Advice on car crash, No NCT

shifty89

HI everyone, new to the forum but been doing a lot of reading over NCTless cars and smashed.

So, around april last year i had a collision with another vehicle, I didnt have an NCT on my car it was bought without one. I had been intending to put it through i just hadnt yet out of lazyness (yes i know v stupid). I had put it into a mechanics about a month prior and had over 300 quid of work done to the car to bring it up to standard for the test.

Anyway, the crash happend at a notoriuse bend known for being dangerouse, there was grease all over the road, my car ended up fish tailing around the bend and hitting a stone wall opposite. About 3 seconds later a bmw smashed into the side of me writing off my car and hers. It wasnt a particularly hard crash and no airbags or anything went off. SO garda arrived we swapped insurance details and she gave me a lift home and everyhting seemed fine. Insurance company (AXA) says that they have settled the car but that this woman has started a personal injury case. I got a notification from injury boards that this other driver has gone to them for compensation. apprently wont settle for what insurance has offered.

SO getting to the point, because i didnt have the NCT will axa persue me for the money they will pay out to this other driver? Nothing in my policy document states the you have the NCT only that the car must be in a road worthy condition which i have my mechanic replacements list for with all the work. Im quite scared about this cause im having trouble getting reliable info and im supposed to be moving to USA next year to marry my fiancee.

I have read more that once here about people on AXA who have been told that they are covered. I dont care that i cant claim on my car only that they dont come after me for 3rd party costs. Can anyone who has been in this position or is knowledgable in the area give me any advice?

Just to add as a further note I recived a call from the Garda at the scene to ask how i was doing and to inform me he had been asked to compile a report but to let me know that in his opinion road condition were at fault and he was satisfied that "I wasnt driving like a clown".

There were 4 crashed in the same spot over the course of a week.

goz83

It's a tough one to get advice on. When in doubt, your insurance policy document will spell it out, as you already have. As long as the car is road worthy, then you should be fine and there is little likelihood you will be chased for this. But you can't take my word for this, because the meaning of the policy document statement may be open to interpretation. "roadworthy" may not mean that the car must have an NCT. After all, there are plenty of cars with NCTs that are no longer road worthy, or by sheer luck (or envelopes) got through the test. If you're worried, seek legal advice.

No Pants

shifty89 wrote: »

SO getting to the point, because i didnt have the NCT will axa persue me for the money they will pay out to this other driver?

Why would your insurer be paying out to this other driver? From reading your post:

shifty89 wrote: »

About 3 seconds later a bmw smashed into the side of me writing off my car and hers.

moonship

The vehicle becomes roadworthy when passes nct. Without test/expired test is not.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I doubt very much if they'll come after you for costs. Your insurance was valid and they already paid the other side. Were you ever asked if the car was NCTd ?

visual

This is my option

Your insurance company will handle all 3rd party claims including personal injuries.

She won't be successful in attempting to by pass insurance companies (both hers and yours) if she is unhappy with the settlement the insurance company offers then it could go to court but again it will be your insurance company that she will be claiming against not you personally.

When it comes to claiming for your own car the insurance company will devalue your car because its worth less without NCT

Both you and the other driver are supposed to be in control of car and being able to stop safely even on slipperly dangerous bends.
insurance company may have proportioned some of the liabilities to her reducing her claim or simply belive her claim is too high. Either way that is for the insurance companines to resolve.

I would phone your own insurance company and seek advice clarification.

PS worth less I mean not worth as much

xxlauraxxox

hold on she hit you at the side was she not wrong?

dmc17

xxlauraxxox wrote: »

hold on she hit you at the side was she not wrong?

Well he said he fishtailed and hit the wall at the opposite side of the road so I assume not.

corktina

Could she see you as you crashed or did she come round the bend and plough into you? If the later then she is to blame for not be in proper control. Bit academic though....

kennM

Difficult situation... not even going to speculate covered or not as it wouldn't be based on anything other than opinion which is irrelevant. I would suspect it will boil down to small print in policy document. I personally haven't heard of cases where the insurance company have gone after insured driver to recoup costs due to car not being NCT'ed when in accident.

