No NCT disc

Darragh29

junkyard wrote:

The points I'm making regarding the NCT is firstly the NCT is really only valid for the duration of the test, and your really at the whim of the tester as to whether or not your going to pass and secondly as far as I'm concerned, it's just another stealth tax which the government hasn't the balls to implement properly because they were losing too much money from people not paying their road tax.

I can't agree with the whole "stealth tax" argument because I don't know many garages that will carry out the standard of inspection that the NCTS do for 49 Euro. What you get is a lot for what you pay when it comes to the NCT, it's not like stamp duty where the government make 40K plus if you move house. The government had to introduce vehicle testing due to an EU Directive, which made car testing compulsory in EU member states. I'm sure if the government wasn't compelled to introduce road testing, it wouldn't be with us.

Yes, the NCT is a snapshot of your vehicle at a particular time on a particular day, we agree on that. There is nothing wrong with that. No matter what way you go about testing cars, a handful of people will always come up with a way to get around the system to their own advantage. The fact remains that the vast majority of people engage with the system honestly and fairly and probably enjoy safer motoring because of this.

I've a car here today that I'm putting through the NCT for a customer next week. It needs 2 front tyres, rear wheel cylinders and brake shoes. If this car didn't have to do an NCT, these parts would probably not be replaced any time soon. Is it right that this car should continue driving around with 2 tyres below the minimum thread depth and one seized wheel cylinder and 2 worn brake shoes or would it be better that the above defects get nabbed through the NCT process or better still, eliminated during a pre-NCT process???

Revelation Joe

junkyard wrote:

The points I'm making regarding the NCT is firstly the NCT is really only valid for the duration of the test, and your really at the whim of the tester as to whether or not your going to pass and secondly as far as I'm concerned, it's just another stealth tax which the government hasn't the balls to implement properly because they were losing too much money from people not paying their road tax.

Cobblers.
The tester has to test your car within certain limits. If any of the tested items, e.g brake imbalance, falls outside those limits, it fails. Simple.
Stealth tax? Even more cobblers. The NCT has taken thousands of dangerously maintained old wrecks off the roads. Yes, the NCT only proves the car is roadworthy at that time, but any roadworthiness test is the same. Even the UK MoT states that. In fact, the MoT is stricter, more expensive and an annual test, so think yourself lucky!
I would never buy a car that did not have a long NCT/MoT nor would I run a car without putting it through the test when due.

Darragh29

junkyard wrote:

It's just another stealth tax which the government hasn't the balls to implement properly because they were losing too much money from people not paying their road tax.

I have to say, the NCTS is one of the few things the government has managed to get right. It's a fair, objective system which can only promote safer motoring. It is transparent and open to scrutiny, you have a right to appeal. I've never had any issues with the NCT as a process and I spend many hours of the week dealing with cars on the way into the NCT. The only time I've seen any departure from the script when it comes to the NCT was actually on this forum when a poster was failed on a re-test for reg plates after being passed for this item on the first occasion, which was corrected when the poster escalated the issue with head office.

Darragh29

junkyard wrote:

The points I'm making regarding the NCT is firstly the NCT is really only valid for the duration of the test, and your really at the whim of the tester as to whether or not your going to pass and secondly as far as I'm concerned, it's just another stealth tax which the government hasn't the balls to implement properly because they were losing too much money from people not paying their road tax.

And another point as Revelation Joe has pointed out... A lot of the NCT process is completely objective with no human subjectivity whatsoever involved. Brake imbalance & efficiency, suspension efficiency, engine emissions, sideslip, all these items are passed or failed by a machine, the tester has no input into the result, other than ot hit enter to capture the result the machine has recorded.

Chaz

A car of mine, tested in Dundalk last year passed despite having tyres with massive bumps on them where the tyres we falling apart. I only noticed it the morning of the test. It passed like that - I replaced the tyres immediately after the test.

Should see if I can find pics of the tyres ......

NCT on my car was worthless - the tyres were about to blowout.

junkyard

I've seen cars that failed retested only to pass without have had anything done to them!!! There are ways and means, some testers are more lenient than others and some just set out to fail the cars anyway....you can't tell me otherwise I've seen it myself firsthand. As far as I'm concerned it's up to every individual to keep their car roadworthy, I'm not for one minute saying I approve of unroadworthy cars.

colm_mcm

junkyard wrote:

. As far as I'm concerned it's up to every individual to keep their car roadworthy, I'm not for one minute saying I approve of unroadworthy cars.

I strongly disagree with you on the stealth tax issue, how much cash is left over from the €49 test fe after costs are covered? feck all.

If it wasn't for the NCT people would quite happily drive around in unsafe cars, as was the case before the NCT came in.
Look at the number of cars that fail for having incorrectly adjusted headlights, at least these people have to get them adjusted every 2 years now.

