Parked car rear ended, no nct or tax

lenoude

Hey guys, looking for some advice.

Have my car parked on a main road, hasn't been driven since February because I've had no need to use it.
The NCT and tax went out on it in April, was at home recovering from an injury so kinda outta sight out of mind situation.
Last night it seems that someone rear ended the car parked behind me, at some speed by the looks of it. It seems to be a hit and run.

So basically, what would my next move be? To be honest I was going to sell it after the insurance ran out as I don't really have a need for it. Its a good car and I was actually going to get it taxed and NCT'd this coming month, typical!

Thanks

kona

Call the scrapyard.

CiniO

So someone rear ended the car parked behind you, and this caused that car to move forward and hit your car?
Is my understanding correct?

Has person who did hit and run been identified?

edburg

Edit: mis read that, you should be able to claim on car behind car insurance, presuming its insured, as although that car was not at fault it is the one that hit yours.

If its not insured then its bit of tough monkeys

lenoude

Like it's an 06 Fiesta, I'm hoping it's not fit for the scrap yard.
Yeah the car behind me seems to have been hit and that ran into mine then. I seen it was taxed but didn't see the insurance.

I just had a look and the bumper got the worst of it, it seems the boot door seems off so I'm afraid to open it in case I can't get it closed.

lenoude

Forgot to say that no no one identified, no details left either.

lenoude

lenoude wrote: »

Like it's an 06 Fiesta, I'm hoping it's not fit for the scrap yard.
Yeah the car behind me seems to have been hit and that ran into mine then. I seen it was taxed but didn't see the insurance.

I just had a look and the bumper got the worst of it, it seems the boot door seems off so I'm afraid to open it in case I can't get it closed.

Just checked and it's insured.

CiniO

If you can identify the car which you were hit by directly (and assuming from what you're saying you can), then I would look into claiming from him.
If he is insured, but no disc, contact garda to get his details.
If he is not insured, you'll have to claim from mibi as from uninsured driver.

lenoude

CiniO wrote: »

If you can identify the car which you were hit by directly (and assuming from what you're saying you can), then I would look into claiming from him.
If he is insured, but no disc, contact garda to get his details.
If he is not insured, you'll have to claim from mibi as from uninsured driver.

Yeah the car is basically still parked behind me. His disc is in the window but the last few policy numbers are covered by the disc.
Was going to knock around the houses tomorrow to see if I can find the owner, just to let him know? I don't want to go behind his back.

Also do I tell my insurance company what's happened?

Sorry, just a bit clueless and font want to screw anyone over.

leonffrench

Would the owner of the parked car that hit op's car really be liable for this seeing as it was no fault of their own?

Tigger

leonffrench wrote: »

Would the owner of the parked car that hit op's car really be liable for this seeing as it was no fault of their own?

Wouldn't surprise me
In traffic the middle car pays the car in front and then claims from the car behind Iirc

CiniO

leonffrench wrote: »

Would the owner of the parked car that hit op's car really be liable for this seeing as it was no fault of their own?

they would be responsible for OP's damage even if it's not their fault, but normally they could recoup that cost from person who hit them (meaning that their insurance premium won't be affected).
Unfortunately for them, in this case they don't really have anyone to claim from, as person who did damage run away.

Pkiernan

CiniO wrote: »

they would be responsible for OP's damage even if it's not their fault, but normally they could recoup that cost from person who hit them (meaning that their insurance premium won't be affected).
Unfortunately for them, in this case they don't really have anyone to claim from, as person who did damage run away.

The owner of the parked car is not responsible in this case.

savagethegoat

report the incident to the Gards, give your Ins Co the details, leave them sort it out.

endagibson

Would it not be better to keep the guards out of it if possible since his car was on a public road with no tax or NCT?

hognef

CiniO wrote: »

they would be responsible for OP's damage even if it's not their fault, but normally they could recoup that cost from person who hit them (meaning that their insurance premium won't be affected).
Unfortunately for them, in this case they don't really have anyone to claim from, as person who did damage run away.

Surely there's no way that owner of the car behind can actually be liable? Sounds absolutely bonkers if that's right. Doesn't there at least have to be some element of fault on their part?

monkeynuz

Does it make a difference that the car is on a road with no nct and tax?

wally79

I would think the piece about claiming off the person behind only applies in traffic where you're technically supposed to leave enough room to allow for such things

Conjecture only

Amanda.ie

lenoude wrote: »

Hey guys, looking for some advice.

