So after all is it ok to drive without NCT?

TripleAce

Try to make this short, any advice would be much appreciated. Towards the end of June my wife had a little accident with another car while exiting our car park - both cars reported some external scratches, no major damages. The Garda said that it was a 50-50 situation but to follow up with our respective insurances - both the 3rd party and my wife did so and after a couple of months we got a notice that it was my wife fault and she has to pay for all, which it would be fine if it wasn't that a couple of weeks ago we noticed that the Third Party car had the NCT expired back in May (before the accident) and we brought it up with our insurace as that car was not suppose to even be on the road when the accident happen. This is the reply we got:

"Thank you for your correspondce.
In relation to your queries, please note that the fact that Third party's NCT expired a while ago is a matter for Garda, not an issue in terms of insurance claim, especially for Third party."

So, basically car insurances are fine with cars driving around without NCT and they cover potential accidents? I thought this wasn't the case.

Note that the damage to the Third Party was really little (old Peugeout 206) and somehow they came up with a 900€ bill, which is probably close to the value of the car, but was expecting this somehow....the Third Party car is now still parked and unmoved for the past couple of months (NCT never renewed!).

Also, if that car has not NCT how can they move it to repair it??? I am asking this because I am pretty pi***ed off how the whole thing was handled and if I have to pay for all, I will take him down too. Can I report this to the Garda? Can they fine/take the car from him?

Thank you for your help.

CiniO

But what's your point in general.
If it was your wife's fault, then it's obvious that other driver is claiming for it from your insurer.
Whether that car had NCT or not, is completely irrelevant here.

Report it to Garda, so they can fine the other driver for driving without NCT (I think it 5 penalty points).
But insurance-wise there's no reason for the other driver to avoid claiming from your insurance, as it was your's wife fault.

Tallon

Do as the reply says and follow it up with the Gardai

Tefral

My policy booklet with RSA states that I must have a valid NCT... Its the first time I saw it ever mentioned.

pcardin

TripleAce wrote: »

Note that the damage to the Third Party was really little (old Peugeout 206) and somehow they came up with a 900€ bill, which is probably close to the value of the car, but was expecting this somehow....the Third Party car is now still parked and unmoved for the past couple of months (NCT never renewed!).

I wouldn't be so surprised about this. It's Ireland and this type of scam here is as old as Ireland itself. Damage was little but bare in mind that it still has to be repaired, preferably by a dealer, then also neck and all sorts of other pains, then a new LCD at living room and some other crap , insurance stake on this, all that have to be included in the final bill that will be issued to you.

It ended considerably cheap as they were probably amateurs

But on the serious note, I totally agree with you. That car was not supposed to be on road (unless not on his way to NCT centre).

ants09

TripleAce wrote: »

The Garda said that it was a 50-50 situation

if the garda said both parties are 50-50 responsible then why dont you get that report from the garda and tell your insurance company that !

as far as i know the garda overrules any insurance company !

copeyhagen

if the guards said the blame was 50./50, first thing i would be doing is finding out how the insurance came to the conclusion it was your wives fault?

pcardin

cronin_j wrote: »

My policy booklet with RSA states that I must have a valid NCT... Its the first time I saw it ever mentioned.

Mine says the same. And I remember that once I tried to get an insurance for a car that didnt had NCT and was refused.

CiniO

ants09 wrote: »

if the garda said both parties are 50-50 responsible then why dont you get that report from the garda and tell your insurance company that !

as far as i know the garda overrules any insurance company !

I was told hundreds of times on this forum, that Garda has nothing to do with assessing who's to blame for accident.

Brian?

In fairness if his NCT was up in May he might have only gotten a test date some time in July. If he failed, he could still be waiting on a retest date.

My NCT was up in January, failed in March. Got it fixed and had a valid NCT in April. The system is a joke. The Gardaí know this and will not pursue you for an out of date NCT if it's only out by a couple of months.

