Friends cousin wrecked my car. No nct

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

endacl

djimi wrote: »

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?

They haven't really changed the value of the car though. They just hung some expensive stuff from it. Mods aren't approved by the insurer as being part of the car. They're approved an not affecting the performance of the car.

djimi

endacl wrote: »

They haven't really changed the value of the car though. They just hung some expensive stuff from it. Mods aren't approved by the insurer as being part of the car. They're approved an not affecting the performance of the car.

Of course modifications can change the value of the car. Im not talking about tacking on some rubbish from Halfords; Im talking about a car that is done properly. There are plenty of examples of modified cars out there where their value is much higher than the stock models would be worth. Surely there is a way for those cars to be insured for their true value rather than what they would be worth as stock?

endacl

djimi wrote: »

Of course modifications can change the value of the car. Im not talking about tacking on some rubbish from Halfords; Im talking about a car that is done properly. There are plenty of examples of modified cars out there where their value is much higher than the stock models would be worth. Surely there is a way for those cars to be insured for their true value rather than what they would be worth as stock?

There is, as corktina posted. Does this sound like one of those cars though? Or more like a standard yoke with some stuff stuck onto it*?


* no offence intended, OP!

Cee-Jay-Cee

I would put it through his insurance. He's saying he'll pay for it but once you accept that and fix your own car then there's no obligation on him to pay you's single penny and you'll have to resort to a civil action to get your money which will end up costing you money too.

You were injured and you are entitled to compensation for that too as well as all medical and physio needs. Claim on his insurance, that's why we pay insurance, so that we are not out if pocket for something that's not our fault.

Your lack of NCT has no bearing on any claim. He rear ended up which means he is 100% liable and at fault.

H3llR4iser

djimi wrote: »

Of course modifications can change the value of the car. Im not talking about tacking on some rubbish from Halfords; Im talking about a car that is done properly. There are plenty of examples of modified cars out there where their value is much higher than the stock models would be worth. Surely there is a way for those cars to be insured for their true value rather than what they would be worth as stock?

Well if anything, I would say that in most cases mods end up lowering the value of the car, regardless of what the owner/modder thinks. In the specific case of bodykits, they aren't really much more than a few holes drilled in the car's original panels and some glue stuck here and there.

Therefore a car with a bodykit is, in terms of market value, just a standard car riddled with holes. Hardly worth more than a non-molested one regardless of the cost of the add-on.

The only exception I can think of would be a car in full race trim with the modifications carried out by a professional racing team rather than "Jimmy's motorsports garage" down the corner. I'm talking modifications that, in most cases, cause the car to lose its roadworthiness and to be usable only on track.

As for the original post, better claim from your friend's cousin insurance, both for you and for him; "Sh1it happens" is the real reason we have insurances - as some posters already said, it's not really a matter of sneaking past the checkpoints.

slimjimmc

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

Sect 5 of SI 14/1962 specifically prohibits an insurer from refusing liability to 3rd parties for certain conditions. One of those prohibited conditions is the state of the vehicle (see First Schedule). There are amendments which prohibit using age and theft as a condition but I see no amendment that removes this condition.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/si/0014.html

5.—(1) In this article " prohibited condition " means every condition, restriction or limitation on the liability of the insurer or guarantor under an approved policy of insurance or an approved guarantee which comes within any of the classes specified in the First Schedule to these Regulations or any other condition, restriction or limitation which has substantially the same effect as a condition, restriction or limitation which is so specified.

(2) There shall not be inserted in an approved policy of insurance or an approved guarantee any condition, restriction or limitation on the liability of the insurer or guarantor which affects the right of any person, except the person to whom the policy or guarantee was issued or an excepted person, to recover by virtue of the policy or guarantee an amount under section 76 of the act or which could have the effect of reducing the amount which such a person could so recover, if such condition, restriction or limitation is a prohibited condition.

(3) Any condition under which the existence or the amount of the liability of the insurer or guarantor depends on—

(a) the weight, construction, equipment, maintenance or state of repair of a vehicle the use of which is to be covered,

website_dude

So an update is i have physio booked and the lady doing it is very reasonable on cost. My injuries have got worse and the young lad is gone quiet. I got his insurance info from his dad and doctor upped my drugs. He told his old man that i slammed on the brakes for no reason, but the old man didnt seem to believe that story.