It's up to each individual not to drink and drive too, on your rationale we should just leave it up to people to not drink and drive and it wouldn't happen.

Wishbone Ash

junkyard wrote:

As far as I'm concerned it's up to every individual to keep their car roadworthy

junkyard - that is precisely why we need an NCT system!

junkyard

I know I'm fanatical about my cars but from what yer all telling me I must be the only one who maintains my cars on a regular basis....does everyone else just rely on the NCT test and the local garage at service time, when or if that happens? If that's the case it doesn't surprise me that there are so many accidents. If the aircraft industry applied the same standards we see huge carnage every day and pilots with L plates..... I genuinely thought people were more responsible.:(

Guy:Incognito

junkyard wrote:

I know I'm fanatical about my cars but from what yer all telling me I must be the only one who maintains my cars on a regular basis....does everyone else just rely on the NCT test and the local garage at service time, when or if that happens? If that's the case it doesn't surprise me that there are so many accidents. If the aircraft industry applied the same standards we see huge carnage every day and pilots with L plates..... I genuinely thought people were more responsible.:(

Your awfull naiive so. Especially for someone who is in the industry.

Even just from boards it is obvious to see the results. The Alfa threads arethe prime example. Theres plenty of people on here with faultless 156's and haveing a great ownership experience. Then theres the ones who come on saign theres is falling apart and breakign down.

The difference once it gets down to the details is the good ones are ver well looked after. If people arnet lookign after whats under the bonnet I can see other things (brakes, tyres etc) being left as long as possible to get "value" from them, as well as that I'd say theres a good proportion of people who specify cheapest as their onlyt requirement when getting maintenance parts.

People cant be relied on to self relulate when their own money is being spent.

maidhc

Stekelly wrote:

Your awfull naiive so. Especially for someone who is in the industry.

Even just from boards it is obvious to see the results. The Alfa threads arethe prime example. Theres plenty of people on here with faultless 156's and haveing a great ownership experience. Then theres the ones who come on saign theres is falling apart and breakign down.

The difference once it gets down to the details is the good ones are ver well looked after.

... A "good" car should be very reliable without needing constant money being pumped into it. That is how all my cars have been. I have spent nothing on my focus in the past 1 1/2 yrs except oil and filters and it has 80k on the clock. It passed the NCT too, and not only that but everything was well within the tolerances. Our mondeo only had a bit of money spent on it for the first time this year... not bad for 190k (and it is still on the same brake discs!).

I think the NCT is good value though, and yes it forces some people to sort out their cars, and for that it is probably a good thing.

Guy:Incognito

maidhc wrote:

... A "good" car should be very reliable without needing constant money being pumped into it. That is how all my cars have been. I have spent nothing on my focus in the past 1 1/2 yrs except oil and filters and it has 80k on the clock. It passed the NCT too, and not only that but everything was well within the tolerances. Our mondeo only had a bit of money spent on it for the first time this year... not bad for 190k (and it is still on the same brake discs!).

I think the NCT is good value though, and yes it forces some people to sort out their cars, and for that it is probably a good thing.

Regulaly checking levels and more fequent timing belt changes than a different ake does meanyour pumping money into a car.
Its a different issue and not a afety issue as such but some cars just require more care than others.Thats not bad thing. Who decides whats good ? what exactrfirgures is it based on for oil/belt etc changes? Some cars are better than others at withstanding neglect. You can get away with not checking levels etc on a lot of cars but on othe you cant.

How often do you have to service and maintain things on a Ferrari or a Lamborghini?

maidhc

Stekelly wrote:

Its a different issue and not a afety issue as such but some cars just require more care than others.Thats not bad thing.

...yes it is a bad thing! My capri needs more maintenance than my focus... and that is a bad thing and precisely why it is insured to drive 3k P.a... and why i use it as a toy rather than a serious mode of transport!

Stekelly wrote:

How often do you have to service and maintain things on a Ferrari or a Lamborghini?

See above... it is no ferrari though!

It is also why I bought a 34year old "fun" car... so I wouldn't have to bother with the NCT. If the brakes pull a bit, so be it it. if the suspensions are a bit out, so be it.. i'll fix them in due course, I don't need a test to tell me.

Guy:Incognito

maidhc wrote:

...yes it is a bad thing! My capri needs more maintenance than my focus... and that is a bad thing and precisely why it is insured to drive 3k P.a... and why i use it as a toy rather than a serious mode of transport!

Why didnt you buy a Corolla instead of th efocus so, probably wouyld have been a step up again.

