Insurance Payout

biddyryan75

My boyfriend and i were in a crash there was not NCT or no Tax on the car the tax was out 2 weeks. Will the insurance company pay out we think both cars are a right off thankfully nobody was hurt. Please help,

Barr

If it can be proven it was unsafe eg bald tyres then there could be some contributary negliegence ,

It would all depend on if a defect (which could have been picked up by NCT)contributed to the accident

In the most cases these are very hard to prove and generally have little effect on the outcome of claim.

Tax has nothing to do with the insurance company

Seth Brundle

You haven't said which car was at fault and if you have comprehensive insurance cover.
If you are at fault and you only have basic third party (with or without fire & theft) cover then you will not get anything.
If you have basic cover and the other driver was at fault then you will get paid.
If you have fully comp then you will get paid regardless of blame.

If you are at fault you will also have to pay the excess.

The lack of an NCT could as already said, have an impact on blame.

Anyhow, a driver recently pulled out of a side lane and stopped in front of me - no dispute on liability. About two weeks ago the claim was initiated with the insurance company. Assessor saw it yesterday and has approved payment!

mickdw

Regardless of what you do wrong, example..., no nct, bald tyres etc, the insurance have to honour payment to the other party. They can dispute your part of the claim though. so if crash was your fault and you write off someone elses 100K car, they will always pay for the other car.

Seth Brundle

Thats true mickdw, but if the other driver was at fault then their insurance company can use lack of NCT as a reason for not paying out as much, if at all.

John R

kbannon wrote: »

Thats true mickdw, but if the other driver was at fault then their insurance company can use lack of NCT as a reason for not paying out as much, if at all.

They can try it for sure although lack of NCT in itself means nothing. If they didn't pay and you disputed it all the way to the courts they would have to prove that the claimant was responsible/partially responsible because of a defect.

They will use lack of NCT as a bargaining tool to limit their payout knowing that most people will not challenge them all the way to the courts.

biddyryan75

kbannon wrote: »

You haven't said which car was at fault and if you have comprehensive insurance cover.
If you are at fault and you only have basic third party (with or without fire & theft) cover then you will not get anything.
If you have basic cover and the other driver was at fault then you will get paid.
If you have fully comp then you will get paid regardless of blame.

If you are at fault you will also have to pay the excess.

The lack of an NCT could as already said, have an impact on blame.

Anyhow, a driver recently pulled out of a side lane and stopped in front of me - no dispute on liability. About two weeks ago the claim was initiated with the insurance company. Assessor saw it yesterday and has approved payment!

Thank you for your replys we were at fault he was speeding and we did not see him coming so we turned right we still crossed his path. We have fully comperhansive cover so im hoping they will pay.

meathstevie

Was it your car that didn't have NCT ? If you didn't have NCT when it was needed the insurance company could go as far as only paying the claim against you and even trying to recover that money from you. If they did they would be perfectly within their right to do so because when you sign up to a policy you also undertake to keep the car roadworthy while using it on a public road covered by an insurance policy. If this was on the continent prosecution for no NCT ( or equivalent ) and as a consequence no insurance ( insurance co's take their hands of you the moment they know your car hasn't passed inspection ) would follow as sure as day follows night.

biddyryan75

Yes it was our car that had no NCT. Oh my god this is not looking good?

meathstevie

The potential situation I sketched above is very much the extreme end of possibilities, the chances that they're going to be that harsh are fairly limited.
I wouldn't be too worried just yet. Was there anyone injured in the crash and has the fraternity of the blue flashlight been involved ?

biddyryan75

No nobody was injured thank god i dont understand what you mean about a blue flashlight?

Cookie_Monster

biddyryan75 wrote: »

Tax on the car the tax was out 2 weeks.

Is not having the vechile taxed not a perfect excuse for the insurance company not to pay? After all the car was illegally on the road without tax

Henry Ford III

Your insurer should pay out I'd imagine for any 3rd party damage. Not too sure about your own damage.

Your NCB could be gone however.

Steve

meathstevie wrote: »

....when you sign up to a policy you also undertake to keep the car roadworthy while using it on a public road...

You're correct in saying that however, a NCT is not a certificate of roadworthiness. Read the cert, it says so.
It would be up to the assesor to determine (through an engineers report) that the accident was caused due to a defect in the car which rendered it unroadworthy.

As this seems to be a clear cut case of driver error, there shouldn't be a problem.
If the Guards decide to prosecute a dangerous or careless driving charge, it may affect the insurance as most policies have in the fine print that you must drive in a responsible manner.

Keep us posted on the outcome.

Cookie_Monster

stevec wrote: »

a NCT is not a certificate of roadworthiness. Read the cert, it says so.
.

What is the point of the NCT so? Sorry OT but I thought the entire point of the NCT was to confirm road worthiness?

Steve

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What is the point of the NCT so? Sorry OT but I thought the entire point of the NCT was to confirm road worthiness?

I thought that as well, believe me - read the cert it's on there.

Barr

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Is not having the vechile taxed not a perfect excuse for the insurance company not to pay? After all the car was illegally on the road without tax

Insurance companies are'nt interested whether cars are taxed or not , its nothing to do with a claim and sorting out liability.

Guy:Incognito

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What is the point of the NCT so? Sorry OT but I thought the entire point of the NCT was to confirm road worthiness?

It can only say that there wasnt a fault with any of their checks on the day of the test. They cant (like any test in the world) guarentee your car wont develope a fault in the 2 years till he next test. Sure you could hit a kerb and damage the suspention that could eventually fail while you still have a valid NCT.