I informed my insurer but havent asked them to claim just yet. I wanted to give the young lad a chance, but cant reach him at all today and he is not at work.

My car is not a halfords tack on job. Its not tacky or boy racerish. Its just had a lot of premium upgrades and i had the whole thing stripped and got a custom paint job. All changes delared but not insured individually. Some parts would be transferable if i got another colt, but i will be keeping the one i have. Thanks for the help lads.

mloc123

website_dude wrote: »

So an update is i have physio booked and the lady doing it is very reasonable on cost. My injuries have got worse and the young lad is gone quiet. I got his insurance info from his dad and doctor upped my drugs. He told his old man that i slammed on the brakes for no reason, but the old man didnt seem to believe that story.

I informed my insurer but havent asked them to claim just yet. I wanted to give the young lad a chance, but cant reach him at all today and he is not at work.

My car is not a halfords tack on job. Its not tacky or boy racerish. Its just had a lot of premium upgrades and i had the whole thing stripped and got a custom paint job. All changes delared but not insured individually. Some parts would be transferable if i got another colt, but i will be keeping the one i have. Thanks for the help lads.

Unrelated to any of this, have you any pictures of the car.. just out of interest.

Caliden

website_dude wrote: »

So an update is i have physio booked and the lady doing it is very reasonable on cost. My injuries have got worse and the young lad is gone quiet. I got his insurance info from his dad and doctor upped my drugs. He told his old man that i slammed on the brakes for no reason, but the old man didnt seem to believe that story.

I informed my insurer but havent asked them to claim just yet. I wanted to give the young lad a chance, but cant reach him at all today and he is not at work.

My car is not a halfords tack on job. Its not tacky or boy racerish. Its just had a lot of premium upgrades and i had the whole thing stripped and got a custom paint job. All changes delared but not insured individually. Some parts would be transferable if i got another colt, but i will be keeping the one i have. Thanks for the help lads.

If the young lad he already told his oul fella lies and isn't answering his phone you're setting yourself up for a debt that won't be paid.

I know you'd like to think everyone in the world is honest and will pay their debts but there are people who won't and they would happily see you be out of pocket than pay for it themselves.

For the love of God, use your head and not your heart and pursue a claim via his insurance. If your injuries are worse than initially thought you could be in pain for years to come (worst case scenario).

endacl

Caliden wrote: »

If the young lad he already told his oul fella lies and isn't answering his phone you're setting yourself up for a debt that won't be paid.

I know you'd like to think everyone in the world is honest and will pay their debts but there are people who won't and they would happily see you be out of pocket than pay for it themselves.

For the love of God, use your head and not your heart and pursue a claim via his insurance. If your injuries are worse than initially thought you could be in pain for years to come (worst case scenario).

^^
This.

For your own sake. You don't want to be back here in 6 months for one of those 'we told you so' threads.

jimgoose

website_dude wrote: »

...I informed my insurer but havent asked them to claim just yet...

Press the "Go" button. Press it now.

djimi

website_dude wrote: »

I informed my insurer but havent asked them to claim just yet. I wanted to give the young lad a chance, but cant reach him at all today and he is not at work.

A chance for what exactly? You have injuries, he wont be paying this out of his own pocket, end of story. Get onto the insurance company today and let them start the process. The longer you leave it the messier it gets.

endacl

djimi wrote: »

A chance for what exactly? You have injuries, he wont be paying this out of his own pocket, end of story. Get onto the insurance company today and let them start the process. The longer you leave it the messier it gets.

And get it recorded ASAP with the local guards. You'll need that for the personal injuries side of the claim.

Just in case somebody else records the incident first, claiming that some lunatic in a colt with no nct jammed on for no reason.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

And get it recorded ASAP with the local guards. You'll need that for the personal injuries side of the claim.

Just in case somebody else records the incident first, claiming that some lunatic in a colt with no nct jammed on for no reason.

Edit: get your GP to refer you for an X-ray now too. In the case of you claiming for soft tissue damage, this will be insisted on down the line. You might as well get it done now. I had mine done almost right months after a nasty crash. I was left with a wedged vertebra that they could identify from the X-ray, but could do nothing about by that time. For your own sake, give your doctors and Physio as much info to work with as possible in terms of your own treatment.

