Rear ended and then hit car in front.

emeldc

Jayop wrote: »

:pac: This could be the best thread in boards history.

It just became a bit more interesting anyway

Jmccoy1

seamusk84 wrote: »

Happened to me last year mate. Exact same circumstance. As you were stationary you are not at fault at all. The car behind will have to cover both you and the car you were pushed into.

I can tell you this for a fact from experience.

I can vouch for that, same experience in 2014. I was stationary on a motorbike, was hit from behind and drove into the car in front. My bike was wrote off, the car in front of me was wrote off and I suffered multiple injuries. The driver that hit me didn't own the car, however the actual owners insurance took the hit for the lot. My insurer set me up with a solicitor to take care of the lot, great service too I must add.

savagethegoat

driver 4 here, I was driving by but saw nothing. :-)

OP don't orget your car has been devalued, you should try and get some compensation for that

Jayop

savagethegoat wrote: »

driver 4 here, I was driving by but saw nothing.

Odon't orget your car has been devalued, you should try and get some compensation for that

How's the whiplash from rubber necking?? :P

jamesf85

AlphaMull wrote: »

Driver 1 here. Ain't boards a small world!

I got a call from Driver 3's insurance company within a half hour of the collision. She had already admitted liability.

So, they had no interest in my insurance details either. My claim is being handled directly by her insurance. I have no need to make a claim from the OP so his NCB should not be impacted at all.

All they wanted was for me to confirm was the OP stopped at the time of the collision. I confirmed he was so that should be that and they won't care about OPs insurance either.

That said...OP you need to be very careful on the road. I see you have a second thread where you did rear end another car and you came very close to it again today. The original post and comments about having handbrake on are disingenuous to say the least. You had to emergency stop to avoid hitting me and ended up at an angle across the road. But at the end of the day, you did stop in time. The following car was not so lucky.

The tax on your car is 16 months out of date, Your NCT is a year out of date and you had no insurance disk showing. If the Guards had been called at the very least you would have had your car impounded and would probably be looking at a court appearance not withstanding who was at fault for the collision.

Not trying to have a pop at you but you just about dodged a bullet today.

Wow, it truely is. Thanks for your response, much appreciated. It was a crazy enough spin to work I must say.

Yea I agree with you 100% on the above. The car hasn't been in use (brother moved away) and that's actually why they were out of date, not that the guards would have cared.

The other post you've seen was actually written by my friend, this is his profile, who wanted some advice and decided that boards.ie might just be the place.

Luckily this is my first accident and hopefully my last and also thankfully everyone was ok. Sorry if that start put a dampner on the rest of your day

stoplooklisten

jamesf85 wrote: »

........... that's actually why they were out of date, not that the guards would have cared. ......

I think you'll find they do, very much so car if "The tax on your car is 16 months out of date, Your NCT is a year out of date and you had no insurance disk showing." You are not responsible enough to be on the road if you can't get any of the basics sorted.

Jayop

stoplooklisten wrote: »

I think you'll find they do, very much so car if "The tax on your car is 16 months out of date, Your NCT is a year out of date and you had no insurance disk showing."

I think he meant that the Guards wouldn't have cared for his excuse/reason. Of course they would have cared about the disks being expired.

stoplooklisten

Jayop wrote: »

I think he meant that the Guards wouldn't have cared for his excuse/reason. Of course they would have cared about the disks being expired.

ah, ok got it

jamesf85

Jayop wrote: »

I think he meant that the Guards wouldn't have cared for his excuse/reason. Of course they would have cared about the disks being expired.

that's exactly what I meant, I was suppose to get it sorted last week so I don't really have any excuse.

dodzy

As I stated earlier, the driver (well their insurer) that caused the incident is liable for all damages in this case and the drivers of the other cars need to do nothing. Apart from driver of the disc-less vehicle, who obviously needs to decorate the windscreen.

You gotta love post #29 though! What's the bloody chance !!!!:D

No one hurt, everyone walks away , and that's the main thing.

Jayop

The assessor for their insurance will probably come out to look at your car and you could be in a spot of bother if you've no tax/nct. Someone with more info might be better equipped to confirm this but is there a chance they could refuse to pay because the car shouldn't have been on the road?

Stheno

jamesf85 wrote: »

that's exactly what I meant, I was suppose to get it sorted last week so I don't really have any excuse.

Do you actually have insurance at the moment?

jamesf85

Stheno wrote: »

Do you actually have insurance at the moment?

Yes I do...I got insured on the car in question at the end of last month. I haven't received my disc yet. As silly as it is to drive with no tax driving without insurance would be asking for a whole world of problems.

AlphaMull

jamesf85 wrote: »

Wow, it truely is. Thanks for your response, much appreciated. It was a crazy enough spin to work I must say.

Yea I agree with you 100% on the above. The car hasn't been in use (brother moved away) and that's actually why they were out of date, not that the guards would have cared.

The other post you've seen was actually written by my friend, this is his profile, who wanted some advice and decided that boards.ie might just be the place.

Luckily this is my first accident and hopefully my last and also thankfully everyone was ok. Sorry if that start put a dampner on the rest of your day

Exactly, everyone walked away. That's the main thing. The rest is why insurance is there.
Felt sorry for the poor kid that is liable (well her mothers insurance is anyway) she got an awful shock. Full airbag deployment in her car

AlphaMull

Jayop wrote: »

The assessor for their insurance will probably come out to look at your car and you could be in a spot of bother if you've no tax/nct. Someone with more info might be better equipped to confirm this but is there a chance they could refuse to pay because the car shouldn't have been on the road?

Will have no bearing on anything. They are there for insurance only. Everything else is up to the guards if they were involved. They weren't.

jamesf85

AlphaMull wrote: »

Exactly, everyone walked away. That's the main thing. The rest is why insurance is there.
Felt sorry for the poor kid that is liable (well her mothers insurance is anyway) she got an awful shock. Full airbag deployment in her car

She got an awful fright. But like you said thankfully everyone was ok and that was the main thing.

Liam McPoyle

Jayop wrote: »

The assessor for their insurance will probably come out to look at your car and you could be in a spot of bother if you've no tax/nct. Someone with more info might be better equipped to confirm this but is there a chance they could refuse to pay because the car shouldn't have been on the road?

The only time a claim could be declined for a non valid NCT would be if the driver at fault was claiming through their own insurance and the accident was directly caused because the car wasn't road worthy eg gammy brakes.

Even at that the third parties damage will always be covered.

As its not involving the middle cars insurance and they were completely not at fault then its a non issue.

Jayop

Cool, thanks for the replies.