Have written off my car. No nct. What should I expect from insurance company?

vincentjclarke

Hi guys,

In a quandary here.

Wrote off my car yesterday.

Single vehicle crash. Thankfully no one else involved.

Car doesn't have an NCT. It's would cost approx €18k to replace.

Insurance claim form is looking for the current nct on the claim form.

Where do I stand?

dubscottie

vincentjclarke wrote: »

Hi guys,

In a quandary here.

Wrote off my car yesterday.

Single vehicle crash. Thankfully no one else involved.

Car doesn't have an NCT. It's would cost approx €18k to replace.

Insurance claim form is looking for the current nct on the claim form.

Where do I stand?

You have just lost €18k. A condition of your insurance is that it is roadworthy (i.e. NCT) Your policy is void in effect. Unless it is a new car that has not undergone a NCT yet..

What year is the car?

Effects

How far out of date is it?

mickdw

vincentjclarke wrote: »

Hi guys,

In a quandary here.

Wrote off my car yesterday.

Single vehicle crash. Thankfully no one else involved.

Car doesn't have an NCT. It's would cost approx €18k to replace.

Insurance claim form is looking for the current nct on the claim form.

Where do I stand?

Expect to get about 70 percent of what you should be getting with a valid test.
If however the accident could be attributed to a roadworthiness issue with the car, well they would be well within their rights not to pay anything.

endacl

Ouch.

slimjimmc

I reckon this is best suited to Motors. Moved from Consumer Issues.

fmcg_scribe

vincentjclarke wrote: »

Hi guys,

In a quandary here.

Wrote off my car yesterday.

Single vehicle crash. Thankfully no one else involved.

Car doesn't have an NCT. It's would cost approx €18k to replace.

Insurance claim form is looking for the current nct on the claim form.

Where do I stand?

I'm inclined to agree with the other replies so far.

That said, I've looked at the NCT website and some insurance industry websites and I've not yet seen any discussion about NCT requirement for car insurance and what might happen in your situation.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Car_Test, the following point is made: "Enforcement [of NCT] is the responsibility of An Garda Síochána. Local authorities can (in theory) refuse to issue a tax disc to a vehicle not having an NCT certificate and insurance companies could (in theory) declare cover for an untested (or failed) vehicle invalid."

If there is even a grain of truth of this, you might have some wriggle room but you need to review the terms and conditions of your motor policy and you might need to get legal advice.

corktina

It probably depends on who you are insured with. A far as I have heard third hand, some Companies will pay out a reduced amount, this seems to be based on the decreased value of a car with no NCT on the open market, which is fair enough I guess.

bear1

I'm going to assume you have comprehensive insurance.
If I remember correctly, if the car had no NCT then they will probably pay a hell of a lot less than it's worth.
If you were out a few days then I can't see it being such a huge thing. A few months then yeah... Why didn't you have an NCT? Was there an expensive problem with the car?

coylemj

Not having a current NCT cert/disc does not invalidate the insurance but as already pointed out, the insurance company will probably use the fact to push down the notional 'street value' of the car i.e. they will use it to their own advantage regardless of whether the condition of the car was a contributory factor in the cause of the accident.

ScouseMouse

coylemj wrote: »

Not having a current NCT cert/disc does not invalidate the insurance but as already pointed out, the insurance company will probably use the fact to push down the notional 'street value' of the car i.e. they will use it to their own advantage regardless of whether the condition of the car was a contributory factor in the cause of the accident.

If it is specifically mentioned in the terms and conditions you must have a valid NCT, is this not a legal get out for an insurance company?

coylemj

superscouse wrote: »

If it is specifically mentioned in the terms and conditions you must have a valid NCT, is this not a legal get out for an insurance company?

There are restrictions on what the insurance companies can use as a 'get out', one of the forbidden conditions for example is that they insist that the driver holds a current driving licence. They used to insert the condition that the vehicle has a current NCT cert but as far as I know they have all removed this condition from the policy documents. It's still the case that you're supposed to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition but the binary of NCT (we'll pay)/no NCT (we won't pay) clause is legally dodgy and I believe none of them has this condition any more.

The logic behind it is that your vehicle doesn't become unroadworthy or dangerous just because at the stroke of midnight the NCT expires so there's no good reason why the insurance companies should be allowed to walk away from a claim on that basis which let's face it they would if they could get away with it. Just ask anyone who's tried to claim for a mobile phone that was stolen from them in a nightclub or which they left behind in a taxi.

I'm not a lawyer so please don't ask me to quote the relevant section of insurance law but this topic has been discussed many times here and in Legal and the bottom line is that motor insurance companies can't behave like mobile phone and travel insurance companies and insert all sorts of weasel 'get out' clauses which effectively allows them to walk away from a claim.

biko

Who are you with OP? Have you looked at the T&Cs?

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

There are restrictions on what the insurance companies can use as a 'get out', one of the forbidden conditions for example is that they insist that the driver holds a current driving licence. They used to insert the condition that the vehicle has a current NCT cert but as far as I know they have all removed this condition from the policy documents. It's still the case that you're supposed to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition but the binary of NCT (we'll pay)/no NCT (we won't pay) clause is legally dodgy and I believe none of them has this condition any more.

