Crashed car but NCT was out

whitelightrider

Hi folks,

My wife had a crash last night where she overtook a car, but that car turned right as if to go down a road, and hit my wifes car as she went past. Other car had minor damage to the front light, but my wifes car has a fair bit of damage and was pushed almost over the wall.
She claims the lady didnt have her indicator on so its literally each to their own.

However my wife's NCT was out and it turns out the car failed on a visual and she didnt bring it back within the 30 days, but has booked a new test and is waiting on the date.

She has to claim off her own insurance to repair her car. Is she covered though?

ongarite

Broken or solid white line on the road where the overtake took place?

EPAndlee

Without a valid nct they more than likely will not pay out

Atlantic Dawn

It will be up to them to payout or not, some policies have it written as a condition of cover. Aviva for instance...

You must take all reasonable steps to prevent accident, injury, loss or damage, and must keep your car in a roadworthy condition. While unattended, the car must not be left unlocked, or the keys to the ignition left with or in the car or windows or sunroof left open. Personal belongings should be placed in the locked boot, glove box or closed storage compartment when your car is unattended. You must ensure
the car is kept in a roadworthy condition, which includes ensuring that the tread depth on your car tyres are within the legal limits and if required that your car has a current and valid National Car Test (NCT) certificate. You must ensure the car is properly compliant with all Road Traffic legislation at all times. You must allow us to examine your car at any time.

http://www.aviva.ie/media-library/MotorCare%20Policy%20Booklet.pdf

whitelightrider

ongarite wrote: »

Broken or solid white line on the road where the overtake took place?

Broken line

whitelightrider

Shes with 123, or RSA

you will have to send them the cert for sure.

Heres Johnny

A good friend recently crashed his van with no DOE cert and his insurance company refused to pay out. I'd imagine NCT is a similar story.

mickdw

Id say they will only refuse if the accident was as a result of a defect that nct would have prevented. That said, it uses to be the case that they would only pay 70 percent of car value or repair cost if no nct in place.
I think there is a major road safety issue re side roads where councils dont seem to recognise their presence and put dotted lines where imo there should be solid lines. Its ok where locals know the story and are aware of side loads but with no signage and a broken line, its a receipe for disaster.

mikedukky

Id be wary, Check it out first

Last thing you want is them cancel a policy for not having it

Isambard

I'd say they will pay out but will value your car, if it's write off, as not having an NCT, ie substantially less than if it had one. Also, the repair cost at which they will call it a write off will be substantially less too I imagine.

bear1

Wouldn't she still be insured as 3rd party?
What make and model car is it?

noel100

My car stolen of the drive with No NCT and 123(RSA) paid out less €500 for no NCT.

TheChizler

Sounds like the other driver's fault to me, why not claim off their insurance?

wotzgoingon

TheChizler wrote: »

Sounds like the other driver's fault to me, why not claim off their insurance?

Their insurance company will deffo not pay out if the car had no NCT.

TheChizler

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Their insurance company will deffo not pay out if the car had no NCT.

Why not? The OP's wife has no agreement with the third party's insurance company.

wotzgoingon

TheChizler wrote: »

Why not? The OP's wife has no agreement with the third party's insurance company.

The car should not even be out driving. It has no valid NCT.

Atlantic Dawn

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Their insurance company will deffo not pay out if the car had no NCT.

If at fault they will, NCT or no NCT.

Sounds like the other driver's fault. Can't cut across a car that is executing a valid overtaking manoeuvre. Evidently didn't look in mirror. Could be some element of contributory negligence by your wife if other had indicator on.

wotzgoingon

wotzgoingon wrote: »

The car should not even be out driving. It has no valid NCT.

Breaking the law is not per se a defence in tort. If I crash into a car that's illegally parked, or driven by an uninsured driver, and it's my fault, I can't say "it shouldn't have been there" as a defence.

