT WAS HIS FAULT AND HE DID NOT SEE US. WE SUBMITTED THE CLAIM AND NOW IT WAS DECLINED ( BELOW IS THE REPORT FROM THEM ) WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO SPEED AS WE DID STOP AT A RED TRAFFIC LIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT TOOK PLACE APPROX 40 METERS FURTHER – WE ONLY DRIVE A TOYOTA 13HUNDRED AND IT IS NOT A FAST CAR…. WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP – WE NEED OUR VEHICLE TO BE REPAIRED – WE DID NOT MAKE A U-TURN IN FRONT OF OURSELVES

“- Our client advises that he had indicated his intention to turn right and was stationery waiting for oncoming traffic to clear when the collision occurred

Should your driver have travelled at a reasonable speed he would have fore saw our client’s stationery vehicle and would have been able to brake and avoid the collision altogether.

A reasonable driver, keeping a proper lookout would have seen the stationery vehicle and attempted to avoid the collision, however based on the damages it is clear that your driver proceeded in the same direction and speed, resulting in the collision.”

Michelle

Justice Project South Africa

There are two completely conflicting stories here from what I can see and whilst this is not uncommon in cases where damages are claimed, the stark conflict in this case is remarkable. Let me explain:

Michelle says:

The driver of the other vehicle executed a U-turn which resulted in a collision. She also says that the driver of that vehicle stated that he did not see the other party approaching. This suggests that the other vehicle turned across her path and it was that event that lead to the collision.

The respondent says:

Their client’s vehicle was stationary and waiting for oncoming traffic to clear. They also say that he was indicating his intention to turn right and that Michelle’s vehicle simply drove into him.

My assessment

Without seeing the actual damage that was incurred and/or statements from both parties involved in this collision, it is very difficult to make a definitive assessment of the matter. However one has to bear in mind that there is such a thing as “right of way” and whilst this is not absolute, the simple use of an indicator does not imply that the party executing a manoeuvre has the right to do so without exercising due care. In fact, quite the opposite.

Now, if the damage sustained to the other party’s vehicle was solely to the rear of his vehicle, then it can be reasonably assumed that his vehicle was not crossing the roadway on which oncoming traffic was approaching and that Michelle’s vehicle simply failed to stop and drove into him – from his rear. However, if the damage was sustained to the side of that vehicle and to the front or front side of Michelle’s vehicle then it can reasonably assumed that the other driver did indeed turn across her pathway and this carries with it a number of implications.

It is incumbent on all motorists to drive with due care and attention, and this means that one must constantly be on the lookout for the actions of other road users and try to contemplate any actions that they may take which could present a hazard to themselves and you as a road user. All too few drivers take this into account and that is why we end up with so many crashes which could have been avoided if people were in fact driving as they should – defensively – instead of simply pointing a vehicle in a general direction and stepping on the accelerator. My statement is not meant to excuse the incorrect or delinquent behaviour of those who do not obey traffic laws and end up causing crashes, it is merely to point out that there is more to driving than simply putting fuel into a motor vehicle and steering it off in the direction you want to go.

However, when I see an argument like “should the driver have travelled at a reasonable speed…” coming out of whomever authored that response, it makes me wonder how “reasonable speed” is defined, as it would appear that the author thereof is implying that the speed of the oncoming vehicle was factually established as being unreasonable. The only way that this can be determined would be by either having evidence in the form of speed measurement equipment at the scene having determined that the vehicle was speeding at that time or by a forensic crash investigation revealing that it was unreasonable. I doubt very much whether either of these pieces of evidence are present and therefore find this statement to be accusatory and unfounded.

Just because someone puts their indicator on does not give them the right to simply proceed before it is safe to do so. To the contrary, the National Road Traffic Act makes it an offence to proceed without first checking that it is safe to do so when turning across the face of oncoming traffic – especially when one is proceeding against the flow of traffic.

U-turns are also prohibited at many intersections and where a solid white line exists in the roadway. If this crash occurred where either; road signs or markings were in place then the party who made the U-turn would be in further contravention of the National Road Traffic Act and/or Regulations. If there weren’t any such signs or markings, the requirement for due care and attention still applies and if it is not exercised, it constitutes negligence. This could equally be applied to a driver who drives into another vehicle if reasonable measures on their part were not taken to avoid the collision.

