No NCT claiming off third party's insurance

emmas

I was involved in an accident and the driver of the other car is claiming off my insurance but they do not have a valid NCT disc (it was out last February) Im just wondering if this will affect their claim if its coming out of someone elses insurance?

djimi

I doubt it. If they are successfully claiming off you then you have been deemed to be (partly at least) responsible for the incident, so their lack of NCT will not be considered to be a factor.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

NCT is irrelevant in that scenario.

coylemj

OP, if the accident was your fault, why would the status of the other guy's NCT have any bearing on things? TBH it sounds like you're looking for a loophole to get out of accepting responsibility for something which was your fault.

goz83

Would you be asking this question if you hit a car parked on a public road with no nct? How about no tax?

Even if the other driver had no insurance, tax, nct, or license, the claim would still be valid. The other stuff is dealt with separately.

oldyouth

It might affect the amount of the claim for repairs, but liability is liability

goz83

oldyouth wrote: »

It might affect the amount of the claim for repairs, but liability is liability

No. Not repairs. It could potentially affect the amount paid out if the car was written off, because a car with no nct has less potential value.

digit1

We had an accident and had not noticed out nct was out of date by a month. We got paid. It did not seem to matter. We were not at fault in the accident.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

It might not make much difference to the claim but id contest it anyway as the car shouldn't be on the road without a valid nct.

djimi

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

It might not make much difference to the claim but id contest it anyway as the car shouldn't be on the road without a valid nct.

Youd be wasting your time. If the insurance company has accepted blame then the lack of NCT was not a factor in the incident. Whether the car should or should not have been on the road is completely irrelevant (it might see the other driver receive a punishment, but that would be a seperate matter).

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

djimi wrote: »

Youd be wasting your time. If the insurance company has accepted blame then the lack of NCT was not a factor in the incident. Whether the car should or should not have been on the road is completely irrelevant (it might see the other driver receive a punishment, but that would be a seperate matter).

I often wondered because anytime an accident occurs they send out an assessor and they check tyre thread depth and all sorts on you car including all discs so i mean they must have a reason for it !

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

Unless the condition of the other car was a factor in the cause of the accident, the lack of an NCT cert is irrelevant. And even if the other car does have a valid NCT, it could still have a fault that caused the accident like that he had 3 mm tread on his tyres when he got the NCT 11 months ago but now they're bald.

Remember that you can fail the NCT because you don't have the county name in Irish on your numberplate, or the boot catch doesn't work, does that mean that it's your fault if another guy runs a red light and smashes into you?

Let keep a little bit closer to reality here.

djimi

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nonsense. So youre saying that a lack of NCT on an otherwise perfectly roadworthy car (and lets not forget that it can take a long time to get a test date in this country) should in some way absolve blame away from an otherwise negligent driver who may well be entirely to blame for the incident?

Whether or not the car should have been on the road is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. If one car hits another car and is deemed to be at fault then those three pieces of paper in the windscreen of the third party mean absolutely nothing in terms of blame. If lack of NCT was a factor in the incident then the blame would not lie with the other party.

V.W.L 11

it wont effect the claim,my nctless car was written off and the third party's insurance company gave me the current market value even though i was on a provisional licence and alone,but it was a good while back

CiniO

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nonsense.
Fact if other car should be there or not has no bearing on fact that OP caused an accident.
Also other driver was entitled to be there. It's a free country.
He was indeed breaking the law by driving without NCT, but there is no prohibition to be somewhere.
To be more precise - law says - "if you are on public road, you must have valid NCT" - not opposite f.e. not "if you don't have valid NCT, you can't use public roads".
This results in fact, that if you are there on public road without NCT, you commit an offence of not having NCT when required, not offence of being on public road when prohibited.
It's a big difference.


It's pretty much same as if someone shot an illegal immigrant.
Do you think that person should not be punished for murder, just because his victim shouldn't be there?

goz83

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I often wondered because anytime an accident occurs they send out an assessor and they check tyre thread depth and all sorts on you car including all discs so i mean they must have a reason for it !

Exactly. They come out and check the car to make sure it was in road worthy condition and whether any faults were a factor in the accident. If the nct was really the be all and end all, then they would just ask to see the disc and would ignore the car. The only reason I can see them checking, is to help value the car in the event of a write-off. It can take months to get an nct test date. It's a joke of a system.

emmas

coylemj wrote: »

OP, if the accident was your fault, why would the status of the other guy's NCT have any bearing on things? TBH it sounds like you're looking for a loophole to get out of accepting responsibility for something which was your fault.

FYI! I have already accepted blame and had contacted my insurance company before I posted this post. I had been informed by more than one person that this might be the case as everyone knows insurance companies will do everything in their power not to pay out.