Insurance on a car with no NCT

paddyd8

I booked the nct on a my car today. The soonest available date was 17th of july so i took it. Thing is i need the car insured for monday week. Can I insure the car anyway with no NCT??

0ph0rce0

paddyd8 wrote: »

I booked the nct on a my car today. The soonest available date was 17th of july so i took it. Thing is i need the car insured for monday week. Can I insure the car anyway with no NCT??

yes

CiniO

paddyd8 wrote: »

I booked the nct on a my car today. The soonest available date was 17th of july so i took it. Thing is i need the car insured for monday week. Can I insure the car anyway with no NCT??

You probably can, but if I were you, I would find an insurer which doesn't put valid NCT as a requirement in their policy document.
While few years ago this was the case with most insurer, now AFAIK most insurer have this as an requirement.

corktina

probably easiest to get someone with insurance and a third party extension to drive it for you

Supergurrier

Ofc you are insured. Just keep proof of booking and you are covered.

meathstevie

There isn't an insurance company in this country that will refuse to accept your premium but if you cause a crash you may very well find yourself on your own as you have no proof that the car was roadworthy.

Beside the NCT being the only show in town to prove a car was roadworthy an insurance company will always demand that you keep the vehicle in a good state of repair. That also includes a car you don't own and drive on 3rd party extension.

For example if your tyres scraped through the NCT and you clock another 30k on them and they're below the 1.6mm wear limit when you cause a crash the insurance company may still leave you high and dry.

johndaman66

corktina wrote: »

probably easiest to get someone with insurance and a third party extension to drive it for you

But if they are availing of that privilege I would have thought that the car they are driving has to have the minimum of third party cover on it...that along with the owners permission

CiniO

johndaman66 wrote: »

But if they are availing of that privilege I would have thought that the car they are driving has to have the minimum of third party cover on it...that along with the owners permission

Please, not again

johndaman66

CiniO wrote: »

Please, not again

Eh CiniO?:)

CiniO

johndaman66 wrote: »

Eh CiniO?:)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056947000

CiniO

Supergurrier wrote: »

Ofc you are insured. Just keep proof of booking and you are covered.

Except in very likely case where insurance policy has an valid NCT as one of the requirements for the cover to be valid.

johndaman66

CiniO wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056947000

OK, just had a read of that thread and despite the reading in it I am fairly sure and certain that although my policy allows me to drive other cars with the owners consent the other car still needs to have the minimum third party cover. I am pretty sure that when I was taking out the policy this was explicity stated to me. In fact I believe the same was the case in my last policy if memory serves me right...

CiniO

johndaman66 wrote: »

OK, just had a read of that thread and despite the reading in it I am fairly sure and certain that although my policy allows me to drive other cars with the owners consent the other car still needs to have the minimum third party cover. I am pretty sure that when I was taking out the policy this was explicity stated to me. In fact I believe the same was the case in my last policy if memory serves me right...

Everyone is free to believe in whatever they wish

Scortho

johndaman66 wrote: »

OK, just had a read of that thread and despite the reading in it I am fairly sure and certain that although my policy allows me to drive other cars with the owners consent the other car still needs to have the minimum third party cover. I am pretty sure that when I was taking out the policy this was explicity stated to me. In fact I believe the same was the case in my last policy if memory serves me right...

Different policies have different perks.

Mine with liberty says that I can drive other cars so long as I have the owners permission. No mention of 3rd party requirement of owner. So insurance on my 1.2 polo covers me to drive on my mams 3 l merc third party.

When I was shopping around last year for quotes fbd gave me one 20 quid cheaper than liberty, but they would only cover me on the polo.

coylemj

johndaman66 wrote: »

OK, just had a read of that thread and despite the reading in it I am fairly sure and certain that although my policy allows me to drive other cars with the owners consent the other car still needs to have the minimum third party cover. I am pretty sure that when I was taking out the policy this was explicity stated to me. In fact I believe the same was the case in my last policy if memory serves me right...

