Friends cousin wrecked my car. No nct

farmchoice

ok i'm in the motor insurance buisness.

put this through his insurance not yours.
reasons. 1. it was his fault
2. his excess will not apply to your claim as you are the Third party
3. you may have injuries which he will not be able to afford to pay from his own pocket so put it all through his policy.
4. your lack of NCT may mean you can't claim off your own policy (depending on who you are insured with) but it will not stop you claiming as a third party, althought it may reduce the amount you are offered.


if you were to claim off your policy and the lack of nct was not an issue you would still be subject to your excess and with the car being a 15 year old colt you would be lucky if you walked away with a cheque for €300.00 if you are keeping the car.
you might get a few quid more claiming off his policy as you are a third party.

discombobulate

farmchoice wrote: »

ok i'm in the motor insurance buisness.

put this through his insurance not yours.
reasons. 1. it was his fault
2. his excess will not apply to your claim as you are the Third party
3. you may have injuries which he will not be able to afford to pay from his own pocket so put it all through his policy.
4. your lack of NCT may mean you can't claim off your own policy (depending on who you are insured with) but it will not stop you claiming as a third party, althought it may reduce the amount you are offered.


if you were to claim off your policy and the lack of nct was not an issue you would still be subject to your excess and with the car being a 15 year old colt you would be lucky if you walked away with a cheque for €300.00 if you are keeping the car.
you might get a few quid more claiming off his policy as you are a third party.

I don't think he was contemplating claiming from his own policy either way. That would make absolutely no sense.

My NCT was out by a month and a half when I claimed on my own policy previously and there was no issue. I had it booked etc. and there was backlogs but they never mentioned it.

mgbgt1978

More to this than meets the eye....;)
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ????
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ????
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ????

discombobulate

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye....;)
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ????
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ????
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ????

Good man Sherlock!

He was probably going to his work and passing where the cousins friend was going and not to the same place so no point driving together.

slimjimmc

Not that that the Q is really relevant but I'll play along.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye....;)
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ???? -- possibly one party going elsewhere afterwards, just for fun, etc?
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ???? -- Confusing, complicated, just for fun, etc?
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ???? -- Perhaps a new premises not mapped yet, crap internet, just for fun,etc

mgbgt1978

discombobulate wrote: »

Good man Sherlock!

He was probably going to his work and passing where the cousins friend was going and not to the same place so no point driving together.

Ah, thanks for explaining that.



And there was me thinking it was two fellows out for a blast around the back roads when the inevitable happened......now I just feel silly:D

website_dude

Thanks for all the replies. The information and advice has put my mind at rest. I am especially glad to know that the excess is only payable if the other lad claims off his own policy. It seems that i should contact the insurance company.

Another question! Do I contact my own insurance company to claim through his policy, or do i need his insurance info? Right now i only have his car make, model and registration number, plus a text message from him to say he would cover all my bills.

The reason we took 2 cars is because he lives on the other side of town and i was only leading the way and then heading back home. Google maps didnt come to my mind. Im a bit old fashioned and have been accused of driving like an old lady on more than one occasion. No speeding from me.

The colt holds some sentimental value too. It belonged to my brother who passed away a few years back. Thats why i spent so much time and money doing what he wanted to do with a colt. Silly, i know, but its also why i dont want the insurance company to write it off and take it away leaving me with a 300 euro check.

corktina

you don't have to let them take it.... they can do a deal where you keep the salvage

Whether you deal through your insurance depends if you have fully comp. I doubt they'll want to deal with it if you have TPFT

colm_mcm

A dented wing and broken headlight would make a 99 Colt an economic write-off. Very unlikely insurance will want to repair.

website_dude

corktina wrote: »

you don't have to let them take it.... they can do a deal where you keep the salvage

Whether you deal through your insurance depends if you have fully comp. I doubt they'll want to deal with it if you have TPFT

So i get to keep the car? That's good news if it can be fixed. But what if the repair bill is like 2 grand? The accident wasnt my fault. Can i not insist it be paid and not written off for 300?