CiniO

pcardin wrote: »

But on the serious note, I totally agree with you. That car was not supposed to be on road (unless not on his way to NCT centre).

That's right. Car was not supposed to be driving, so the driver should be fined for it.
But it has nothing to do with accident, which was caused by OP's wife (assuming insurance companies are rights assessing blame).

pcardin

copeyhagen wrote: »

if the guards said the blame was 50./50, first thing i would be doing is finding out how the insurance came to the conclusion it was your wives fault?

+1 on that.

B00MSTICK

TripleAce wrote:

I am asking this because I am pretty pi***ed off how the whole thing was handled and if I have to pay for all, I will take him down too

So basically you're upset that your wife was found to be at fault and you want to try and "get back" at the other driver anyway you can?

Even if you go after this guy for no NCT it's not going to get your money back...

Appeal the insurance companies decision if you want but there's no need to be vindictive IMO.
Probably too late now but you may be able to approach the 3rd party and see if they can get better quotes elsewhere and pay for the repairs yourself

MugMugs

Gardai wont make a formal comment re Liability. Too much of a headache really.

IF the NCT was a relative factor then an own fault claim for damage to the NCT(less) vehicle.

But is the vehicle was generally road worthy and there is no liability attributed to the third party then there's no real issue.

Cest Le Vie. (if thats how you spell it)

ants09

CiniO wrote: »

I was told hundreds of times on this forum, that Garda has nothing to do with assessing who's to blame for accident.

then what is the role of the garda in relation to road traffic accidents ?

i taught it was " Ensure best investigative procedures are applied to the investigation of all traffic accidents."

to investigate means to find out who is at fault ?

and as the op said the garda said it was a 50-50 suitation !

spunk_monkey

B00MSTICK wrote: »

So basically you're upset that your wife was found to be at fault and you want to try and "get back" at the other driver anyway you can?

Even if you go after this guy for no NCT it's not going to get your money back...

Appeal the insurance companies decision if you want but there's no need to be vindictive IMO.
Probably too late now but you may be able to approach the 3rd party and see if they can get better quotes elsewhere and pay for the repairs yourself

+1, strongly agree with this.

Katekat

Gards will normally say its one word against another, they will not normally make on comment on blame.:rolleyes:
you stated that your wife was pulling out of car park (car park space? exiting multistorey onto a public road?). the insurers will look at circumstances eg who had right of way and where the damage was, was there witnesses, cctv etc on decision making. In relation to NCT - all vehicles which are eligable must have a valid NCT, this is a matter for the gardai. however, in insurance, if an NCT was out of date and papers can be shown that it was going through the NCT process ie date of test, retest etc these will be taken into consideration. An insurance company cannot turn down a third party claim just based on someone not having an nct, they can however deduct monies from the settlement. in relation to your own insurance, you are party to the contract and therefore are bound by any terms relating to holding an NCT.

TripleAce

B00MSTICK wrote: »

So basically you're upset that your wife was found to be at fault and you want to try and "get back" at the other driver anyway you can?

the car value of the Third Party is probably 1k. The damage is probably 300€ at max. The Garda said it was 50-50 but to follow up with our insurances anyway, and I am fine with their decision and ok to pay. If the Third Party hadn't played it dirty on this I would just pay off and move on, but the one thing I can't stand is people who try to take advantage of these situations and if they do they have to pay for it.

Unfortunately I am abroad until Friday so I cannot check my insurance T&Cs with regards to NCT, but will do so as soon as I come back and if needed will report Third party to the Garda.

Thank you all for your replies, much appreciated!!!

spunk_monkey

TripleAce wrote: »

the car value of the Third Party is probably 1k. The damage is probably 300€ at max. The Garda said it was 50-50 but to follow up with our insurances anyway, and I am fine with their decision and ok to pay. If the Third Party hadn't played it dirty on this I would just pay off and move on, but the one thing I can't stand is people who try to take advantage of these situations and if they do they have to pay for it.