What you were told on the phone or over the counter doesn't count for sh1t, all that matters is what is in the policy document and there is no policy document that states that your cover for 'driving other cars' requires that the other car has a policy of it's own. Once your policy allows you to drive other cars, unless it is in a dangerous condition, you can drive any car and your policy will cover you, subject to the standard exclusions like you don't own it, you are not hiring it and you are driving with the owner's permission etc. etc.

In fairness, certain call centre agents used to repeat this claim, Quinn were well known for it even though it didn't appear as a condition in their policy document.

What Cinio is getting at is that we have been down this road umpteen times and people keep repeating this urban myth which is just not true.

johndaman66

CiniO wrote: »

Everyone is free to believe in whatever they wish

OK...but I'm just telling you what was explicity stated to me when I took out the policy. On that basis I would assume I cannot drive other cars that do not have the minimum third party cover on them CiniO.

Its not that I'm trying to wind you up if thats what your thinking CiniO. And perhaps it does not make a whole lot of sense if my own insurance would be covering a third party claim. Irrespective that appears to be what the policy states

CiniO

johndaman66 wrote: »

OK...but I'm just telling you what was explicity stated to me when I took out the policy. On that basis I would assume I cannot drive other cars that do not have the minimum third party cover on them CiniO.

Its not that I'm trying to wind you up if thats what your thinking CiniO. And perhaps it does not make a whole lot of sense if my own insurance would be covering a third party claim. Irrespective that appears to be what the policy states

You are not winding me up
I just showed you our recent discussion, and you are free understand it as you wish.

BTW - what insurer are you with?

wil

paddyd8 wrote: »

I booked the nct on a my car today. The soonest available date was 17th of july so i took it. Thing is i need the car insured for monday week. Can I insure the car anyway with no NCT??

You didn't indicate when your NCT was up relative to the booking date. It's one of those too many grey areas that crop up in Irish motoring all the time, with a sort of an opt out clause buried somewhere in the depths of the NCT legislation.
However most insurance does require minimum of car to be roadworthy and many specify current valid NCT as well. If the car was long out of NCT in the event of accident you might be hard pressed to qualify under the waiting for test greyness. Might be worth running past your insurance agent and definitely correct any obvious unroadworthyness - tyres, lights, brakes etc.
In the uk it's clear, car is only insured to drive to test centre or garage for repair.

johndaman66

coylemj wrote: »

What you were told on the phone or over the counter doesn't count for sh1t, all that matters is what is in the policy document and there is no policy document that states that your cover for 'driving other cars' requires that the other car has a policy of it's own.

What Cinio is getting at is that we have been down this road umpteen times and people keep repeating this urban myth which is just not true.

Ok. I will need to check my policy document tomorrow so. I do find it rather strange that such was explicity stated to me when I was taking out the motor insurance but such is not a condition in the policy document. As I say I will need to check the policy document

johndaman66

CiniO wrote: »

BTW - what insurer are you with?

FBD, previously insured with AXA

CiniO

wil wrote: »

You didn't indicate when your NCT was up relative to the booking date. It's one of those too many grey areas that crop up in Irish motoring all the time, with a sort of an opt out clause buried somewhere in the depths of the NCT legislation.

What opt out clause do you mean??

ted1

Scortho wrote: »

Different policies have different perks.

Mine with liberty says that I can drive other cars so long as I have the owners permission. No mention of 3rd party requirement of owner. So insurance on my 1.2 polo covers me to drive on my mams 3 l merc third party.

When I was shopping around last year for quotes fbd gave me one 20 quid cheaper than liberty, but they would only cover me on the polo.