Do I claim through mine, or his though?


Sorry for all my questions

corktina

I think the insurance company would only want to pay the market value as a write off.... you'd have to fight for more and I'm not sure you'd win

jimb43

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

website_dude

corktina wrote: »

I think the insurance company would only want to pay the market value as a write off.... you'd have to fight for more and I'm not sure you'd win

Seems unfair if their customer caused the damage. But thanks again. I keep thinking about the car and not myself, so i am thinking the medical bills might not be high, but could be ongoing and in that sense it makes perfect sense to go through the insurance company. I will ring my insurer tomorrow and ask about it. I will also have to get some physio and something stronger for the pain so i can work. I can use my fiances car while mine is off the road.

website_dude

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

Thats what i was worrying about.

Supergurrier

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

This is not true.

Op was 3rd party (Victim)

Third party always gets covered regardless.

Spook_ie

Supergurrier wrote: »

This is not true.

Op was 3rd party (Victim)

Third party always gets covered regardless.

Correct, even if it has to go to the MIBI, however insurance can be invalidated for one or other or both under the No NCT/No Tyres or other reasons
http://www.1000ventures.com/ads/cars_insurance_invalidate_5ways.html

Have you ever let your MOT lapse, insured your child’s car in your name or failed to report a minor accident to your insurance company? If so, you could be driving with invalidated insurance. It’s surprisingly easy to invalidate your car insurance, but by avoiding the following mistakes you should insure that both you and your car remain on the right side of the law.

Misrepresentation


The most common way of invalidating your car insurance is misrepresentation, which means providing your insurer with false or misleading information. For example, you might feel tempted to lower your premiums by claiming that your car is kept in a garage when in fact it is parked on the street. Although this may seem like a harmless white lie, it could in fact land you in some serious legal trouble. Other common means of misrepresentation include lying about the number of years since you last made an insurance claim, providing incorrect information about the make and model of your car, or failing to disclose information that relates to the potential safety of your or your vehicle.

Failing to report an accident

Anxiety about losing a ‘no claims’ discount can stop drivers from reporting accidents to their insurance company. In fact, you have a duty to report any incident that could result in a third party making a claim – by doing so you are protecting yourself against loss by passing the risk to your insurers. Although this is unlikely to increase your premium, failing to report an incident can invalidate your car insurance.

Fronting

With insurance premiums so high for younger drivers, ‘fronting’ is something of which many parents are guilty. In fact, it has been estimated that more than two thirds of parents would consider breaking the law by insuring their child’s car in their own name – a practice which is technically fraudulent and can have serious consequences. If you are caught ‘fronting’ then your insurer may either cancel the policy or charge the correct premium as a lump sum. They can also refuse to pay out for any claims, which can result in the young driver being treated as uninsured and receiving a ban from driving and a large fine. Both parent and child may also find it harder and more expensive to find new car insurance in the future.

Making undisclosed changes to your car

Insurers can charge higher premiums for modified cars, so keeping mum about any changes is tempting. However, doing so can actually render your insurance policy invalid. You should report any changes you make to your vehicle, from fitting alloyed wheels and body kits to more complex alterations which boost speed and performance.

Out of date MOT

Driving without a valid MOT will automatically invalidate your car insurance. Any car more than three years old must hold an MOT certificate, which will need to be renewed regularly. Failing to do so will open you, the motorist, to a potential fine and prosecution. To avoid the potential scrapes not having car insurance can bring, look to online companies like Co Operative for quotes and policies you can purchase whilst browsing the internet.

I see nothing in most car policies that would differ here from the UK

website_dude

I think it would be really unfair if i was to get into trouble over the nct. Its not like my car was unsafe. It is well taken care of and the hid lights are were professionally installed and are not the type to blind you. Besides, it was afternoon when the accident happened.

John_Rambo

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye....
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ????
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ????
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ????