Different car are just that different, otherwise evey car would be the same and have the ame service intervals, oil changes, timing belt changes etc. It's up to the person buying whethte they are happy doing thiese things more regularly fora car with personality. The problem arises when people buy an Alfa and treatit like a Toyota.

junkyard

Plenty of Alfa's down my way that have been well looked after by "specialists" and even enthusiasts and they still fall apart and blow up but I won't even go there before the "Anti-Alfa-Response" team rush in to quell the flames.:)

yayamark

maidhc wrote:

There are NO penalty points for not having an NCT or an NCT disc. While a mandatory court appearance and 5 penalty points is provided for in the 2002 Road Traffic Act, the section relating to the NCT has never been brought into force, and as such is not law.

i'm afraid that is incorrect. I know for a fact it is in force. upon conviction in court. the details are sent to the relevant agency and the penalty points applied. FACT.

maidhc

yayamark wrote:

i'm afraid that is incorrect. I know for a fact it is in force. upon conviction in court. the details are sent to the relevant agency and the penalty points applied. FACT.

It isn't incorrect. The RTA 2002 provides for 69 penalty point offences, however only 36 of them are currently implemented. The NCT isn't one.

FYI: http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

It isn't incorrect. The RTA 2002 provides for 69 penalty point offences, however only 36 of them are currently implemented. The NCT isn't one.

FYI: http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php

No mention of that link of a drink deriving offfence, unless "driving a vehicle when unfit", can be considered to be drink driving...

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

No mention of that link of a drink deriving offfence, unless "driving a vehicle when unfit", can be considered to be drink driving...

It is. Catch all to include drink, drugs, prescription medication, person just off a general anesthetic etc

Not that it matters. A person convicted of drink driving will often get 2 years off the road, and their licence endorsed and be generally uninsurable for about 6 years.

commited

Lads - I'd be careful - most insurance companies wont pay out unless your car has a valid NCT/MOT cert...

maidhc

commited wrote:

Lads - I'd be careful - most insurance companies wont pay out unless your car has a valid NCT/MOT cert...

Any evidence of this?

yayamark

maidhc wrote:

It isn't incorrect. The RTA 2002 provides for 69 penalty point offences, however only 36 of them are currently implemented. The NCT isn't one.

FYI: http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php

The Road Traffic Act has been updated since February and 5 penalty points is one of the new ones. The website hasn't

junkyard

commited wrote:

Lads - I'd be careful - most insurance companies wont pay out unless your car has a valid NCT/MOT cert...

First I've heard of it and I assess them for insurance companies. If the car is poorly maintained i.e. bald tyres or in poor condition insurance companies will threaten not to pay up but they always do. If you read the small print on you insurance documents its up to the owner to maintain the car in a safe condition which is only fair and common sense really.

junkyard

yayamark wrote:

The Road Traffic Act has been updated since February and 5 penalty points is one of the new ones. The website hasn't

Where did you see this, have you a link for it?

yayamark

do you know i dont. i cant find it ant where and i've looked. BUT i am 100% right. give me until tomorrow and i'll get proof at work.

quinta

I was in Dun Laoire district court recently enough. Quite a lot of people were in there for having out of date NCT discs. When these people were called up the Judge would hear the case, the accused would produce the new NCT cert, case closed. Those who didn't have it done in time were given time to get it done and come back, providing you had some form of excuse. Nobody was fined or penalised. I think one guy didn't have it done the second time and he was fined €100 or so, but I remember at the time being surpsrised by the leniency of it all, oh and the fact that some other people were being done for having the wrong colour headlights

The Judge looked like she was annoyed she had to deal with the NCT cases.

yayamark

Just to let you know the judge doesn't make an order that the penalty points be placed on the offenders driving licence. All this happens in the administration section.

junkyard

yayamark wrote:

BUT i am 100% right. .

Just like everyone else on here.;)

quinta

yayamark wrote:

Just to let you know the judge doesn't make an order that the penalty points be placed on the offenders driving licence. All this happens in the administration section.

I'll have to take your word, but I assume the accused that produced the valid cert got away with it, as a few of them did ask, "what happens now?", she just told them it was fine and called the next person.

commited

maidhc wrote:

Any evidence of this?

junkyard wrote:

First I've heard of it and I assess them for insurance companies. If the car is poorly maintained i.e. bald tyres or in poor condition insurance companies will threaten not to pay up but they always do. If you read the small print on you insurance documents its up to the owner to maintain the car in a safe condition which is only fair and common sense really.

Well it's in my insurance policy - Quinn Direct - that all cars must have a valid NCT/MOT. Friends of mine with Hibernian have had to produce a valid MOT/NCT cert when they've changed their cars.

Don't get me wrong - I think the NCT is an absolute joke, I failed on not having enough water in my washer bottles FFS. On top of that, he rode the clutch and bent the bonnet badly (couldnt work out how to open it so decided to use force instead).

I only found out recently about the whole NCT requirement for my insurance to be valid (also applied to the driving other cars part - must have tax and NCT), so I was pointing out that it would be worth checking