NCT - Can they do this?

lynchtp

drdre wrote:

My nct is in less than 10 hrs.Hope i pass it i havent even put it through a pre nct test

If i dont pass it then its a cheap way to find out the problems

So i will be kind of happy both ways

It isnt cheaper if you fail for something small that would have been fixed with a pretest
i.e light alignment or a brake disk.

daedalus2097

lynchtp wrote:

It isnt cheaper if you fail for something small that would have been fixed with a pretest
i.e light alignment or a brake disk.

The repeat NCT is probably a lot cheaper than a full pretest service, so to be honest it's usually worth the risk. If something has to be done it has to be done whether spotted in a pretest or in the NCT, and you're gonna have to pay for it on top of the service or repeat test either way...

Balfa

Darragh29 wrote:

"presenting a danger to the public"

I have to agree with Darragh. The argument that "if it's not road-legal, it's a danger to the public" makes no sense at all.

Think of it this way, why would the wording of the law explicitly include the exception for things on the test that aren't a danger if everything on the test is determinative of road-worthiness and anything preventing road-worthiness is a danger to the public? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Capt'n Midnight

nipplenuts wrote:

If you really need to know all the details you can buy the NCT manual for a fiver.

IIRC it's more like a tenner - ring up the GPO - government publications office

or

download for free http://www.ncts.ie/test.html


BTW: if your plates aren't legal then you should replace them as a matter of course. As for people saying they aren't a danger, aren't you more likely to try speeding / driving dangerously / a hit and run / leave the scene of an accident if you thought you cameras or witnesses couldn't recognise the plates ?

unkel

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

BTW: if your plates aren't legal then you should replace them as a matter of course. As for people saying they aren't a danger, aren't you more likely to try speeding / driving dangerously / a hit and run / leave the scene of an accident if you thought you cameras or witnesses couldn't recognise the plates ?

Well put, Capt'n.

OKenora

aren't you more likely to try speeding / driving dangerously / a hit and run / leave the scene of an accident if you thought you cameras or witnesses couldn't recognise the plates ?

You are also more likely to do the same if you are a complete twat so should they refuse you an NCT because of that as a danger to the public ? Seriously, most of what you point out is more down to the driver than the plates. The kind of driver that will hit and run will do it regardless of his plates with the same hope that nobody saw him.

Esel

Here's my read.

If the OP bought the car with the illegal plates, he should now change them.

If he put the plates on the car himself, he's a chancer, and therefore a danger to the public.

If he fails the NCT retest because of the plates and fights it, he's Don Quixote. Even if he wins that fight - because he will have to change the plates anyway.

Or maybe he's Sanco Panza.

BostonB

lynchtp wrote:

It isnt cheaper if you fail for something small that would have been fixed with a pretest
i.e light alignment or a brake disk.

Those pretests are a waste of money. The NCT often pick up things that a garage won't and the garage won't cover the cost of the restest or fixing what they missed. Often the thing they missed is a trival item, and not related to safety or road worthiness at all. A NCT retest is cheaper than a pretest.

Are there any stats to indicated the introduction of the NCT has improved accident statistics?

In my experience most CCTV systems or witness'es in accidents can't read regular plates so it makes no different what kind of plates you have on a car. But the NCT can't fail you on them if they didn't pick them up the first time. I don't like tarted up plates myself.

Seth Brundle

BostonB wrote:

Are there any stats to indicated the introduction of the NCT has improved accident statistics?

As cause of incident stats aren't properly kept I would doubt this level of info is available.
Many other incidents may not be reported to the gardai/insurance also which could distort any 'official' stats.

BostonB wrote:

But the NCT can't fail you on them if they didn't pick them up the first time. I don't like tarted up plates myself.

Is that guarranteed? I realise the legislation, etc. but can illegal plates be considered a danger to the public? Surely any deccent barrister would wipe the floor with that legislation?

BostonB

kbannon wrote:

As cause of incident stats aren't properly kept I would doubt this level of info is available.
Many other incidents may not be reported to the gardai/insurance also which could distort any 'official' stats.

To paraphrase. Probably not.

kbannon wrote:

Is that guarranteed? I realise the legislation, etc. but can illegal plates be considered a danger to the public? Surely any deccent barrister would wipe the floor with that legislation?

What scenerio can you foresee where a NCT failure is contested in the court?

templetonpeck

BostonB wrote:

To paraphrase. Probably not.