Provided her merc is insured and then the cover drops to third party

CiniO

johndaman66 wrote: »

FBD, previously insured with AXA

Here's a quote from your policy:

Insured Driving Other Motor Cars (Private Type)
In terms of and subject to the limitations of the indemnity which is granted by this Section
in connection with any vehicle described in the Schedule hereto the Company will
indemnify the Insured, provided he is not entitled to indemnity under any other Policy, in
respect of any event while personally driving a motor car (private type) not belonging to
him and not hired to him under a hire purchase agreement and not in his custody or control
by reason of the business or employment of the Insured. This extension applies only to
private passenger vehicles. It does not apply to vans, car-vans, jeeps with no seats in the
back or vans adapted to carry passengers.

http://www.fbd.ie/media/FBD/pdf/fbd-pmv-policy-book.pdf

Nothing is mentioned about requirement for the other car to be insured by its owner.

ted1

CiniO wrote: »

Here's a quote from your policy:

http://www.fbd.ie/media/FBD/pdf/fbd-pmv-policy-book.pdf

Nothing is mentioned about requirement for the other car to be insured by its owner.

Legally the car has to be insured, and legally only the owner who had an insurance risk can hold the policy

CiniO

ted1 wrote: »

Legally the car has to be insured[/B

No. It's enough if driver is insured to drive the car. Car doesn't need to be insured on it's own.
Please read the thread I gave link above - you can find out why in there.

coylemj

ted1 wrote: »

Legally the car has to be insured, and legally only the owner who had an insurance risk can hold the policy

Cinio just quoted from the FBD policy document and there is no such condition. If you saying that 'legally' such and such is the case, perhaps you'd like to quote exactly which piece of legislation you're relying on.

Either it's in the law (which it's not) or it's in the policy document (which it's not) so can we cut the crap and please either quote law or a specific insurance company policy document which says that the cover for 'driving other cars' requires that the car has a policy of it's own.

ted1

coylemj wrote: »

Cinio just quoted from the FBD policy document and there is no such condition. If you saying that 'legally' such and such is the case, perhaps you'd like to quote exactly which piece of legislation you're relying on.

Either it's in the law (which it's not) or it's in the policy document (which it's not) so can we cut the crap and please either quote law or a specific insurance company policy document which says that the cover for 'driving other cars' requires that the car has a policy of it's own.

How can you legally display a valid insurance disk for a car if it is not insured. See the car has to be insured

CiniO

ted1 wrote: »

How can you legally display a valid insurance disk for a car if it is not insured. See the car has to be insured

Only regulation which I found referring to insurance disc is this:

"5. (1) A person shall not use a vehicle in a public place, after the expiration of a period of ten days commencing on the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance, unless the vehicle carries an insurance disc in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1320062406&view=ag-view&docrank=252&numhitsfound=549&query_rule=(($query3))%3Alegtitle&query3=road%20traffic&docid=17937&docdb=SIs&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&starthit=250&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

Considering that on a car which is not insured, there was no certificate of insurance issued, then also this requirement is not applicable.

coylemj

ted1 wrote: »

How can you legally display a valid insurance disk for a car if it is not insured. See the car has to be insured

I thought we were discussing insurance cover - what has the insurance disc got to do with that?

The disc displayed on the windscreen says nothing about whether the person driving the car is insured or not so in the context of this discussion it is a complete red herring.

Displaying a disc doesn't guarantee that the driver is insured and no disc doesn't mean that the driver is not insured.

Scortho

ted1 wrote: »

Provided her merc is insured and then the cover drops to third party

Nope. I have it in writing from liberty that i require the owners permission. No mention of the owner having to be insured.
I was surprised at the time that there was no age limit on this or engine size.
On the down side I'm rarely allowed drive it, due to the fact that its only 3rd party and expensive to fix.

djimi

johndaman66 wrote: »

OK, just had a read of that thread and despite the reading in it I am fairly sure and certain that although my policy allows me to drive other cars with the owners consent the other car still needs to have the minimum third party cover. I am pretty sure that when I was taking out the policy this was explicity stated to me. In fact I believe the same was the case in my last policy if memory serves me right...

It makes no logical sense for an insurer to require third party policy cover on the vehicle before they will allow third party extension. I'm interested to hear what the wording in your policy specifies.