All personal injury cases must go through the injuries board. While the insurance company may offer settlement for said injuries at any stage the claimant is entitled to an independent assessment of compensation and thats what the injuries board are there to do (Not going to go into the viewpoints of how independent injuries board are, there are various views and thoughts on that on different threads). Naturally an insurance company is going to want to settle a claim in a most cost effective way as possible (cheapest), this often isn't in the claimants best interest.... everyone is entitled to a fair settlement based off the evidenced injuries that they have received.

Concern is understandable.... have the insurance company queried NCT etc.? I'd also be careful, you've just posted all of this on a public forum

galwaytt

dmc17 wrote: »

Well he said he fishtailed and hit the wall at the opposite side of the road so I assume not.

A diagram would be handy here. Still, even if he had ended up on her side of the road she's still required to drive with her eyes open. I mean, if he's already crashed and is there motionless what's her excuse for hitting a stationary object ? That's what is I'd be getting counsel to ask.....

Anjobe

dmc17 wrote: »

Well he said he fishtailed and hit the wall at the opposite side of the road so I assume not.

OP said there were 3 seconds between hitting the wall and being hit by the other car, so it might be reasonable to expect that the other driver should have been able to avoid the collision.

Insurers can withhold payment of a claim if they decide that the condition of the vehicle was a factor in causing the accident. This doesn't appear to be the case here and shouldn't affect the 3rd parties claim anyway, and there must be some question of liability for the 3rd parties claim also.

galwaytt

moonship wrote: »

The vehicle becomes roadworthy when passes nct. Without test/expired test is not.

Actually not. Having an NCT is a legal requirement. It is not a warranty of road fitness. Read it and see.

This is why the insurance companies still have assessors. You can have an NCT and still have an unroadworthy car. This is why they check your car after an accident. If your car is assessed as being roadworthy then liability is not affected.

Not having an NCT in no way prejudices your actual driving or absolves the other parties responsibilities and their duty of care.

Yes you'll get marked down for not having one and maybe the Gardaí will prosecute you for not having it. But that's got nothing to do with the accident.

Don't be so quick to roll over, and fight your corner.

alastair

moonship wrote: »

The vehicle becomes roadworthy when passes nct. Without test/expired test is not.

There are perfectly legal, roadworthy cars on the road without NCT's - so clearly this is not the case.

Pinny_1

Just so you know , an NCT is not a certificate of roadworthiness.

It says it on the certs

djimi

My understanding is that unless they can prove that the defect that caused you to fail the NCT was a contributing factor in the crash (or it specifically states in your policy that the car must have a valid NCT) then they cannot use it as a reason not to pay out.

KwackerJack

So she failed to slow down at the corner after seeing you crash and she is claiming off you??

Haha id love to be in court when that comes up!

NCT means squat.......You get a nice fresh NCT and you roll the car just around the corner!

A nice cut n shut, a lick of paint and bamm you have a nice mint car with NCT to sell!!

You crashed due to bad road conditions and as said unless they can find a defect in the car your safe enough.

dmc17

Anjobe wrote: »

OP said there were 3 seconds between hitting the wall and being hit by the other car, so it might be reasonable to expect that the other driver should have been able to avoid the collision.

How can you be sure it was exactly 3 seconds though. It's a hard one to judge.

KwackerJack

dmc17 wrote: »

How can you be sure it was exactly 3 seconds though. It's a hard one to judge.

Its called counting :P


Im sure his thinking on it is the time that he crashed and the lapse between him saying WTF and then bang....for the second time

dmc17

KwackerJack wrote: »

Its called counting :P


Im sure his thinking on it is the time that he crashed and the lapse between him saying WTF and then bang....for the second time

Exactly. It's not quite that straightforward to judge when you've just hit a wall.

ffocused

I was getting a quote for a repair last year & one of the panel beaters had a car in the shop that had crashed with the nct out by a few months. The owner had his payout for repair reduced from 5k to about 3k due to not having a valid nct.

goz83

dmc17 wrote: »

Exactly. It's not quite that straightforward to judge when you've just hit a wall.

Yeah but it would have also taken a few seconds from when the car went out of control to when it hit the wall. Depending on the bend and road conditions, it could have been the case that the woman may have been able to avoid the stationary vehicle.

Would the op not try counter claim that the woman hit him?