Have my car parked on a main road, hasn't been driven since February because I've had no need to use it.
The NCT and tax went out on it in April, was at home recovering from an injury so kinda outta sight out of mind situation.
Last night it seems that someone rear ended the car parked behind me, at some speed by the looks of it. It seems to be a hit and run.

So basically, what would my next move be? To be honest I was going to sell it after the insurance ran out as I don't really have a need for it. Its a good car and I was actually going to get it taxed and NCT'd this coming month, typical!

Thanks

Parked on a public road with no Tax or NCT, if I were you I would be saying nothing. Fix your car and let it go. Why are you paying insurance?

lenoude

Amanda.ie wrote: »

Parked on a public road with no Tax or NCT, if I were you I would be saying nothing. Fix your car and let it go. Why are you paying insurance?

There's no drive or anywhere else to park it so unfortunately it was the only option. I'm paying the installments on it, unfortunately the plan was to not let the tax or NCT lapse but due to unforeseen circumstances that's what happened.

Amanda.ie

lenoude wrote: »

There's no drive or anywhere else to park it so unfortunately it was the only option. I'm paying the installments on it, unfortunately the plan was to not let the tax or NCT lapse but due to unforeseen circumstances that's what happened.

You can be fined for this and you car towed away.

lenoude

Amanda.ie wrote: »

You can be fined for this and you car towed away.

I'm aware of that, might just scrap it!

Amanda.ie

lenoude wrote: »

I'm aware of that, might just scrap it!

Are you keeping the insurance for your No claims bonus?

Does the other owner know his car hit yours?

How much damage is there?

lenoude

Amanda.ie wrote: »

Are you keeping the insurance for your No claims bonus?

Does the other owner know his car hit yours?

How much damage is there?

There was an element of that, also I was going to use the car for around Xmas when visiting family and friends, obviously taxed and NCT'D.

I'm not sure if they're aware, the car doesn't seem to have been moved.

Well their car seems to be much worse obviously, the right rear of the car took the impact. I'd say it would be wrote off really because it wouldn't be worth the work for the year it is.

CiniO

Pkiernan wrote: »

The owner of the parked car is not responsible in this case.

He is.
OP got hit by his car, so it's car owner's responsiblity.

monkeynuz

CiniO wrote: »

He is.
OP got hit by his car, so it's car owner's responsiblity.

Even if the car is illegal on the public highway?

CardinalJ

The car behind you has zero responsibility here. Don't know where anyones going with this.

The car behind OP was parked, stationary, unoccupied and not being driven.... How anyone can come to the conclusion that the owner of that car is liable/neglegent for being crashed into is beyond me.

Amanda.ie

CiniO wrote: »

He is.
OP got hit by his car, so it's car owner's responsiblity.

No. not unless the car owner was careless and left the handbrake off and his car rolled into the car ahead, which did not happen here.

peteb2

Amanda.ie wrote:

No. not unless the car owner was careless and left the handbrake off and his car rolled into the car ahead, which did not happen here.

How do you figure that? The car that hit his did the damage and he pursues him. It doesn't matter whether someone pushed it into it. He can't make a claim against first party as there was no direct damage caused.

Amanda.ie

peteb2 wrote: »

How do you figure that? The car that hit his did the damage and he pursues him. It doesn't matter whether someone pushed it into it. He can't make a claim against first party as there was no direct damage caused.

Both cars are parked so neither are at fault IMO. It's the offending veh which left the scene that is at fault.

This link is long and has lots going on but it might help.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUl6G9yKHPAhXqAMAKHVUjClYQFgguMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insurancehotline.com%2Fat-fault-rules%2F&usg=AFQjCNG6Ouu3pYkJ0jUV1v0mu2l2nyECRA

CiniO

Amanda.ie wrote: »

Both cars are parked so neither are at fault IMO. It's the offending veh which left the scene that is at fault.

This link is long and has lots going on but it might help.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUl6G9yKHPAhXqAMAKHVUjClYQFgguMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insurancehotline.com%2Fat-fault-rules%2F&usg=AFQjCNG6Ouu3pYkJ0jUV1v0mu2l2nyECRA

That's a link to american site - not relevant here.

OP's car was hit by another parked car (let's call it car .
OP knows that. It's probably obvious looking at damage of both vehicles.
OP doesn't really know what happened that car B moved, as he haven't seen it, and it's pretty much none of his business. It was car B that hit him, and owner of car B is liable to damage caused to OP.
On the other hand, car B was hit by car C, and indeed car B owner should look for compensation for damage to car B, as well as cost of damage caused to car A (which car B owner has to pay) from driver of car C.