Because one of them is twenty and they both are car enthusiasts. Car enthusiasts don't use google maps to navigate, they use their cars. Just like astonouts don't use telescopes! This was fairly well explained in the OP. It's not illegal.

website_dude, If your fairly fit and strong the injuries will heal within weeks, a bit like a rugby player! But, they may linger. Along with the car damage, I can't see this being paid by a wallet.

Whatever way this works out, I'd imagine you're covered, you may however be getting the cold shoulder from your cousin and his friend for doing this favour. Have to feel sorry for the twenty year old on the week of his new job.

With a bit of luck your injuries are just muscle sore and someone can get your car back to the way it was without too much €€€ and without involving the insurance company, however, if you feel you're being short changed, you have no choice but to call the insurers.

Awkward situation, I'd say you "dropped the anchors for no reason" in the local pub and you're brake lights weren't working!!

dougie-lampkin

website_dude wrote: »

So i get to keep the car? That's good news if it can be fixed. But what if the repair bill is like 2 grand? The accident wasnt my fault. Can i not insist it be paid and not written off for 300?

No? If the repairs cost more than what you could replace the Colt with like-for-like, then you'll be paid enough to replace the Colt. If his insurance company decides a '99 Colt with no NCT is worth €300, they'll offer you €300. In this case, they'll take the car. You can buy it off them for scrap value, which is maybe €100. So, to keep the car, they'd give you €200.

You can't tell them it's worth €10,000 to you, so you'd rather have €10,000. That doesn't make much sense. My car is worth a lot to me, but at the end of the day, to replace it it's only worth the same as any other model of that year in a similar condition.

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

Why would a third party's insurance nail him on no NCT? The OP could be after 25 pints, doing 200 km/h with no tax and test, but they'll still pay out if he's not at fault. An NCT is only valid on the day it's carried out, so why would it have an impact on his liability? It does get factored into the value of the car when paying out, as a car with NCT is going to be more valuable than one without.

Sure it's illegal to have a car on the road without tax, why would that make you any more liable in an accident? Will the tax make your car safer or something?

slimjimmc

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct, even if it has to go to the MIBI, however insurance can be invalidated for one or other or both under the No NCT/No Tyres or other reasons
http://www.1000ventures.com/ads/cars_insurance_invalidate_5ways.html



I see nothing in most car policies that would differ here from the UK

Are you saying that most insurance policies have a clause saying they will not pay third party claims if the either party's car does not have an NCT?

This is certainly not the case with my AXA policy, heck doesn't even mention NCT; only that the car be maintained in a road worthy condition and even then that only affects me claiming against my own policy.

Let's put this myth to bed.
There is a legal liability to 3rd parties which insurers cannot clause out, so your insurance must pay out 3rd party claims regardless. Even if you slammed into a driver who is over the limit that does not make less liable for their injuries. Clauses such as your UK examples don't allow your insurer to avoid or reduce the 3rd party claim. They will pay the full claim agreed with the other party and then (probably) sue you personally to recover what they legally had to pay out.

Spook_ie

slimjimmc wrote: »

Are you saying that most insurance policies have a clause saying they will not pay third party claims if the either party's car does not have an NCT?

This is certainly not the case with my AXA policy, heck doesn't even mention NCT; only that the car be maintained in a road worthy condition and even then that only affects me claiming against my own policy.

Let's put this myth to bed.
There is a legal liability to 3rd parties which insurers cannot clause out, so your insurance must pay out 3rd party claims regardless. Even if you slammed into a driver who is over the limit that does not make less liable for their injuries. Clauses such as your UK examples don't allow your insurer to avoid or reduce the 3rd party claim. They will pay the full claim agreed with the other party and then (probably) sue you personally to recover what they legally had to pay out.

No what I'm saying is that having no NCT could invalidate his insurance and having bald tyres could invalidate the other drivers insurance, therefore two uninsured vehicles would resilt in 3rd party injury claims being settled by the MIBI and any repairs/damages claims to physical property would be the subject of a court case

challengemaster

Spook_ie wrote: »

No what I'm saying is that having no NCT could invalidate his insurance and having bald tyres could invalidate the other drivers insurance, therefore two uninsured vehicles would resilt in 3rd party injury claims being settled by the MIBI and any repairs/damages claims to physical property would be the subject of a court case

There is no invalidation of insurance.