Well so my observations are exactly opposite.
5 years ago I don't think I've seen any insurance policy stating that NCT was required.
Now nearly every single one has such clause.

Trojan

Surely the reason the car doesn't have an NCT is important? Couldn't get a date, couldn't be bothered paying, "failed emissions", "failed dangerous", etc.

wonski

Trojan wrote: »

Surely the reason the car doesn't have an NCT is important? Couldn't get a date, couldn't be bothered paying, "failed emissions", "failed dangerous", etc.

Insurance company can send their assessor and decide if the condition of the car was a direct cause of the accident (bald tires, defective brakes etc).

If the car failed on emissions I doubt they won't pay out but - as someone mentioned below - the payout might be reduced.

I remember few posters in the past with the very same problem and they all received compensation from their insurers.

CreepingDeath

vincentjclarke wrote: »

Hi guys,

In a quandary here.

Quandary, is that a new model from Nissan?

ScouseMouse

While all this makes sense, what everyone is saying, is an insurance policy just another type of contract? I have a company van and private car and am sure I have seen terms like that included.

If the contract says "you must have tax and nct", then surely thats still a get out if they want to.

Anyway, I dont mean to derail the OP's thread. I hope he gets sorted out.

coylemj

superscouse wrote: »

While all this makes sense, what everyone is saying, is an insurance policy just another type of contract?

Yes, it is a contract of insurance but various regulations exists for insurance in general and motor insurance in particular.

superscouse wrote: »

I have a company van and private car and am sure I have seen terms like that included.

If the contract says "you must have tax and nct", then surely thats still a get out if they want to.

If you run down some guy in your car or van, it's your fault and the guy leaves a widow and five children, the law says that your insurance company can't get out of paying simply because the tax disc on your car was out of date so they can include all sorts of conditions in the policy but whether they can use any of those clauses to deny a claim is another matter.

mgbgt1978

dubscottie wrote: »

You have just lost €18k. A condition of your insurance is that it is roadworthy (i.e. NCT) Your policy is void in effect. Unless it is a new car that has not undergone a NCT yet..

What year is the car?

Total Nonsense.....:rolleyes:

mickdw

coylemj wrote: »

If you run down some guy in your car or van, it's your fault and the guy leaves a widow and five children, the law says that your insurance company can't get out of paying simply because the tax disc on your car was out of date so they can include all sorts of conditions in the policy but whether they can use any of those clauses to deny a claim is another matter.

There is no argument but that other party claims are settled regardless. I do agree with the point you are making in general.

At the end of the day, in this case the insurers will most likely hit with a low ball offer and given the lack of nct, the op will have little to argue with.

OMD

mickdw wrote: »

There is no argument but that other party claims are settled regardless. I do agree with the point you are making in general.

At the end of the day, in this case the insurers will most likely hit with a low ball offer and given the lack of nct, the op will have little to argue with.

From 123.ie website

Note: If you are involved in an accident that is found to be caused by a mechanical failure that would have been picked up on during an NCT, then this may affect the pay out of any claim made.

mickdw

OMD wrote: »

From 123.ie website

Note: If you are involved in an accident that is found to be caused by a mechanical failure that would have been picked up on during an NCT, then this may affect the pay out of any claim made.

Yes. That is pretty much what I was thinking earlier in the thread.

Chimaera

So in short: OP needs to read the fine print on their policy, and probably talk to their insurer's claims department about it.

mgbgt1978

OMD wrote: »

From 123.ie website

Note: If you are involved in an accident that is found to be caused by a mechanical failure that would have been picked up on during an NCT, then this may affect the pay out of any claim made.

Lot of "what if's" in that sentence from 123.ie.
They first of all have to show that the accident was caused by a particular defect that the NCT would fail you for.
They would then have to prove that it is an issue that would be obvious to an NCT Tester (they say would have been picked up, rather than should have been picked up)
And then it only may affect the pay out. They don't say if it will negate any pay out or if it would reduce the figure.

Not having a go at yourself OMD....just pointing out how vague the wording of 123's policy is.

coylemj

mickdw wrote: »

There is no argument but that other party claims are settled regardless. I do agree with the point you are making in general.

At the end of the day, in this case the insurers will most likely hit with a low ball offer and given the lack of nct, the op will have little to argue with.

+1 Even if the policy doesn't contain a requirement that you have a current NCT on the car, in the event of a total loss the insurance company can legitimately claim that the market value of the car is reduced by the fact that it didn't have a current NCT and there's no arguing with that.

visual

Most if not all insurance companies will say road worthy not nct but if your car is written off all insurance companies will claim your car is worth less than an nct car and will use this stick to lower the claim.

As per usual they make a first low ball offer you will have to haggle to get them increase the offer.

Never yet hear of any insurance refusing to pay a claim because car wasn't NCTed

anyway you could borrow 4 tyres for test and put back on your bald tyres after so test only confirms your car was road worthy at time of testing. Garda know this as does NCT tester and you can rest assured insurance companies also know this.