So procedure is simple. Car A owners claims from car B insurance. And Car B owner claims from car C insurance for own damage and cost of claim on car A.

Probalem here is that no one knows who car C driver or owner is, but that's a problem of car B owner, not OP.

Vic_08

edburg wrote: »

Edit: mis read that, you should be able to claim on car behind car insurance, presuming its insured, as although that car was not at fault it is the one that hit yours.

That is not the way it works.

OP has no claim from the owner of the middle car as they were clearly not at fault.

If guilty party is identified/insured claim off them, otherwise MIBI and we can all pay.

Personally I don't think you should be entitled to anything from MIBI, it id paid from those who actually insure their vehicles, nobody who has an uninsured car on the public road should be able to get a cent out of the scheme.

Ignore last paragraph, apologies OP, I misread the initial post.

wonski

Vic_08 wrote: »

Personally I don't think you should be entitled to anything from MIBI, it id paid from those who actually insure their vehicles, nobody who has an uninsured car on the public road should be able to get a cent out of the scheme.

Op actually insured his vehicle

Vic_08

wonski wrote: »

Op actually insured his vehicle

Fair enough.

I misread that as he had let the insurance lapse, not it was going to lapse.

savagethegoat

Amanda.ie wrote: »

Parked on a public road with no Tax or NCT, if I were you I would be saying nothing. Fix your car and let it go. Why are you paying insurance?

the obvious point is that if you approach your Insurance Company , the first thing they'll want is a pulse number. It's one of the perils of parking an untaxed/NCT car on the road.

CiniO

Vic_08 wrote: »

That is not the way it works.

OP has no claim from the owner of the middle car as they were clearly not at fault.

If guilty party is identified/insured claim off them, otherwise MIBI and we can all pay.

Personally I don't think you should be entitled to anything from MIBI, it id paid from those who actually insure their vehicles, nobody who has an uninsured car on the public road should be able to get a cent out of the scheme.

Ignore last paragraph, apologies OP, I misread the initial post.

That's incorrect.
If guilty party is not identified, mibi will pay nothing for property damage. They'd only pay for personal injury in that case.
It's clearly written on their website.

So neither op nor other car owner can't claim off mini.

But as I said above Op can claim from other car owner as he was hit by that car.

Vic_08

CiniO wrote: »

But as I said above Op can claim from other car owner as he was hit by that car.

He can claim all he likes but he has no standing. The other car's owner (the policyholder) is in no way responsible for the damage, he wasn't even there so in what way are you going to say he is at fault? He is is not liable to pay for it.

How is this concept so hard to understand?

challengemaster

Vic_08 wrote: »

He can claim all he likes but he has no standing. The other car's owner (the policyholder) is in no way responsible for the damage, he wasn't even there so in what way are you going to say he is at fault? He is is not liable to pay for it.

How is this concept so hard to understand?

The same way if you were parked at traffic lights and one car gets bumped into another one - the claim goes in a daisy chain. Person A claims off of B who claims off of C (caused the accident). B is not responsible but person A can't directly claim from person C's insurance as the two vehicles never actually touched.

I've seen a family member have to go through this process.

CardinalJ

You can only make a succesful claim from a person who is liable.

An inanimate object that is correctly parked up and has a third party crash into it is in no way liable for the subsequent damage caused, nor is its owner.

OP if you really want to, call the insurers of the car that was parked behind you to put it to bed. If you call into your neighbour to give him a heads up he will tell you where to go, Id imagine.

CardinalJ

challengemaster wrote:

The same way if you were parked at traffic lights and one car gets bumped into another one - the claim goes in a daisy chain. Person A claims off of B who claims off of C (caused the accident). B is not responsible but person A can't directly claim from person C's insurance as the two vehicles never actually touched.

It may have happened due to a dispute in liability or whonhit who first.

In this situation an empty car will never be held liable.

cruizer101

I don't think OP will be able to claim anything, if it was a bin in between would he be able to claim of houseowner, nope. I understand where Cinio is coming from but I think its wrong and the daisy chain only applies if cars are in control of a person.
To be honest OP I don't think anyone here is really going to be able to give you the correct answer, you need ring insurance and ask them. Maybe even try ring your own insurance for advice. Do please update though, I'm curious how it will go.