A charge of reckless or negligent driving (section 63 of the National Road Traffic Act) is a very serious matter and carries with it criminal implications. I would say that under the circumstances where this crash occurred, the traffic department or SAPS should have been called to attend the scene due to the apparent violation of traffic law having led to the crash. It is not clear if this was done and it looks like insurance and other details were simply exchanged. I also point out that both drivers were obliged to report this crash to the SAPS within 24 hours thereof and if this was not done by either or both parties then an additional offence has been committed.

The response to Michelle looks like some form of internet-based blog or other forum and I am going to say that this may not be the best place to litigate this matter. I would suggest that Michelle considers contacting a competent legal representative to handle this matter and/or enters into arbitration to get this matter resolved. From what I can determine from the response referred to, she is currently being stonewalled by an insurance company or law firm and they are attempting to use scare tactics to repudiate a claim against their client of what Michelle has said is true. Unfortunately, the conflicting versions of the facts now presents a conflict and the only way to resolve this would be by negotiation, arbitration or litigation or a combination thereof.

Clearly, Michelle feels aggrieved and therefore this matter must be resolved; but it is not going to happen if she tries to do so in the form of a blog or internet forum. I do warn however that this process may not be speedy and therefore would recommend that the two parties sit down and resolve this matter on a face to face basis so that repairs may be affected sooner rather than later.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa (NPC)

Related posts:

1. Can your car insurance claim be rejected because you are a bad driver?
2. What is the causal link required before a car insurer can reject your claim?
3. Through a dirty windscreen, expect to see a car insurance claim!

Motorists often shrug off these risks –until disaster strikes and they are presented with a letter from the lawyer of the car they bumped into. We would like to share correspondence between the Car Insurance Blog and one such person:

Question:

“Hi, I caused an accident in Feb this year, I don’t have insurance, but the guy that I hit, was driving his company vehicle. They have insurance, when they phoned me 1 week after the accident, they asked if I can pay the damages of R51 000 so I said I won’t be able to afford it, they then asked telephonically if I can pay the excess amount and I said yes but only if they will allow me to pay off, because I don’t have all the cash. Yesterday I received a letter of demand from the insurance company’s lawyer and they want me to pay R51 000. I need help, what do I do? I don’t want it against my name, I don’t want a bad name, but I don’t have money.”

Answer:

This is a classic case of the claims cost recovery process in action. The guilty person (i.e. the one who caused the accident) is responsible for the footing the bill for the entire costs of the damage and not only the excess portion of the costs. The insurance company (or its attorney) sends a letter of demand for the costs for which the guilty person is liable. It’s crucial that the person responds and makes some sort of settlement offer otherwise the process goes further where a summons is issued and judgement can be taken. This means that the person’s goods can be attached in order to offset the amount owing.

It’s also crucial to understand whether the guilty party is fully liable (or liable in part) for causing the accident. In many instances there is contributory negligence on both parties (e.g. where 2 people are reversing out of their respective parking bays and they then collide.) The best way to determine this and to be better infirmed is to contact a lawyer to assist in the matter. There are obviously costs involved.

Follow-up Question:

“Thank you so much.

I just need to know if I am liable for the damage in front of the vehicle as well? I hit the client from the back driving about 30-40km and he hit another vehicle in front. Am I liable for all the damage on the vehicle?”

Answer:

Yes, you would be liable for the damage caused to any cars or property that was damaged in the chain of events. It’s vital to confirm exactly what happened though. E.g. if the car in front of you suddenly braked to avoid crashing into the car in front, and you were also forced to brake but could not avoid the collision, the defence is stronger and will limit your liability. You could the plead that you acted defensively but not avoid the collision. In such a case, there would contributory negligence and you would not be solely responsible.

My advice:

•             You should consult a lawyer for advice. The cost may be worth the effort.

•             You should get some basic insurance in place. We have a basic product which covers “liability to other parties” which would have helped her in this instance. It’s dangerous to be without any insurance these days.

Conclusion and Advice

The risks are simply too big – and it is irresponsible to allow yourself without any cover against accidents. Even if you struggle to afford comprehensive insurance – take out third party insurance and protect yourself from the claims from others!