What scenerio can you foresee where a NCT failure is contested in the court?

Judging by previous posts here, on the same day as their 'hit and run' proceedings are being heard!!! 'why did you flee the scene?' 'Because the NCT Centre failed me for incorrect plates and I thought I'd get away with it'

Gerry

Theres a bit of confusion about "Danger to the public". There is a classification that the ncts can apply to a fail, called "This car is dangerous and should not be driven". But I've not seen it applied on any car I've ever nct'd.
For example, I've failed it with a faulty (new) coil spring, torn cv boot, and recently, a rusted brake line connector. None of these made the car dangerous.
In the case of the spring, one corner of the car was a bit more bouncy than the others, but it was hardly noticeable most of the time. Torn cv boot - its handy to have this pointed out, since it saves the joint if you get it in time. Not a safety issue unless you've left it a good while, and the joint explodes.

The rusted brake line was pointed out as something that wouldn't fail shortly, but at some stage in the future. When I changed it, I had to hacksaw it off, but I found 0.5mm of surface rust, and about 7mm of good metal under that.

All of these were classified with "This car should be repaired and returned for re-testing" .
So, to the poster(s) talking about a registration plate problem making a car and/or driver a "danger to the public", get the **** off your high horse.

TheBazman

My sister did a pretest with a main dealer - failed the NCT (cant remember on what exactly but something not apparent to look at). She brought it back to the dealer to sort it out. The dealer inspected and and said they could not fix the problem as there was no problem. She went back for the re-test and passed! So the car was exactly the same but failed once and passed once. Smells of a fail quota that needed to be filled

templetonpeck

Gerry wrote:

All of these were classified with "This car should be repaired and returned for re-testing" .
So, to the poster(s) talking about a registration plate problem making a car and/or driver a "danger to the public", get the **** off your high horse.

*passes Gerry a brandy* I don't think there's anything wrong in coming onto a forum and giving your opinion TBH, not sure how that puts us on a high horse, but whatever :rolleyes:

Reg plates do not make a car and/or drive a danger to the public..

Gerry

Brandy is always good Yeah, they are perfectly entitled to have the opinion that an incorrect reg makes you a danger to the general public, but I got the impression they were trying to pass it off as fact.

Seth Brundle

TheBazman wrote:

My sister did a pretest with a main dealer - failed the NCT (cant remember on what exactly but something not apparent to look at). She brought it back to the dealer to sort it out. The dealer inspected and and said they could not fix the problem as there was no problem. She went back for the re-test and passed! So the car was exactly the same but failed once and passed once. Smells of a fail quota that needed to be filled

My father had a similar situation but what it comes down to is that the NCT are pretty much always right, even if their test conclusions are outside the manufacturer's limits - this happened my father!
Anyhow, about two years ago the independent (IIRC) found details of failure quotas within the NCTS.

BostonB

kbannon wrote:

M....
Anyhow, about two years ago the independent (IIRC) found details of failure quotas within the NCTS.

and...?

Seth Brundle

and nothing!
That was pretty much it. Like Beverly Flynn losing a high court case, owing RTE loads but getting away without paying all of it, getting expelled from FF twice, everybody will tolerate her return to the fold!

BostonB

I thought you were going to share the stats or something.

drdre

I failed my nct on friday morning as 3 bulbs were fused but got the replaced for 5 euro inc fitting and went back in the afternoon as i didnt need an appointment and then passed.:) So i was really happy.Its the first time i put a car through the nct so was happy with the service.

MercMad

drdre wrote:

I failed my nct on friday morning as 3 bulbs were fused but got the replaced for 5 euro inc fitting and went back in the afternoon as i didnt need an appointment and then passed.:) So i was really happy.Its the first time i put a car through the nct so was happy with the service.

...........how come you didn't check the bulbs before you went in ??

MercMad

Gerry wrote:

Theres a bit of confusion about "Danger to the public". There is a classification that the ncts can apply to a fail, called "This car is dangerous and should not be driven". But I've not seen it applied on any car I've ever nct'd.
For example, I've failed it with a faulty (new) coil spring, torn cv boot, and recently, a rusted brake line connector. None of these made the car dangerous.
In the case of the spring, one corner of the car was a bit more bouncy than the others, but it was hardly noticeable most of the time. Torn cv boot - its handy to have this pointed out, since it saves the joint if you get it in time. Not a safety issue unless you've left it a good while, and the joint explodes.