No Pants

A piece of paper with the letters NCT on it are not going to stop someone driving into you, which is what happened here with the other driver, so I don't know what she's claiming about. However, as said above, if the cause of the initial wall collision was the NCT failing defect, insurance may treat you differently.

Marcusm

ffocused wrote: »

I was getting a quote for a repair last year & one of the panel beaters had a car in the shop that had crashed with the nct out by a few months. The owner had his payout for repair reduced from 5k to about 3k due to not having a valid nct.

It's easy to discern from posts on here that a car with an NCT is worth more than one without; it's hard to criticise the insurer's actions in that case irrespective of the condition if the car.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

Could she see you as you crashed or did she come round the bend and plough into you? If the later then she is to blame for not be in proper control. Bit academic though....

Exactly.
She was obliged to drive at speed allowing her to stop on distance of the road she could see was clear.

So IMHO there are two options.
1. OP crashed into fence. She came from around the bend when he was already there, and she couldn't stop in time because she was going to fast to stop on distance should could see to be clear. Therefore she is liable for damages caused by the crash to OP's car (obviously not including damages which OP caused himself by hitting the fence).

2. She was driving looking ahead, and she was driving at speed allowing her to stop on distance of the road she could see to be clear. Then suddenly OP crashed into fence on her side of the road, so in other words obstruction appeared right in front of her, and at this stage she couldn't do anything. In that case it's OP at fault and he is liable for any damaged to her car or her injuries.

CiniO

shifty89 wrote: »

HI everyone, new to the forum but been doing a lot of reading over NCTless cars and smashed.

So, around april last year i had a collision with another vehicle, I didnt have an NCT on my car it was bought without one. I had been intending to put it through i just hadnt yet out of lazyness (yes i know v stupid). I had put it into a mechanics about a month prior and had over 300 quid of work done to the car to bring it up to standard for the test.

Anyway, the crash happend at a notoriuse bend known for being dangerouse, there was grease all over the road, my car ended up fish tailing around the bend and hitting a stone wall opposite. About 3 seconds later a bmw smashed into the side of me writing off my car and hers. It wasnt a particularly hard crash and no airbags or anything went off. SO garda arrived we swapped insurance details and she gave me a lift home and everyhting seemed fine. Insurance company (AXA) says that they have settled the car but that this woman has started a personal injury case. I got a notification from injury boards that this other driver has gone to them for compensation. apprently wont settle for what insurance has offered.

SO getting to the point, because i didnt have the NCT will axa persue me for the money they will pay out to this other driver? Nothing in my policy document states the you have the NCT only that the car must be in a road worthy condition which i have my mechanic replacements list for with all the work. Im quite scared about this cause im having trouble getting reliable info and im supposed to be moving to USA next year to marry my fiancee.

I have read more that once here about people on AXA who have been told that they are covered. I dont care that i cant claim on my car only that they dont come after me for 3rd party costs. Can anyone who has been in this position or is knowledgable in the area give me any advice?

Just to add as a further note I recived a call from the Garda at the scene to ask how i was doing and to inform me he had been asked to compile a report but to let me know that in his opinion road condition were at fault and he was satisfied that "I wasnt driving like a clown".

There were 4 crashed in the same spot over the course of a week.

OP IMO fact that you didn't have NCT shouldn't matter provided having valid NCT is not a requirement in your policy - and you said it wasn't.

Once you claim for damages to your car (if you had comprehensive policy) then they might reduce the value of your car due to the fact it had no NCT.

You need good legal advice. It's a very tricky one, but the fact that you were stationary for 3 seconds before impact would lead one to assume that the other vehicle should have seen you either just before you crashed, if travelling behind you, or just after your initial crash, if travelling against you. Go to a Solicitor and fight your case. Good Luck.

dmc17

goz83 wrote: »

Yeah but it would have also taken a few seconds from when the car went out of control to when it hit the wall. Depending on the bend and road conditions, it could have been the case that the woman may have been able to avoid the stationary vehicle.

Would the op not try counter claim that the woman hit him?

Possibly but as you say it would depend on the factors involved. If she was driving along a straight road then she should've seen him, but if she came around a bend to find a car on her side of the road in front of her then there may not have been much she could do. We'd really need a sketch of what happened.

HeidiHeidi

To all those saying that "she should have been able to stop in the distance she saw clear ahead" or similar - is it not possible that she skidded on the same patch of grease (or whatever) that put the OP into the wall in the first place?