[A word of appreciation to Trevor Devitt from Outsurance for assistance with the answers]

Related posts:

1. Pay As You Drive recognizes variety of risks on our roads!!
2. Distracted driving could eat away your claims free driving record!
3. Driving with lights on can reduce car insurance claims

Earlier today there appeared a blog post on Insurance Chat on Guesthouse Insurance. One of the aspects reflected on is the insurance of the vehicle of the business. Several guesthouses offer transportation to and from airports and bus stops to the guesthouse.

Not only will vehicles used to transport these guests be used for business purposes, but we would also need to reflect whether the driver of such vehicle is indeed legally licensed driver of such a vehicle.

Many are not alert to the requirements with regards to the need for a professional driving permit.

When is a Professional Driving Permit [PrDP] required?

Many make the mistake in believing that the only requirement is for passengers to be transported for reward. This is a requirement, but not the only requirement:

A driver requires a category P professional driving permit (PrDP) when:

• persons are transported for reward
• the vehicle is designed to carry 12 or more passengers including the driver
• the GVM exceeds 3 500kg

Related posts:

1. Do not expect your car insurer to pay if you overload the vehicle!
2. Can my car insurer cancel my policy if I claim too often?
3. Is your car insurer or broker available during the December Holiday?

What are these proposed amendments?

Draft Amendment 19 is published in Government Gazette 33979 of 1 February 2011- It deals with SAP clearance documents and the marking of new vehicles after 1 July 2011 with microdots. The amendment is out for comment until 1 March 2011.

What is Data Dot Technology?

Data Dot technology is a passive anti-theft security system which is supported by insurers and is applied as spray film invisible to the eye over the entire vehicle. This technology can be described as a simple and effective theft deterrent system. Based on the reliable identification of key component parts of the vehicle, the vehicle is of reduced value to a professional thief. The thief is only interested in vehicles where they can easily change their identity or strip for parts.

The spray contains millions of dots, each smaller than a grain of sand, which are etched by laser with a unique alpha-numeric code (which can be fully customised). This code can only be read with a special scanner that utilises a strong UV magnifier to read the code.

Also view:

Microdot Technology and Car Insurance

Related posts:

1. Who are the 2011 World Car of the Year finalists?
2. How does a private nursing sister get her vehicle registered as an emergency vehicle in KwaZulu Natal?
3. NAAMSA says new vehicle sales up 10.5% in July

Amendment on heavy motor vehicle licences

• As of 1 February 2011 persons who obtain driving licences for a code C, C1, EC or EC1 driving licence will not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle that requires a code B or code EB licence (in old terms – a person with a code 10, 11, 13 or 14 licence cannot drive a vehicle for which you need a code 08 licence). This will only apply to new licence holders.

Update:

On Tuesday the Department of Transport announced that people granted licences to drive heavy duty vehicles will still be allowed to use them to drive light motor vehicles.

A new law preventing the use of heavy duty vehicle licences by people driving light motor vehicle was to have come into effect on Tuesday, said spokesperson Thami Ngidi.

“Since the publication of this amendment… the department has received representations from various individuals and organisations and in this spirit will engage and consult further on the matter,” Ngidi said.

“The representations received necessitated a review of the amendments.

“The review process led to a decision by the department to reinstate the status quo with immediate effect, in the best interests of South Africans.”

As a result, licences for codes C, C1, EC or EC1 may still be used by the drivers of vehicles requiring code B or code EB licences.

Also view:

Several amendments to Road Traffic Act to come into effect 1 February

Update: Road Traffic Amendment 18 – GG 33980 and draft Amendment 19 – GG 33979

The amendment concerning the driving licence legislation that was supposed to become effective on 1 February 2011, where a new holder of a Class C1, C, EC1 or EC licence was not allowed to drive a Class B or EB vehicle has been amended again.

Amendment 18 that is published in Government Gazette 33980 of 1 February 2011 has changed the legislation back to the position that applied before 1 February 2011 and new Class C1, C, EC1 or EC holders of licences may drive Class B or EB vehicles respectively.

The gazette also corrected an error in regulation 138(1)(j) – the word “roadworthy” was replaced with the word “unroadworthy”

Related posts:

1. When do you need an operating license from the Department of Transport?
2. Truck sales boosted by global demand for commodities
3. Escalating petrol prices will force vehicle owners into review of insurance costs as well!