Don't be doing this in the cheap as a favour to the numpty whose fault this was. Look after your own health, never mind the feckin' car.

jimb43

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

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.



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?

are you for real?? an insurance company is designed to take your money of you , and when you make a claim, they do every effin thing in the world not to pay you
so if you are driving a car without , insurance , tax or nct "you can forget it mate ", whether its your fault or not . YOU haven't a leg to stand on, and what if he killed someone( i know he never like) but if he killed someone they wouldn't get a penny
get real will ya

corktina

total tosh.

endacl

corktina wrote: »

total tosh.

Absolutely. I sometimes think people should have to take a short test to get a boards membership....

Pro Hoc Vice

jimb43 wrote: »

are you for real?? an insurance company is designed to take your money of you , and when you make a claim, they do every effin thing in the world not to pay you
so if you are driving a car without , insurance , tax or nct "you can forget it mate ", whether its your fault or not . YOU haven't a leg to stand on, and what if he killed someone( i know he never like) but if he killed someone they wouldn't get a penny
get real will ya

So you are saying if a person is uninsured and cause the death or injury to another that injured person will get no money. If that's what you are saying its 100% incorrect.

website_dude

Going to put claim in. His insurer called me. They know he was at fault

mgbgt1978

John_Rambo wrote: »

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.

"car enthusiasts"...is that a new term for Boy Racers???;)

I certainly never mentioned anything about the legality of this, so why bring it up ?

As for the OP, putting in a claim is the only way to get compensated for this

website_dude

endacl wrote: »

And get it recorded ASAP with the local guards. You'll need that for the personal injuries side of the claim.

Just in case somebody else records the incident first, claiming that some lunatic in a colt with no nct jammed on for no reason.

Is this still necessary?

Spook_ie

website_dude wrote: »

Is this still necessary?

If claiming injuries were caused then according to http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_accidents.html yes at least one of you should have reported it

What are my legal obligations?

Your legal obligations, if you are involved in a motor accident, are contained in Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended by Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. You must stop your car and remain at the scene of the accident for a reasonable time.

If a Garda is present at the scene of the accident you must give, when requested:

Your name and address
The address where your car is kept
The name and address of the car owner
The car's registration number
Motor insurance details (including expiry date of the policy)

If there is no Garda present you must, when requested, give this information to:

The injured person where a person has been injured (or someone asking on the person’s behalf).
To the owner where property has been damaged (or someone asking on the owner’s behalf).

If none of these are present the information should be given to some independent person who was present when the accident occurred.

If there is no Garda present, the accident must be reported as soon as possible to a Garda who is nearby or at a Garda station. This can be done by the persons, if any, to whom you gave the information. If they are not in a position to do so, you must report the accident.

quadrifoglio verde

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

"car enthusiasts"...is that a new term for Boy Racers???;)

That depends on what you see as a boy racer and what you see as a car enthusiast?

A car enthusiast will generally care about its appearance, will meticulously clean it, will service it before its due (with the best oil, filters, sparks) and may carry out modifications to numerous parts of the car in order to improve its performance, including upgrading the suspension to improve handling, upgrading the brakes and brake lines and when all thats done may then look at engine mods. Some may put on a body kit, most won't. Those who do, will mainly choose a body kit that was available from the factory.
If parts need replacing, they'll replace them with OEM parts as opposed to Cu.ntin hazel, tyres will be premium tyres like bridgestone, continental etc instead of triangles or sunnys. They'll be active in owners clubs and know a lot of history about the marque that they're enthusiastic about.
They generally drive in a relaxed environment for pleasure as opposed to necessity. You'll rarely find more them with passengers on these drives and if they are, it'll be a fellow car enthusiast.

Boy racers on the other hand can be found in every town in this country, going around in 1.4 civics with type R badges, fart cannons and the definition of mutton dressed as lamb. You'll normally find a non factory body kit got from the local halfords, a sound system that wouldn't be found in a night club its that loud, the car will usually be abused, rarely serviced if at all, wheels kerned and will have seen more than its fair share of telephone poles, hedges and ditches.
You'll usually see the car laden down with 3 or more mates in the back smoking hash or cigarettes. The rear brakes will normally be drums and may be painted in some random colour, because its cool.
Other cars that fall into this category include, starlets made out to be glanzas, audi A4s made out to be rs4's, 316s imitating m3's, passats and boras with bits of an audi tacked on, colts, 1.4 civics, 1.3 lancers, opel corsas, fiestas, golfs, peugot 306's and imprezza's that look like a wrx but is in fact running with drums on the back.