The insurance company will look up the value of car or similar car and reduce the price to reflect what a similar car would sell for without test.

CiniO

Quotation from Allianz Policy.

Looking after Your Car
You must take all reasonable care to:
1. Safeguard Your Car from loss or
damage and prevent injuries.
2. Maintain Your Car in a roadworthy
condition, ensure that lights, mirrors
and braking systems are working
correctly and, where necessary, has a
valid NCT certificate.
3. Fit tyres appropriate to the Car, and
ensure tread depths comply to the
legal limit.
4. Ensure You do not leave Your keys in
the Car while unattended or leave
Your Car unlocked.
If You do not do so, We reserve the right
not to pay a claim or if, by law, We are
obliged to meet a claim, then We reserve
the right to seek recovery of the payment
from You.

IMO it's pretty clear.

oldyouth

Many, not all, insurers contain conditions that the vehicle must have an NCT. Break any policy condition and insurers have a right not to pay an own vehicle claim. They also have the right to seek repayment of any claim paid to a 3rd party

mickdw

CiniO wrote: »

Quotation from Allianz Policy.



IMO it's pretty clear.

Yes that condition is generally included however from cases I've heard, the insurers work more on the basis that if a defect caused the accident and this defect would be a reason for an nct failure, then they refuse to pay.
Where the lack of nct is not a contributing factor to the accident, they in general just use it strengthen their hand re poor valuation.

Paddy@CIRL

It's worth noting that an NCT certificate is no guarantee of a vehicle's road worthiness either. I'd imagine that any car involved in a collision would be assessed on an individual basis?

Dord

On the NCT thing, AXA (through my broker) wouldn't transfer my insurance to a car I was looking at that had no NCT. They said they would only do so once it's NCT'd.

mickdw

Dord wrote: »

On the NCT thing, AXA (through my broker) wouldn't transfer my insurance to a car I was looking at that had no NCT. They said they would only do so once it's NCT'd.

While it's understandable that they would want a car to be nctd, their general policy on temporary transfers is a joke now.
They don't want to do temp transfers to family members cars.
They don't want to do temp transfer to your old car that you still happen to own.

I wanted to take sisters car for nct. A old car that she was getting ready for sale. No was the answer. This car still had valid test tbh. Got the manager to call me and he agreed to do it.
Told sister to take it to retest herself. Rang them. No. We cannot do that. Again with alittle persuasion they agreed to do it. Talk about making life hard for people.
Both of us are insured for years and are not the type to be ever swapping around cars or messing.

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

Quotation from Allianz Policy.



IMO it's pretty clear.

Looks like it is included in the policy but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. There's a a little thing call the Unfair Terms regulations which come into play in situations such as this (consumer vs corporate giant). The consumer cannot negotiate on the same level as the corporate (parity of arms, peashooter vs machine gun) so it is open to the courts to decide whethe terms such as this are fair or not. It would not surprise me if the insurance company procedures were such as to assess the car prior to invoking the clause.

Francie Barrett

It's pretty clear that the insurer has no obligation to pay out in the event of an invalid NCT.

oldyouth

Marcusm wrote: »

Looks like it is included in the policy but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. There's a a little thing call the Unfair Terms regulations which come into play in situations such as this (consumer vs corporate giant). The consumer cannot negotiate on the same level as the corporate (parity of arms, peashooter vs machine gun) so it is open to the courts to decide whethe terms such as this are fair or not. It would not surprise me if the insurance company procedures were such as to assess the car prior to invoking the clause.

So you think a judge will rule in favour of a person who agreed under the terms of a contract to meet his legal obligations and subsequently broke that law and should then financially benefit from that action?

Marcusm

oldyouth wrote: »

So you think a judge will rule in favour of a person who agreed under the terms of a contract to meet his legal obligations and subsequently broke that law and should then financially benefit from that action?

I'm saying that as a matter of public policy and consumer welfare, corporates are not simply entitled to dictate terms to consumers on a take it or leave it basis. Whether in the particular circumstances a judge would so rule is outwith the purview of this forum. If the insurer refused to countenance a claim or failed to inspect a car to determine whether road worthiness contributed to the accident would, I imagine, be a factor which would be given some weight.

oldyouth

Marcusm wrote: »

If the insurer refused to countenance a claim or failed to inspect a car to determine whether road worthiness contributed to the accident would, I imagine, be a factor which would be given some weight.

Tried and failed

MugMugs

Hi Vincent,

If a defect on the vehicle can be contributed to the loss occuring, then they can decline the claim in full. If the vehicle was roadworthy and the accident was driver error, then you should either receive a reduced settlement (taking into account no NCT) and or repairs.

zurbfoundation

what car, at least 4 years old, with no cert of roadworthiness, would fetch 18k on the irish market?

If insurance company don't play ball, OP can console himself that the car is probably not worth what he thinks it is.

mgbgt1978

Plenty of Mercs and Beemers falling into that Bracket.....