Amendment on heavy motor vehicle licences

• As of 1 February 2011 persons who obtain driving licences for a code C, C1, EC or EC1 driving licence will not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle that requires a code B or code EB licence (in old terms – a person with a code 10, 11, 13 or 14 licence cannot drive a vehicle for which you need a code 08 licence). This will only apply to new licence holders.

Why is this of specific importance to the Car Insurance industry?

This amendment might well be a reflection on the efforts to curb corruption in the licensing process and the many accidents caused by drivers who have gained the so called “small truck licences”

In recent discussions with car insurance companies I have been informed that many car insurers do not wish to insure the vehicles of people who presented the “code 10 licences”. Too often it has been suspected that these licenses were acquired fraudulently by drivers who should not have been adjudged fit and proper drivers. It has often happened that these same drivers are involved in accidents a month later whilst driving luxury passengers vehicles!

Also view:

Several amendments to Road Traffic Act to come into effect 1 February

Update: Road Traffic Amendment 18 – GG 33980 and draft Amendment 19 – GG 33979

The amendment concerning the driving licence legislation that was supposed to become effective on 1 February 2011, where a new holder of a Class C1, C, EC1 or EC licence was not allowed to drive a Class B or EB vehicle has been amended again.

Amendment 18 that is published in Government Gazette 33980 of 1 February 2011 has changed the legislation back to the position that applied before 1 February 2011 and new Class C1, C, EC1 or EC holders of licences may drive Class B or EB vehicles respectively.

The gazette also corrected an error in regulation 138(1)(j) – the word “roadworthy” was replaced with the word “unroadworthy”

Related posts:

1. Do you know the road traffic signs in South Africa?
2. What does Regulation 214 of the Road Traffic Act Stipulate?
3. How long does the traffic office have to issue a summons before a traffic ticket becomes invalid?

Question:

My company is thinking of making me the proxy for some of our motor vehicles. What does this entail. Will I be liable for fines and how will this affect me with regards to the new point system that is coming into play. For example, can they arrest me in a roadblock for outstanding fines?

Answer:

The process of registering a natural person as the responsible person or “proxy” of a juristic person (company or other entity) is not at all complicated and merely involves the registration of that person in the national traffic register as the responsible person for that entity. Every company or other juristic person must have a responsible person who is ultimately responsible for dealing with licencing, roadworthiness, etc. as well as traffic fines issues.

As the responsible person or proxy of a juristic person it will be your responsibility to ensure that all provisions of the National Road Traffic Act and the AARTO Act are complied with and where they are not, that you assign the blame to the natural person who got caught committing an infringement. The most likely infringement that would be received in the post and addressed to the juristic person, with the proxy’s name and ID number also being on it would be a camera fine, since infringements or offences for which the driver is stopped for at the time of commission would be written up in the driver’s name at that time.

It is the duty and responsibility of someone in the company to control the use of company vehicles and maintain a register of who was driving what vehicle at what time and on what day and should an infringement notice arrive in the post for that particular vehicle. They are then required to complete and submit an AARTO 07 driver nomination form so that the infringement notice (fine) which will be automatically tripled in its value, may be cancelled in the name of the juristic person and re-issued to the physical driver concerned in their personal capacity.

The person who maintains this register is not always the proxy since some companies have fleet management staff who are not necessarily the proxy as well. Although keeping a register of the driver or person in control is not specifically mentioned in the AARTO Act, the infringement of “failing to obtain the particulars of a driver” prior to letting them exercise control over that vehicle does exist and, for the first time in traffic legislation in this country, you are required by legislation to record these details. It is also vital that the address details on record with eNatIS is 100% correct and up to date so that infringement notices etc. are delivered to you since the AARTO Act deems all notices that have been posted to the last known address of the infringer 10 days after posting by registered mail, whether it is collected or not.

Demerit points can never be applied to a proxy’s driving licence however they can and are applied to an operator card where this is in play. If your company operates vehicles in the classes of vehicle that require an operator’s card, then you will also be responsible for the functions that must be fulfilled with respect to an operator.