Honda Civic type R's, Mitsubishi Evo's, integras, imprezza wrx, 180sx, 200 sx and s15s as well as other high performance JDM cars are not owned by boy racers.

djimi

Boy racer is a dangerous term that generally tends to see all of us who own performance cars lumped in with the little dickheads who race their Starlets around towns in the middle of the night.

Supergurrier

Feckin boy racers

Spook_ie

Which ones don't have NCTs or tread on their tyres? BoyRacers or Enthusiasts

Cee-Jay-Cee

website_dude wrote: »

Going to put claim in. His insurer called me. They know he was at fault

All rear end collisions are 100% the fault of the driver doing the rear ending. There is no grey area. Put your claim in for injuries, medical costs and car replacement. It's claim on his insurance no matter how little or large your claim is so get your full costs and compensation regardless of the other driver (who sounds like a little boy racer prick who deserves a good slap to help him grow up and accept his responsibilities)

quadrifoglio verde

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which ones don't have NCTs or tread on their tyres? BoyRacers or Enthusiasts

Boy racers/idiots

You don't need to be a boy racer to drive with bald tyres or have no nct

Toyotafanboi

djimi wrote: »

Boy racer is a dangerous term that generally tends to see all of us who own performance cars lumped in with the little dickheads who race their Starlets around towns in the middle of the night.

whoa whoa whoa, just like we won't call all performance car owners boy racers, we won't call all starlet owners dickheads :pac:

pablo128

Apologies in advance for skipping through the thread.
First of all, as a wise man once said, The insurance company has a hell of a lot more money than your cousin. He pays them yearly for a reason, so let them sort it out.
Next up is the car. Even if it's an economic write-off, you can absolutely insist on having it repaired if you want.

And finally the bad news. we have an Auris van in work. It was only a year old when one of the reps ran into the back of someone, pushing that car into another one. The assessor came out, took one look at the 2 bald front tyres, and laughed and walked away. It's the first thing they look at apparently. The insurance company refused to pay out, and the job had to pay for the repairs on all 3 vehicles.

Atlantic Dawn

pablo128 wrote: »

Apologies in advance for skipping through the thread.
First of all, as a wise man once said, The insurance company has a hell of a lot more money than your cousin. He pays them yearly for a reason, so let them sort it out.
Next up is the car. Even if it's an economic write-off, you can absolutely insist on having it repaired if you want.

And finally the bad news. we have an Auris van in work. It was only a year old when one of the reps ran into the back of someone, pushing that car into another one. The assessor came out, took one look at the 2 bald front tyres, and laughed and walked away. It's the first thing they look at apparently. The insurance company refused to pay out, and the job had to pay for the repairs on all 3 vehicles.

They would have had to pay out to the person they hit regardless if the tyres were worn down to the rims on the wheels. If there was any question on the roadworthyness of the car they could perhaps sue the owners later down the road but would have to pay out the victim straight away.

pablo128

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

They would have had to pay out to the person they hit regardless if the tyres were worn down to the rims on the wheels. If there was any question on the roadworthyness of the car they could perhaps sue the owners later down the road but would have to pay out the victim straight away.

Maybe it would work out better for a private individual, in that the insurance company might not pursue the individual through the courts if there's a slim chance of geting any return. But I do know that our place had to pay for the repairs themselves. It probably worked out better long term not to have a big claim recorded.

wonski

pablo128 wrote: »

Next up is the car. Even if it's an economic write-off, you can absolutely insist on having it repaired if you want.

No, you can't.