Sue Pa Key Pa

The lack of a NCT does not determine liability and if it was decided that The 3rd party was in the right, the insurer will pay.
If the vehicle was actually degective, contributing to the accident, the 3rd party will get paid and The insurer may have a right of recovery from their policyholder
The lack of a NCT may be a breach of a contract condition if you want to claim under your policy for your own damage
Liability is decided on probability using the proofs available. I would expect the other party to state that they indicated to turn (whether they did or not). An independent witness would be crucial here

grogi

wotzgoingon wrote: »

The car should not even be out driving. It has no valid NCT.

My fence does not have nct either. But if you crash into it, your insurance will pay...

Wibbs

wotzgoingon wrote: »

The car should not even be out driving. It has no valid NCT.

What nitpicking nonsense is this? So if I fail on a visual like a blown taillight bulb, I shouldn't be out driving?

Mezcita

grogi wrote: »

My fence does not have nct either. But if you crash into it, your insurance will pay...

Crazy comment is crazy.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like the other driver's fault. Can't cut across a car that is executing a valid overtaking manoeuvre. Evidently didn't look in mirror. Could be some element of contributory negligence by your wife if other had indicator on.

If the driver was slowing down in preparation for a right turn, the driver behind should have expected the move. If driver was turning off onto a minor road, there would have been a continuous white line.
Either way, OPs wife was in the wrong.

mrsoundie

Wibbs wrote: »

What nitpicking nonsense is this? So if I fail on a visual like a blown taillight bulb, I shouldn't be out driving?

Yes, you can only drive your car to the NCT center for the test and nothing else.

grogi

Wibbs wrote: »

What nitpicking nonsense is this? So if I fail on a visual like a blown taillight bulb, I shouldn't be out driving?

No, you should not. Fail is a fail

gizabeer

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Their insurance company will deffo not pay out if the car had no NCT.

This is not true , My brother in law wrote off his and 2 other cars 3 months ago in a rear end shunt , his NCT and tax was out by 3 weeks and he had fully comp . The insurance company paid out for his car in full 3 weeks later and on one of the others 3 weeks after that and there is a claim ongoing for the third cars driver (whiplash) . He had thought it might be a problem and when the assessor was making the offer of payment amount he did mention that they were out by a few weeks but never said if this was affecting the amount offered. He got a good the right amount for the car and was happy with it , But no doubt come renewal time it will bite him in the ass. If it matters his car was worth about 13-14 K and the other 2 were worth 1-2 K each

9935452

Deleted User wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like the other driver's fault. Can't cut across a car that is executing a valid overtaking manoeuvre. Evidently didn't look in mirror. Could be some element of contributory negligence by your wife if other had indicator on.

If the driver was slowing down in preparation for a right turn, the driver behind should have expected the move. If driver was turning off onto a minor road, there would have been a continuous white line.
Either way, OPs wife was in the wrong.

The op said broken white line in the road and no indicator from the other car.
The indicator is used to indicate what you are going to do . Mirror signal mirror maneuver.
The other car seems to have failed to do any of this.
The ops wife comes up behind another car driving slower than her. Checks her mirrors signals that she is going to overtake . Checks her mirrors again and proceeds to overtake the car on a broken white line and the other car fails to check mirrors fails to indicate . Just decides it's turning right and crashes into her.
How is she wrong ?.
All that said . The car shouldn't be on the road with no nct

vicwatson

whitelightrider wrote: »

Broken line

At a junction? this is hardly the norm?

the_syco

Wibbs wrote: »

What nitpicking nonsense is this? So if I fail on a visual like a blown taillight bulb, I shouldn't be out driving?

Blame the people who take the piss, such as those who drive with their fog lights on, as the lights they should be using are not working.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If the driver was slowing down in preparation for a right turn, the driver behind should have expected the move. If driver was turning off onto a minor road, there would have been a continuous white line.
Either way, OPs wife was in the wrong.

Nope, car in front in the wrong, moving into a lane occupied by another vehicle. A car that turns into a car executing a legitimate overtaking move is prima facie wrong.

OP said broken white line. And certainly does not have to assume that a car that slows down, without indicating, is turning right.