Unfortunately I am abroad until Friday so I cannot check my insurance T&Cs with regards to NCT, but will do so as soon as I come back and if needed will report Third party to the Garda.

Thank you all for your replies, much appreciated!!!

How did they play dirty? By wanting to go through insurance, like most?
The figure of 900 was decided by the insurance company, not the driver.

Have you tried getting a cheaper quote yourself and asking the other guy if they would let you pay?

If they get caught at for not having NCT then fair enough, but you reporting them is small minded IMO, you have nothing to gain apart from the satisfaction of knowing you got them in trouble/points on their license etc...not very nice.

Katekat

ants09 wrote: »

then what is the role of the garda in relation to road traffic accidents ?

i taught it was " Ensure best investigative procedures are applied to the investigation of all traffic accidents."

to investigate means to find out who is at fault ?

and as the op said the garda said it was a 50-50 suitation !

Normally only directly related to any breaches under the Road Traffic Acts eg careless driving, dangerous driving , drink driving. The placing of fault is seen by them as a civil issue which is why they will not become involved. The investigating garda make decide to make a comment but only if they have actually witnessed the accident themselves.

MugMugs

TripleAce wrote: »

Unfortunately I am abroad until Friday so I cannot check my insurance T&Cs with regards to NCT, but will do so as soon as I come back and if needed will report Third party to the Garda.

Thank you all for your replies, much appreciated!!!

Do you really really think that the Gardai are going to toddle on up to the TP's house on the off chance that he is in to look at his NCT ?

Even at that, they'd have to catch him on the road. If it was parked in his driveway, there isn't much they could do.

And if the Garda who investigated it was going to do something about it then he would have already.

Let it go dude. Your wife's been found liable. In the nicest possible way, deal with it.

If Karma wants to come after this lad then he will meet a Traffic Guard sometime soon.

slimjimmc

ants09 wrote: »

then what is the role of the garda in relation to road traffic accidents ?

i taught it was " Ensure best investigative procedures are applied to the investigation of all traffic accidents."

to investigate means to find out who is at fault ?

and as the op said the garda said it was a 50-50 suitation !

That might be their role for fatal or serious non-fatal accidents but for your average fender bender where everyone gets to walk away unscathed I see it their roles are
- to determine if any offences have been committed.
- to ensure that all parties exchange insurance details as required by law.
- to take statements from witnesses including those directly involved and note the scene as they see it in the aftermath.
- to control the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the accident scene to minimise disruption, prevent further collisions and to facilitate access by other emergency services if required.


what their roles are not
- to determine who was at fault unless they saw it with their own eyes.
- take sides in a civil suit (which an insurance claim is).
- give you a lift home.

The Garda's opinion is only his opinion, although the insurer will bear this in mind it will ultimately decide itself who has to pay and how much.

B00MSTICK

TripleAce wrote:

The damage is probably 300€ at max.

How many panels were damaged/scratched?
300 would be the average price for repainting one panel IIRC.
If a headlight is damaged etc. it'll be more obviously.

They could well be claiming for more than its worth of course, quite a few scammers around alright

IrishZeus

I backed into a 206 about 2years ago or so. Front quarter panel needed replacing and door needed spraying. Total cost to me was €400. This was on a 2002 reg.

Really depends on the damage your wife caused. If a door etc was damaged, then 900 wouldn't be far off. The value of the old car is not equal to the value of new parts.

dr.fuzzenstein

I suppose the Gards can only relay the facts as they have them written down, they cannot determine who is at fault. Though those statements will come in handy if there's a dispute, just don't expect them to take sides.
If you are unhappy with the decision taken by the insurances, you will need to appeal through another body, ombudsman, court, etc...
Seek advice from The CCIB perhaps?

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I suppose the Gards can only relay the facts as they have them written down, they cannot determine who is at fault. Though those statements will come in handy if there's a dispute, just don't expect them to take sides.

And that's part of stupidity of the system, as in most cases they wouldn't even bother coming to an accident site, if there was no one injured or killed.