It wouldn't even matter if the OP had no insurance, he's not at fault so it doesn't matter.

bald tyres - they still can't invalidate the insurance. They may try recoup costs from the other driver via legal routes due to that, but they can't say "we're not paying". It doesn't work like that.

oldyouth

My view on it would be;

1)The TP will get paid for the damage to his car, though the wrongdoers insurance may haggle on the pre-accident value of it as it had no NCT However, they cannot walk away from it
2) The TP's medical expenses will get paid in full.

corktina

website_dude wrote: »

Seems unfair if their customer caused the damage. But thanks again. I keep thinking about the car and not myself, so i am thinking the medical bills might not be high, but could be ongoing and in that sense it makes perfect sense to go through the insurance company. I will ring my insurer tomorrow and ask about it. I will also have to get some physio and something stronger for the pain so i can work. I can use my fiances car while mine is off the road.

whilst the car us worth loads to you, it is only worth a certain amount in actual fact and that is all you can expect the Insurance to pay out. If the repairs will cost more than the car is worth, they will in effect compensate you to the tune of buying another of the same model and year.

djimi

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

The lack of NCT would only be an issue if it was proven that it was a contributing factor to the incident. If the other parties insurer has accepted 100% liability then they have accepted that the OP is in no way at fault, and therefore the lack of NCT is not an issue.

Had the OPs car been a fail dangerous then it might be different, but there isnt a chance that a car that failed on emissions and headlights is going to have either of those issued raised when they have been hit from behind.

djimi

corktina wrote: »

whilst the car us worth loads to you, it is only worth a certain amount in actual fact and that is all you can expect the Insurance to pay out. If the repairs will cost more than the car is worth, they will in effect compensate you to the tune of buying another of the same model and year.

What about if the modifications had been declared? I know things like a respray are not going to be counted, but lets say that a car that was worth a grand had a bodykit and tires that were worth a grand each, and they had all been declared to the insurer, would the value of the car then stand at €3k rather than the €1k that the car would be worth as stock?

Caliden

OP, have you notified the other lad's/your insurance yet?

It's been a week since the accident and the longer you wait the worse it looks for you (fraud).

endacl

djimi wrote: »

What about if the modifications had been declared? I know things like a respray are not going to be counted, but lets say that a car that was worth a grand had a bodykit and tires that were worth a grand each, and they had all been declared to the insurer, would the value of the car then stand at €3k rather than the €1k that the car would be worth as stock?

No. The car is still just the car. It's the owners choice to attach a load of non-factory tat/really cool mods to it. Think about it. The tyres for example? They're consumables. If I came on here saying saying I'd been crashed into and should be able to claim an extra 200 from insurance because I'd only put new tyres on last week, I'd be laughed out of the forum.

djimi

endacl wrote: »

No. The car is still just the car. It's the owners choice to attach a load of non-factory tat/really cool mods to it. Think about it. The tyres for example? They're consumables. If I came on here saying saying I'd been crashed into and should be able to claim an extra 200 from insurance because I'd only put new tyres on last week, I'd be laughed out of the forum.

A body kit isnt consumable though.

My point is that the owner of the car has changed the basic car and has changed the value of the car. Assuming all modifications have been declared and approved by the insurer then why should they not be taken into account?

Or is it simply not possible to insure the car that you are actually driving, as opposed to the base model that is written into a book somewhere?

corktina

djimi wrote: »

What about if the modifications had been declared? I know things like a respray are not going to be counted, but lets say that a car that was worth a grand had a bodykit and tires that were worth a grand each, and they had all been declared to the insurer, would the value of the car then stand at €3k rather than the €1k that the car would be worth as stock?

I guess he could have got a specialised agreed-value policy like you could get on a Classic. Bit late now though