That's neither here nor there in terms of the NCT question, I realise - but I think the second car may possibly be getting a bit of an unfair doing without all the circumstances of her crash being known.

K.Flyer

A car should be driven in a manner that you have distance and time to stop your vehicle safely allowing for the unexpected and road conditions.

However, many years ago a car did go out of control on a bend, on the other side of the road to me in very slippery conditions and spun out and ended up in front of me causing a collision.
I was driving at 25mph because I knew how slippery the road was and even if I had been at 5 mph I would have most likely still hit him.
So it really depends on the full circumstances of the accident and avoidance may not be possible due to how it happened.

Even if a car has a current NCT the Garda will ask for the vehicle to be checked if they feel there is a roadworthiness issue. NCT does not equal roadworthiness and the latter is more important.

timmy4u2

There is too little information here to make any judgments.
However if what the Garda said it would appear that road conditions had a bearing on the case.
He was satisfied that the accident was not caused by a defect on the car or by defective driving, no offence was disclosed and no injuries disclosed so he was letting it up to Civil Remedy.
Now that there is a claim for injuries he is obliged to submit a report.

The fact that you did not have an NCT will not impact solely on the claim as contrary to what is stated elsewhere an NCT is specifically not a certificate of road worthiness, and likewise the fact that you do not have an NCT does not mean that your car is not roadworthy.

However if your insurance company's policy document states that an NCT must be in place then you are in a situation where you may not have any insurance cover.
If it does not specifically state that you need an NCT you may still be in trouble if it states that it must comply with the Road Traffic Act and that states that you must have a current NCT.

As regards the actual condition of the car the insurance company may disclaim liability if there was a defect affecting the car that you knew about or could be reasonably expected to know.
I think that that is out the door also as the Garda did not examine you car and the Insurance did not examine the car and you have a mechanic who made your car road worthy.
From the little that you say regarding the accident 3 seconds would appear to be short enough to make it all part of the one accident.
The Law on the matter states that you must drive at a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

If that BMW was coming in the opposite direction the driver could not be expected to stop under the circumstances.......unless you could apply the defence put forward by a well known solicitor who said that in civil law you have to be able to stop in half the distance you can see to be clear to allow for the oncoming car that may be travelling at the same speed as yourself.
Just an opinion and not advice.

CiniO

galwaytt wrote: »

A diagram would be handy here. Still, even if he had ended up on her side of the road she's still required to drive with her eyes open. I mean, if he's already crashed and is there motionless what's her excuse for hitting a stationary object ? That's what is I'd be getting counsel to ask.....

OK so imagine you are driving on good wide road at 100km/h. There's nothing in front of you on your lane. Nothing on the hard shoulder. Good weather. Little traffic. Perfect driving conditions.
You know that your car can stop in 40metres from 100km/h and you need to accomodate about 1s for reaction time (during which time your car will travel 28 metres). So you total stopping distance is 68 metres.
So you drive being happy that you can eaisly stop on 68 metres, as you clearly can see there's absolutely no obstructions on those 68 metres in front of you.
And then suddenly someone oncoming from opposite side skids, and ends up in front of you, on your lane, stopped, within less than 68 metres to you.
At this stage, there's very little you can do not to his him.

If you do (hit him) would you consider it being your fault, as you just hit a stationary object? Or maybe you didn't drive at speed allowing you to stop on distance that was clear??

No - you can't be liable for that, as at the moment that object (car) appeared on your path, you were already to close to do anything.

shifty89

No Pants wrote: »

Why would your insurer be paying out to this other driver? From reading your post:

Thanks for the reply, to clarify when i ended up stationary I was still on the wrong side of the road, so although i was not moving the insurance company still said I was liable as i was on the wrong side.

shifty89

CJC999 wrote: »

I doubt very much if they'll come after you for costs. Your insurance was valid and they already paid the other side. Were you ever asked if the car was NCTd ?

Hi, no I was never asked for the NCT when i insured the car to the best of my knowledge. I was def not asked for it when i got another car was all insured over the phone afterwards, all they were interested in was engine size and year.

shifty89

corktina wrote: »

Could she see you as you crashed or did she come round the bend and plough into you? If the later then she is to blame for not be in proper control. Bit academic though....