Wheres My ForkandKnife

This subject is rehashed regularly on here and posters state their thoughts or opinions as fact. The reality is it it depends on the individual policy.My own policy is with Liberty and with them there is no need for a car you are driving on the third party extension.However the car must be a private car,i.e. the car is taxed privately, it must also have a valid nct and current tax.Your own car must not be beyond economic repair.

I was driving a friends car recently on this third party extension and involved in an accident.The other party was 100% at fault and both insurance companies agreed with this.Liberty sent out an assessor and there were twenty questions about why I was driving my friends car in the first place.When I said my car was in the garage the immediate reply was that I was not insured third party on the other car.After nearly having a heart attact on hearing this and then running amok bucause I may have been driving with no insurance I looked for the exact wording.Contacted Liberty and was told that if my car was beyond economic repair I wouldnt be covered third party on any car.

No problem as I was only waiting on a part.However I was asked so many times about why I was driving the other car I was close to telling the assessor to fcuk off as it was none of their business, I pay my insurance and can borrow any car I like but I knew this attitude wouldn't do me any favours.

I really got the impression that they were tring to find any excuse to deny cover.Afterwards I had them send me every condition they have regarding thirs party cover.

For anyone reading this, ignore any advice on here and contact your insurance company if you have any doubts whether you are insured or not.Afterwards Liberty apologised to me for the confusion as I was a little irate about the situation and explaining to Liberty that I could have been possibly banned from driving if I hadn't been insured.

djimi

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

No problem as I was only waiting on a part.However I was asked so many times about why I was driving the other car I was close to telling the assessor to fcuk off as it was none of their business, I pay my insurance and can borrow any car I like but I knew this attitude wouldn't do me any favours.

I dont think Id be able to resist the urge to tell them just this to be honest. There is nothing in my policy that stipulates when i can or cannot drive another car with the third party extension, so if it ever came to me having to claim on this cover then I dont see any reason why they should ask me why I was driving the other car. Tell them you woke up that morning and fancied driving a blue car instead of your red one.

CiniO

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

This subject is rehashed regularly on here and posters state their thoughts or opinions as fact. The reality is it it depends on the individual policy.My own policy is with Liberty and with them there is no need for a car you are driving on the third party extension.However the car must be a private car,i.e. the car is taxed privately, it must also have a valid nct and current tax.Your own car must not be beyond economic repair.

I think we looked through liberty policy recently in other thread, and there doesn't seem to be any requirement for other car to be taxed.

I was driving a friends car recently on this third party extension and involved in an accident.The other party was 100% at fault and both insurance companies agreed with this.Liberty sent out an assessor and there were twenty questions about why I was driving my friends car in the first place.When I said my car was in the garage the immediate reply was that I was not insured third party on the other car.After nearly having a heart attact on hearing this and then running amok bucause I may have been driving with no insurance I looked for the exact wording.Contacted Liberty and was told that if my car was beyond economic repair I wouldnt be covered third party on any car.

You mean if your own car (the one you had in the garage) was beyond economic repair, you wouldn't be insured third party to drive other cars?
Is this stated anywhere in your policy, schedule or insurance cert?

No problem as I was only waiting on a part.However I was asked so many times about why I was driving the other car I was close to telling the assessor to fcuk off as it was none of their business, I pay my insurance and can borrow any car I like but I knew this attitude wouldn't do me any favours.

I really got the impression that they were tring to find any excuse to deny cover.

Because that's what insurance companies always do.
But if they don't have grounds for it (f.e. you acted against what's written in your policy), they can't achieve much

Afterwards I had them send me every condition they have regarding thirs party cover.

Were those conditions different that the ones stated in the policy?
Could you quote them here?

For anyone reading this, ignore any advice on here and contact your insurance company if you have any doubts whether you are insured or not.Afterwards Liberty apologised to me for the confusion as I was a little irate about the situation and explaining to Liberty that I could have been possibly banned from driving if I hadn't been insured.