The question of arrest in roadblocks comes up over and over again and it never ceases to amaze me just how badly this practice has been abused and used to cause mass intimidation of all vehicle owners, not just proxies. In fact, this is the number one concern of almost every person who contacts us for clarity on traffic fines. It comes as a surprise to most, but there has never been any provision in the law for the arrest of anyone with respect to an outstanding traffic fine that has not progressed to a criminal summons and where the person who was summonsed has subsequently failed to appear in court on the designated court date.

Anyone who ignores a summons, whether lawfully served or not, cannot be thinking straight and/or must have total disrespect for the law and a desire to be arrested. The consequence of ignoring a summons is the immediate imposition of a contempt of court charge and most often, the issue of a warrant of arrest, which may indeed be executed at a roadblock, provided that the execution thereof complies with the Criminal Procedure Act.

Under the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act however, a warrant of arrest DOES NOT exist and therefore you can never be lawfully arrested at a roadblock with respect to an outstanding traffic fine. The AARTO Act completely replaces the Criminal Procedure Act in the administration of road traffic offences and as its name implies, traffic offences are administratively adjudicated, not tried in criminal courts. A warrant of execution as is referred to in the AARTO Act does not even remotely resemble a warrant of arrest, so please do not get confused.

It is my recommendation that you take the time to familiarise yourself with AARTO by visiting the AARTO facts website and in particular, going through the entire “AARTO explained” section which you can find at www.aartofacts.co.za.

Best Regards,

Howard Dembovsky

National Chairman – Justice Project South Africa

Related posts:

1. What are the biggest pitfalls for Aarto?
2. Car Insurer finds women fear parallel parking!
3. Should owners of recalled Toyota’s fear higher car insurance premiums?

Santam, which has the largest portfolio of personal, commercial and agricultural insurance clients in South Africa, expects that claims from damage will continue to increase as the country, and in fact the world, experiences among the worst rainfalls recorded in years.

“Climatologists and meteorologists expect wet weather to continue well into March and even April,” says Shehnaz Somers, head of personal lines underwriting at Santam. “This is a cause for concern, especially for those that have not insured their property or vehicles, or those who have under-insured their valuables to save on insurance premiums. The danger of under-insuring your property and vehicle is that the payout, when claiming, can be less than the replacement value.”

“We urge South African’s to speak to their broker or insurer, to ensure that the amounts insured are correct.”

According to Santam, only 35% of South African drivers insure their vehicles, which is an alarmingly low number.

“Suffering flood damage to a home or vehicle, and not having insurance to cover your loss could very well cripple a family financially. Loss relating to flood damage is covered as part of most comprehensive cover policies, and although claims are assessed on the exact circumstances under which they have occurred, the potential outcome of such a loss is always easier to deal with when you know that your insurer will cover your loss,” says Somers. – I-Net Bridge

Also view:

Does car insurance cover flood damage?

What is Household insurance and does it cover water and flood damage?

Related posts:

1. Does car insurance cover flood damage?
2. NAAMSA expects slowdown in vehicle sales in South Africa
3. What is flood insurance in Australia?

Watching this video we are all confronted with the question – how big is the loss to the vehicle owners? Do they have car insurance and are they covered by their insurance for this damage?

We would like to consider these questions in more detail in this blog post and provide some advice to vehicle owners.

Car Insurance is required

Despite several warnings from financial advisers and the car insurance industry, many still risk driving vehicles that are uninsured. Car insurance is not compulsory in some countries – and in South Africa it is estimated that only 30% of the vehicles are insured.

Without car insurance you are facing all the risks – you will suffer the consequences of your failure to go without insurance! It will not be only your vehicle that is swept away – but also your financial well-being!

You may however also be at risk with car insurance, as not every car insurance policy will cover flood damage!

What does the Car Insurance Policy stipulate?

As a starting point we always have to revert back to our car insurance policy and read the terms and conditions of the policy. It is important to differentiate between 2 types of car insurance policies

• Comprehensive car insurance cover will reimburse drivers for loss due to damage caused by something other than a collision with another car or object, such as fire, falling objects, catastrophic storms, vandalism, or contact with animals such as birds or deer. This includes flooding.
• Third party or third party, fire and theft policies will not cover flood damage

What is flooding?