Thanks for the reply, I did actually go back to the bend to view where I hit the wall and yes the driver would have seen everything happening in front of her. A statement from them in respect of the claim did say that they saw me fishtailing but had no where to turn and braced for the impact.

shifty89

kennM wrote: »

Difficult situation... not even going to speculate covered or not as it wouldn't be based on anything other than opinion which is irrelevant. I would suspect it will boil down to small print in policy document. I personally haven't heard of cases where the insurance company have gone after insured driver to recoup costs due to car not being NCT'ed when in accident.

All personal injury cases must go through the injuries board. While the insurance company may offer settlement for said injuries at any stage the claimant is entitled to an independent assessment of compensation and thats what the injuries board are there to do (Not going to go into the viewpoints of how independent injuries board are, there are various views and thoughts on that on different threads). Naturally an insurance company is going to want to settle a claim in a most cost effective way as possible (cheapest), this often isn't in the claimants best interest.... everyone is entitled to a fair settlement based off the evidenced injuries that they have received.

Concern is understandable.... have the insurance company queried NCT etc.? I'd also be careful, you've just posted all of this on a public forum

Thanks for the opinion, yeah thats why not naming exact location or date or times etc

shifty89

K.Flyer wrote: »

A car should be driven in a manner that you have distance and time to stop your vehicle safely allowing for the unexpected and road conditions.

However, many years ago a car did go out of control on a bend, on the other side of the road to me in very slippery conditions and spun out and ended up in front of me causing a collision.
I was driving at 25mph because I knew how slippery the road was and even if I had been at 5 mph I would have most likely still hit him.
So it really depends on the full circumstances of the accident and avoidance may not be possible due to how it happened.

Even if a car has a current NCT the Garda will ask for the vehicle to be checked if they feel there is a roadworthiness issue. NCT does not equal roadworthiness and the latter is more important.

Thanks for reply, they might have some difficulty checking the car seems as though it went to a scap yard. The guard that dealt with me told me that he was satisfied the road was to blame and there was no reckless driving. And upon calling the insurance company about what to do with my car, i asked do they need to check it, they said no, i then asked in that case can I go scrap it because i want to recover some cash and they said that was fine.

CiniO

shifty89 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, I did actually go back to the bend to view where I hit the wall and yes the driver would have seen everything happening in front of her. A statement from them in respect of the claim did say that they saw me fishtailing but had no where to turn and braced for the impact.

What was the speed limit in that location?

shifty89

CiniO wrote: »

What was the speed limit in that location?

It was a 50kph area. I was travelling within the speed limit.

CiniO

shifty89 wrote: »

It was a 50kph area. I was travelling within the speed limit.

I was rather thinking about her speed.
But quick calculations seem to show, that if she was at 50km/h and suddenly you came into her path, she could have needed more than 3 seconds to stop her car at that speed (you mentioned 3 seconds from time you stopped till she hit you)
That's why it's highly possible that it was too late for her to stop completely without hitting you, in which case she can not really be responsible for that.

wishwashwoo

Listen don't worry no nct does not come into it as long as your insurance is up to date then your fine same thing happened to me no nct I caused the crash they claimed all good don't worry it will be alright don't be listening to the doomsday's ers

shifty89

CiniO wrote: »

I was rather thinking about her speed.
But quick calculations seem to show, that if she was at 50km/h and suddenly you came into her path, she could have needed more than 3 seconds to stop her car at that speed (you mentioned 3 seconds from time you stopped till she hit you)
That's why it's highly possible that it was too late for her to stop completely without hitting you, in which case she can not really be responsible for that.

I just want to point out I'm not blaming the other party and insurance has already basically said I'm at fault in insurance terms even if guards say it was a total accident my only concern is insurance company trying to collect after this is settled.

CiniO

shifty89 wrote: »

I just want to point out I'm not blaming the other party and insurance has already basically said I'm at fault in insurance terms even if guards say it was a total accident my only concern is insurance company trying to collect after this is settled.

As I said earlier in this thread - in my opinion if you policy didn't specifically said that car must be NCTed, then I don't think you have any reason to worry.

shifty89

Thanks to everyone who posted, its calmed me down quite a bit. I make a point of having everything on my car up to date early now if I can. Lesson learned and hopefully that's the end of it.