Once you act with what's written in your certificate, schedule and policy, and obey the law, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Insurer can not just invent some extra requirements and give them to customer only on request or even worst inform him about them after the claim is made. That would be insane.

Wheres My ForkandKnife

djimi wrote: »

I dont think Id be able to resist the urge to tell them just this to be honest. There is nothing in my policy that stipulates when i can or cannot drive another car with the third party extension, so if it ever came to me having to claim on this cover then I dont see any reason why they should ask me why I was driving the other car. Tell them you woke up that morning and fancied driving a blue car instead of your red one.

I agree with you 100%.It's not like they are letting me do this as a favour.I pay for the privilege. At the time I was stressed because the assessor had me doubting whether I was insured, the guards were involved and I was worried about getting my friends car sorted.All this because of a gob****e who ran into me and believed somehow it was my fault.Ironically the story he told Liberty put him in the wrong even though he believed he was right.

CiniO

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

I agree with you 100%.It's not like they are letting me do this as a favour.I pay for the privilege. At the time I was stressed because the assessor had me doubting whether I was insured, the guards were involved and I was worried about getting my friends car sorted.All this because of a gob****e who ran into me and believed somehow it was my fault.Ironically the story he told Liberty put him in the wrong even though he believed he was right.

Even if you were not insured, you would still get your friend's car sorted, as accident wasn't your fault.
It is the other party insurance which must pay for your friend's car.

Wheres My ForkandKnife

CiniO wrote: »

I think we looked through liberty policy recently in other thread, and there doesn't seem to be any requirement for other car to be taxed.


You mean if your own car (the one you had in the garage) was beyond economic repair, you wouldn't be insured third party to drive other cars?
Is this stated anywhere in your policy, schedule or insurance cert?


Because that's what insurance companies always do.
But if they don't have grounds for it (f.e. you acted against what's written in your policy), they can't achieve much


Were those conditions different that the ones stated in the policy?
Could you quote them here?



Once you act with what's written in your certificate, schedule and policy, and obey the law, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Insurer can not just invent some extra requirements and give them to customer only on request or even worst inform him about them after the claim is made. That would be insane.

If I think of it tomorrow I will dig it out and quote it.

Even then people seem to think that these conditions apply to all policies and they dont

Paddy1951

They will take your money if somebody was badly injured first thing take away car to see if they can find some fault send in NCt cert medical reports etc be very careful on this one because I know iam 2 yrs trying to get ins company to settle acclaim I have diabetes I had let the know they said I did not they put me before every type of doctor still don't know what's happening good luck but get info from citizens info or family solicitor But make sure you have it right like2different worlds Paying and all smiles taking your money and you are covered for everything under the sun ,,,and letting them know of an accident paddy 51

Paddy1951

Tax not important just get fined if got no way connected to the big one Insurance. Good luck

corktina

why do people find this so hard to understand?
An Insurance Policy in your name covers you to do what it says in the policy. Therefore if it says you can drive third party any vehicle you don't own and haven't hired in addition to your own, then you can. It isn't at all logical to say that someone elses policy has some bearing on you driving a car.

Now, the owner of that car would be well advised to make sure they have cover should that car be stolen or burnt, but that's a seperate issue.

In the case that the car owners policy actually does provide cover for other drivers , then that policy would take precedence in the case of a claim

coylemj

corktina wrote: »

In the case that the car owners policy actually does provide cover for other drivers , then that policy would take precedence in the case of a claim

+1 Any policy document that I've read in connection with this topic says that even if your own insurance covers you to drive other cars, if there is a claim and you are also covered to drive under the car's own policy then you must claim under the owner's policy.

The effect of this is that if your policy covers you to drive other cars, it only applies if the car you are driving either has no policy at all or has a policy but with no extension to allow other drivers i.e. only named drivers are covered.

paddyd8

But if i get the insurance and the car fails in july what happens then?