Vic_08

challengemaster wrote: »

The same way if you were parked at traffic lights and one car gets bumped into another one - the claim goes in a daisy chain. Person A claims off of B who claims off of C (caused the accident). B is not responsible but person A can't directly claim from person C's insurance as the two vehicles never actually touched.

FFS, it's not a game of tag. An insurance claim is a precursor to a law suit for damages, only a party judged responsible for damages can be ruled against and made to pay.

If A hits B hits C ... then as long as B through Z were stationary at the time all claims should go to A as it is only A that acted negligently.


This preposterous nonsense that you're in the clear as long as your car never actually touches the other one is complete bollocks as well. It is perfectly possible for A to cause B and C to collide without A actually touching anyone but still A be the one responsible. For example someone pulling out past a stop line causing an oncoming vehicle to swerve and hit another.

beachhead

The car that rear ended yours is responsible regardless of whether it was unoccupied.The middle car will claim from the hit&run driver.If the front car tries to claim on their own insurance the fact of no nct or road tax will not help.Better to try and claim from the driver of the middle car and hopefully their insurance doesn't become involved.Might be better to walk away.Good luck.Time to look for CCTV,witnesses etc

flatty

The middle car owner could surely claim that the op reversed into him?
This would need a fairly comprehensive accident investigation to try and claim from the other car, which may not be in the op's interests, given that the tax and nct bit will surely then come out.
The OP's statement is, without witnesses, complete conjecture.

savagethegoat

whoever hit the middle car forcing it into the front car is immaterial. The front car was damaged by the middle car hitting it and it doesn't matter how that came to be, he still has a claim against the middle guy. It's a tough call, but that's the way it is.

grogi

peteb2 wrote: »

How do you figure that? The car that hit his did the damage and he pursues him. It doesn't matter whether someone pushed it into it. He can't make a claim against first party as there was no direct damage caused.

It does not matter if there is direct or indirect damage done. There might be no contact at all and claim still be valid.

For instance - if I crash because of someone else dangerous driving. If I went into the ditch to avoid head-on collision, I would still be able to claim from the moron.

hognef

savagethegoat wrote: »

whoever hit the middle car forcing it into the front car is immaterial. The front car was damaged by the middle car hitting it and it doesn't matter how that came to be, he still has a claim against the middle guy. It's a tough call, but that's the way it is.

So if I lift up your car and drop it on top of another car, then the owner of the other car will be able to claim off your insurance?

savagethegoat

hognef wrote: »

So if I lift up your car and drop it on top of another car, then the owner of the other car will be able to claim off your insurance?

is that even possible? Yes of course he could claim, it's why you have insurance, to protect you and others against financial loss in case of an incident.

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

they would be responsible for OP's damage even if it's not their fault, but normally they could recoup that cost from person who hit them (meaning that their insurance premium won't be affected).
Unfortunately for them, in this case they don't really have anyone to claim from, as person who did damage run away.

I think this would be true when in traffic but if the car is parked up, it is hard to see how its owner would be liable for consequential loss as a result of being struck by a third car.

Buffman

flatty wrote: »

The middle car owner could surely claim that the op reversed into him?
This would need a fairly comprehensive accident investigation to try and claim from the other car, which may not be in the op's interests, given that the tax and nct bit will surely then come out.
The OP's statement is, without witnesses, complete conjecture.

This was my first thought aswell, no witnesses or Garda investigation will lead to a 'his word' against 'your word' situation with no proof either way.

The other driver could say his car was already damaged on the rear and the OP reversed into him.

I'd say the only thing an insurance claim by the OP will lead to is hassle. Potentially a lost NCB and getting paid scrap value for the car as it had no NCT, which may be less than his excess. The two insurance companies could argue about responsibility for years, meaning hassle for the OP getting quotes or switching company, and then they may decide 50:50 responsibility.

I've been thinking about what I'd do in that situation and still haven't decided, but first I'd talk to the other car owner and feel them out about what they want to do.

grogi

Buffman wrote: »

I'd say the only thing an insurance claim by the OP will lead to is hassle. Potentially a lost NCB and getting paid scrap value for the car as it had no NCT, which may be less than his excess. The two insurance companies could argue about responsibility for years, meaning hassle for the OP getting quotes or switching company, and then they may decide 50:50 responsibility.

Regardless of who is at fault - this is a beautiful summary of insurance affairs in Ireland... It's a joke...