It is also important to consider what amounts to flood damage  – and that this is not merely water damage to the engine caused by the negligence of the driver! Whether the incident is treated as an “at fault” claim varies between insurers. The Ombudsman for short term insurance in South Africa has warned that car insurance will not cover engine damage caused by driving through deep water.

Flood damage should be regarded as the result of flooding rains and huge seas: cars swept off causeways, flooded bridges, vehicles engulfed as giant waves crash over sea walls.

What do I need to know when my vehicle has suffered flood damage?

• If you believe the car has suffered flood damage, do not attempt to switch on the ignition, and check the outside of your vehicle for any damage.
• Have your car examined by a qualified mechanic at the earliest opportunity following floods to assess the damage caused by flood conditions.
• Report the damage as soon as possible to your car insurance company to check if you’re eligible to claim for any damage.
• If your car is not drivable, your agent or claims centre may be able to save you time and money by having the car towed directly to the repair facility instead of to a temporary storage facility.
• Your insurer may be able to provide you with a replacement rental car, if your policy includes this coverage.

How can I avoid flood damage?

• Keep a close eye and ear on weather reports and disaster warnings
• If a flood warning has been issued in your area and you’re unsure as to your cover, contact your insurance provider to double-check any details before setting off on a journey.
• If there is time before a flood strikes, move your car to a safe place – higher ground, for example – out of the reach of the floodwater.
• If you need to be on the road, before embarking on your journey plan your route and alternative routes well in advance.
• Research alternative routes in the event of road closures in flood-prone areas.
• If you need to travel during flood conditions, be sure to leave plenty of time for your journey.
• Make sure you let someone know of the planned itinerary of your journey, including departure times and an approximate return time – this information can be valuable to emergency services should you become stranded.
• Pack a small bag with a change of clothes, food and drink and a fully charged mobile phone in case of emergency.

You need to approach driving in heavy rain with caution! On the Arrive Alive website there is information on this topic and we would like to urge motorists to view the following sections on the Arrive Alive website:

Safe Driving in Heavy rains
Escape and safety from a vehicle submerged under water
4×4 Vehicles and water crossings

A few of the most important suggestions include:

• Adjust your speed for the specific road and weather conditions
• Drive slowly and cautiously, leave plenty of space between yourself and the car in front, remembering that braking distance is reduced in wet conditions.
• Drive very carefully around flooded parts of the road, keeping to the highest possible point.
• Do not attempt to travel through flooded patches if you’re unsure of the depth. – Do not guess the depth of water and if you need to travel through water – walk slowly across to ensure that the road is still intact!
• Your comprehensive car insurance policy might not cover for electrical faults so you don’t want to risk this damage occurring.
• If you have to travel through flood water, drive at low speed and be vigilant for any debris or other obstacles that could cause damage to your vehicle.
• Once clear of the water, use gentle braking to dry your brakes, but ensure it is safe to do so before taking this step.

We would like to urge vehicle owners to be alert and vigilant at times. Remember that your vehicle can be replaced –you and your family member cannot! Rather stay clear of flooded waters and adhere to the warnings, alerts and directions provided by safety and emergency officials!!

Also view:

Avoid unnecessary driving in heavy rain across South Africa

What is Household insurance and does it cover water and flood damage?

Related posts:

1. Santam expects flood damage to run into millions
2. Ombudsman says your car insurance might not cover engine damage from driving through water!!
3. Does your car insurance cover hail damage?

Question:

Subject: Verifying vehicle reg: MOX 673 NW

Message:
——–
I want to buy this vehicle but the seller sounds dodgy and the advert for the vehicle for sale was placed on Junkmail – I would like verification on the vehicle.

Answer:

There is a vehicle confirmation service the person can apply for confirmation of the details on the vehicle’s registration certificate at any registering authority. There is a nominal fee for this service. The person must supply the details and a certificate will print confirming the details provided.

I must say that the licence number provided does not look correct as the system does not issue licence numbers with vowels. In addition the North West number range has not yet reach M.

Related posts:

1. When is a vehicle classified as a motor vehicle?
2. How does a private nursing sister get her vehicle registered as an emergency vehicle in KwaZulu Natal?
3. Can a heavy vehicle learner’s licence be valid for a light vehicle too?