Final Argument

Here is the final draft of the letter I read to the "Rates Appeal Board" this evening. This is part of my on-going saga with MPI, and the extra fee they tacked onto my licence for sliding into a snow bank on an icy day. I took it like a professional assignment (it is worth a potential $235 dollars.) I wore my hair back in a ponytail, face clean shaven. I had on a blue dress shirt, undone at the collar and my favourite tweed sport coat, with the awesome "Happy Crab" pin Josey got me from Hawaii on the lapel. The board was made up of three volunteer ajudicators. One was a a white guy who had a t-shirt for some motor-cycle manufacturer or other, one was a woman of colour, whose racial profile, and outfit escape me, and the third was an East Indian looking fellow in bland business casual.(I took day one of three on Cultural Diversity today, so I'm a bit colour sensitive.) They were all in their mid-40's to 50's. To be honest I think I had them all for breakfast. Even the biker guy who was representing: "Well you know this stays on your record, even IF (big IF) we find in your favour, blah, blah..." seemed swayed by my argument. But I shouldn't be so cocky, I still have a week to wait to see the result.

I am appealing the $200 surcharge on my driver’s licence based on the fact that it is unwarranted and unfair in my case. I have held my Driver’s licence for 12 years, and in that time have not caused a single accident. The incident in question involved a single, fully insured vehicle, a deductible of $200 that I was personally responsible for, and zero harm to property or person, beyond damage to the van. Whereas MPI considers it “fair” to automatically impose an additional fine for any accident in which a driver is found to be “100% responsible” it is my belief that they should allow good drivers who do not annually licence vehicles the option to use their accumulated merits to offset the penalties which, to people of my income level, seem unduly harsh.

The incident for which MPI has imposed their fine happened as follows: I pulled into the driveway of the group home where I work, with the company vehicle, at what I considered a reasonable speed. Unfortunately I skidded on a patch of ice just as I made my turn and I plowed into a rock-hard snow bank. The molded bumper cracked. I do not deny that I caused this accident, but I do believe that I was driving responsibly, and was a victim of poor conditions.

According to one Customer Service Agent I spoke to it is fairer to the majority of Manitobans to pay the $200 surcharge on their driver's licences because it allows them to maintain their merits. He offered an example I found personally insulting by mentioning the hardship a merit reduction would cause the owner of multiple vehicles. However, for people like myself that do not insure personal vehicles for economic and/or environmental reasons the preservation of merits is of little value. Yet we are not given the option to use them to offset the levy. A second agent explained that the $200 surcharge was punishment for having driven irresponsibly. MPI’s website backs this assertion by offering the following justification:

Q: Why do I have to pay a surcharge for having an accident?

A: Drivers cause accidents not vehicles. Surcharges make sure that all drivers who cost the insurance fund pay more into the insurance fund. (http://mpi.mb.ca/english/Insurance/i_faq.html).

Given the nature of my incident and my driving record I do not believe I deserve to be disciplined. However if punishment is due, I should at least have the option to use the merits I've earned as a conscientious driver to offset the penalty. In lieu of that option I ask that the fee be waived in my case.

MPI may argue there is the issue of whether or not I have paid sufficiently into their insurance fund, seeing as I do not annually insure a vehicle. They may seek damages beyond the deductible I paid for repairs to the vehicle because they feel it is only “fair” that I “pay my share.” I would counter this argument by insisting that I have paid my annual licence premium since 1994, without complaint, and have even published an article in the Free Press advocating for more responsible driving. (I brought along a copy of my article and left it with the board).

If MPI feels it needs to collect more from licensed drivers who do not pay annual premiums, let them increase the rates on the fleet and commercial vehicles that we must operate to maintain our employment. As employees we do not have the option to forgo claims when minor damage is done to the vehicles we operate. Had this been my vehicle, I’d have lived with the cracked bumper rather than facing MPI’s punishment, but being an employee it was my obligation to own up to the damage and face the consequences.

In conclusion I would like to say that this levy amounts to a significant and highly punitive chunk for an otherwise responsible citizen of very modest means, who happened to make one honest mistake while carrying out his professional duties. If I was driving recklessly, or had been involved in multiple accidents, then I can see how additional charges might be justified. But in the case of a once-in-a-dozen-year minor accident, shouldn’t the insurance company pay-out without looking to reprimand me? Is it fair for the insurer to punish me without giving me the option to use the merit system they designed to reward good drivers?