You can keep the car and fix it yourself if you feel it makes sense to you, but there is no chance they will pay the panel beater to fix it.

ba_barabus

Cam I ask the obvious? How did you spend so much on a Colt?

website_dude

ba_barabus wrote: »

Cam I ask the obvious? How did you spend so much on a Colt?

mentioned earlier. Sentimental car and absolutely everything needed doing, so when i took possession of it I just threw loadsa cash that i had plenty of at the time on it. New mitsi bits are not cheap and i never use second hand parts. The car was better than brand new.

jimb43

I carnt understand half you lot on here , one says it don't matter if you drive around pissed at 200kph , no tax no insurance and the insurance company will pay out (BOLLOX)

one says third party get paid out no matter what. (BOLLOX)

everyone has there opinion , not everyones right ! but last time i heard your not allowed to drive a car on the road , unless your taxed tested, and insured , ( NO excuses )

don't drink and drive , and certainly dont drive at 200 kph,

AS soon as the insurance company who is doing the paying out is concerned (find out that the colt had no NCT its game over , as the car should not have been on the road . It was not legally on the road , thats the best thing in the world for them to void any claim,

And most of all , i will say again i might be wrong but its my opinion and it makes common sense. we shall see

guil

jimb43 wrote: »

I carnt understand half you lot on here , one says it don't matter if you drive around pissed at 200kph , no tax no insurance and the insurance company will pay out (BOLLOX)

one says third party get paid out no matter what. (BOLLOX)

everyone has there opinion , not everyones right ! but last time i heard your not allowed to drive a car on the road , unless your taxed tested, and insured , ( NO excuses )

don't drink and drive , and certainly dont drive at 200 kph,

AS soon as the insurance company who is doing the paying out is concerned (find out that the colt had no NCT its game over , as the car should not have been on the road . It was not legally on the road , thats the best thing in the world for them to void any claim,

And most of all , i will say again i might be wrong but its my opinion and it makes common sense. we shall see

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it but the law states all insurance policies have to cover third party claims, they can't void them.

djimi

jimb43 wrote: »

I carnt understand half you lot on here , one says it don't matter if you drive around pissed at 200kph , no tax no insurance and the insurance company will pay out (BOLLOX)

one says third party get paid out no matter what. (BOLLOX)

everyone has there opinion , not everyones right ! but last time i heard your not allowed to drive a car on the road , unless your taxed tested, and insured , ( NO excuses )

don't drink and drive , and certainly dont drive at 200 kph,

AS soon as the insurance company who is doing the paying out is concerned (find out that the colt had no NCT its game over , as the car should not have been on the road . It was not legally on the road , thats the best thing in the world for them to void any claim,

And most of all , i will say again i might be wrong but its my opinion and it makes common sense. we shall see

If someone is driving at 200km/h then chances are their speed would be seen as a contributory factor to the incident and the other parties insurer will not be accepting liability.

If Im pissed in a car that has no tax, insurance or NCT, and Im sat at a red light when someone ploughs through the back of me, then they will still be found to be at fault. I may be prosecuted for the offenses that I have committed, but that is a separate matter and does not change the fact that at the moment of the incident, I am 100% not at fault.

Once an insurer accepts that their customer is liable for an incident, the rest becomes immaterial and they must pay out third party claims.

Pro Hoc Vice

jimb43 wrote: »

I carnt understand half you lot on here , one says it don't matter if you drive around pissed at 200kph , no tax no insurance and the insurance company will pay out (BOLLOX)

one says third party get paid out no matter what. (BOLLOX)

everyone has there opinion , not everyones right ! but last time i heard your not allowed to drive a car on the road , unless your taxed tested, and insured , ( NO excuses )

don't drink and drive , and certainly dont drive at 200 kph,

AS soon as the insurance company who is doing the paying out is concerned (find out that the colt had no NCT its game over , as the car should not have been on the road . It was not legally on the road , thats the best thing in the world for them to void any claim,

And most of all , i will say again i might be wrong but its my opinion and it makes common sense. we shall see

It's not bollox as you put it it the law. If a driver drives uninsured and injuries a third party then a the MIBI will cover the claim, if for any reasons the insurances is void the insurance company must provide indemnity for any third party. Driving at 200kph can not invalidate third party cover, nor can not having a licence. So the your opinion does not take into account innocent third parties and it is them the law protects. A person doing anything you say can of course be prosecuted but a innocent third party should not suffer.

BTW my opinion is based on 10 years of practice in amongst other areas Road Traffic.

jca

endacl wrote: »

Absolutely. I sometimes think people should have to take a short test to get a boards membership....

Ban ghetto speak too..