For instance in Poland, if you have an accident, where no one is injured or killed, drivers are supposed to write a statement which says who was at fault. Signed by both of them in copies. Then with this document, person who wasn't at fault, goes to insurance company of other party (the one which was at fault) and claims for a damage.
If there's no agreement between the drivers regarding the fault, you can always call the cops, and they will come to the spot, ask both drivers separately what happened, look at the damage to the cars, look at traces left on the road, maybe talk to some witnesses and in the end decide about fault, giving the fixed penalty notice and point for causing an accident to the driver who was at fault. They make a report as well, which copy is given to other driver so he can show it to insurance company to claim.
Those policeman are trained with this, they have seen thousands of accidents like that, they have talked to thousands of drivers, and their verdict is almost always correct.
If driver who they assign as the one at fault doesn't agree with their opinions (which happens very seldom) he can always deny to accept fixed penalty and then whole case ends up in court.
I think that's better system than Irish one.

mickdw

Has your insurer agreed with them that you are at fault? If so, it pretty much settled.

As far as I know, insurers are offering reduced payouts to car owners who dont have a valid nct as this would effect the value of the car. I dont think this would apply though when recovering costs from a 3rd party.

galwaytt

This phrase on it's own could be made a sticky:

TripleAce wrote: »

"Thank you for your correspondce.
In relation to your queries, please note that the fact that Third party's NCT expired a while ago is a matter for Garda, not an issue in terms of insurance claim, especially for Third party."

So, basically car insurances are fine with cars driving around without NCT and they cover potential accidents? I thought this wasn't the case.

The NCT, as I'm blue-in-the-face telling people, has no bearing on your insurance cover.

The only thing that matters, from an insurance point of view, is 'roadworthiness' as assessed by their assessor. Whether you have green sticker on the windscreen, or not, is irrelevant.

Mister Dread

ants09 wrote: »

then what is the role of the garda in relation to road traffic accidents ?

i taught it was " Ensure best investigative procedures are applied to the investigation of all traffic accidents."

to investigate means to find out who is at fault ?

and as the op said the garda said it was a 50-50 suitation !

hahah way off.

They are there to make sure the people are ok, the road is secure and clear amongst other things. They are not there to pass judgement on accidents unless they are a forenisic collision investigator (you'll have much bigger worries if one of these is needed). 90% of the time they do not need to be called out. Witness evidence from a Garda carries as much weight in court as any other person.

McCrack

ants09 wrote: »

then what is the role of the garda in relation to road traffic accidents ?

i taught it was " Ensure best investigative procedures are applied to the investigation of all traffic accidents."

to investigate means to find out who is at fault ?

and as the op said the garda said it was a 50-50 suitation !

Material damage is a civil matter, nothing to do with Gardai if they didnt witness the accident. All they will do (if they are bothered calling to the scene and I don't blame them if they don't) is take details and tell the parties to sort it out between themselves via their insurance companies.

O and in relation to the OP's query, it's immaterial to the OP's wife's liability whether the other car did not have NCT, insurance, tax. They are road traffic requirements on the registered owner/driver, they have no bearing on a 3rd party's negligence causing damage.

Tefral

galwaytt wrote: »

This phrase on it's own could be made a sticky:

TripleAce wrote: »

"Thank you for your correspondce.
In relation to your queries, please note that the fact that Third party's NCT expired a while ago is a matter for Garda, not an issue in terms of insurance claim, especially for Third party."

So, basically car insurances are fine with cars driving around without NCT and they cover potential accidents? I thought this wasn't the case.

The NCT, as I'm blue-in-the-face telling people, has no bearing on your insurance cover.

The only thing that matters, from an insurance point of view, is 'roadworthiness' as assessed by their assessor. Whether you have green sticker on the windscreen, or not, is irrelevant.

This is normally true however it's an expressly mentioned condition of my insurance cover this year. As I said earlier in this thread I have never seen this before and I would imagine it's the exception rather than the rule.