The rusted brake line was pointed out as something that wouldn't fail shortly, but at some stage in the future. When I changed it, I had to hacksaw it off, but I found 0.5mm of surface rust, and about 7mm of good metal under that.

All of these were classified with "This car should be repaired and returned for re-testing" .
So, to the poster(s) talking about a registration plate problem making a car and/or driver a "danger to the public", get the **** off your high horse.

.......??

It sound like the guy who tested this car was a total idiot !

Firstly faulty springs dont maske the car bouncy, that would be a faulty shock, and either/both ARE a danger causing an imbalance in the way the vehicle will react whilst braking over rough surfaces !

A torn CV boot was an Engineers Report failure 20 years ago I fail to see how and NCT inspector would pass it. Dirt/moisure gets in, grease gets out and these things can lock up shortly afterwards if you are unfortunate. Its a chance I wouldn't take, and how is anyone supposed to know how long the rip has been there !

Brake pipes should be changed once there is anything more than surface rust on them !

BTW just to show the varying standards, my FIL '03 LR Freelander ( I know, I know) was failed for having too much oil in it. MY FIL went straight out and dipped it, the level was perfect, he called the tester over who said "Well it was too full when I checked it !"

Unfortunatley he didn't persue the matter !!

edengarden

Just to update ye.

Brought car for retest and it failed. I then did a letter to the complaints department thinking they would tell me to f-off but suprisingly i received my NCT Certificate and an apology for what happened.

The letter stated "You are correct in your interpretation of the Act. Only items considered dangerous should be added at a retest. In the case of registration plates, these would only present a danger, if, for example they were insecure and or liable to detach from the vehicle when it was in motion. In this istance it would appear the failure was as a result of an overly strict interpretation of the test criteria by the inspector on the day"

I also was offered a free retest by a senior NCTS offical, as in my letter i commented that I was concerned that my first test wasn't done properly if they had missed something as important as my number plate.

So all in all a good result and before anyone posts that I am gloating or being inconsiderate of the law I will be changing my plates in the near future.

Our man in Havana

Well done!

Darragh29

edengarden wrote:

Just to update ye.

Brought car for retest and it failed. I then did a letter to the complaints department thinking they would tell me to f-off but suprisingly i received my NCT Certificate and an apology for what happened.

The letter stated "You are correct in your interpretation of the Act. Only items considered dangerous should be added at a retest. In the case of registration plates, these would only present a danger, if, for example they were insecure and or liable to detach from the vehicle when it was in motion. In this istance it would appear the failure was as a result of an overly strict interpretation of the test criteria by the inspector on the day"

I also was offered a free retest by a senior NCTS offical, as in my letter i commented that I was concerned that my first test wasn't done properly if they had missed something as important as my number plate.

So all in all a good result and before anyone posts that I am gloating or being inconsiderate of the law I will be changing my plates in the near future.

You see, it pays to fight your corner, I told you that you were entirely correct in relation to your situation. Fair play to ya OP!

Seth Brundle

Nice one.
However, their letter reveals a few weird things:
they give you a cert but offer a free re-test - if they weren't confident of it getting through the re-test then why give the cert?
They also admit to staff training failures if the testers do not know the correct prodcedures as it is left to them to interpret the test criteria.

edengarden

thanks guys for help.

I think the offer of the retest was due to the fact that I expressed my concerns that if the number plate was considered dangerous what else was missed - though I am completly satisifed with my first test.

All in all I am happy with the result the guys who did my first test were lovely and were really nice when explaining the minor things the car failed on unfortunately I crossed two paths with two not so nice ones on the re-test so we'll leave it at that.

TJJP

edengarden wrote:

All in all I am happy with the result the guys who did my first test were lovely and were really nice when explaining the minor things the car failed on unfortunately I crossed two paths with two not so nice ones on the re-test so we'll leave it at that.

Cheers for the update, I was wondering how you got on. Reckon your approach was right, law is the law...

A friend had a 2 year old CL600 failed in the same place, reckoned 50 yoyos in the ashtray could have sorted the retest...

drdre

MercMad wrote:

...........how come you didn't check the bulbs before you went in ??

Because i just put it through to see what the problems were

steveon

I cannot even get my car tested, its been cancelled by my local NCT centre twice in the last 2months..have to wait till the end of the month for my third attempt...