NCT,Tax and a Garda. What can I do?

TheNog

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You shouldn't compare the Garda with the general public. The Gardai are entitled to have private opinions but they should not allow those opinions to influence the application of their statutory duties.

A guard has discretion in minor offences whether to prosecute or to administer a warning/caution. If the guards didn't have this power then we would be living with a police force enforcing zero tolerance and nearly every driver in the country would have penalty points. Even the good drivers make mistakes. Zero tolerance approach for minor traffic incidents would be counter-productive and turn people against the guards and the government.

Gatster

Just a question for the OP...why did you not get an NCT sorted in the past 14 months if your car is road worthy and therefore you had to nothing to be worried about (apart from the €50 entry fee)?

Just a note on VRT seizures...I hit a checkpoint last summer when I had the Z3 on UK plates, they had a transporter but seemed to be concentrating on 'Commercial' vehicles of all types, and Eastern European cars. Anyway, I was pulled in with a queue of LU/LT/PL plated cars and NI/Irish/UK plated 'vans'. I showed my UK licence, and a bill sent to the house in the UK that I happened to have in my laptop bag, and was told very nicely to be on my way (by a customs fella) after a few vague questions as to why I was around Dundrum at 0645 on a Tuesday morning...I think it very much depends on your attitude and the person you get talking to, although not having an Irish accent definitely helps :rolleyes:

Jo King

If a summons is applied for and issued the return date will not be for a number of weeks. If by the time the case comes on in the District Court and there is evidence that the NCT has been passed, the Guard will generally have the summons struck out.

Mr. Presentable

NP14 wrote: »

IThat's the thing here. He has asked me to do something which is impossible (within 10 days), and say if I don't
get it done in that time he'll summons me.

I'd have no problem paying fines etc, but it's this issue of going from non appliance of the law on one hand, to the
insistance that it must be complied with in an impossibly (according to the NCT people) short time.

Ten days is a short time isn't it.

But then you've already had more than a year and didn't bother, so, should you just be allowed to comply when it suits you. At your leisure, like?

Suggestion. Tax your car, bring the paperwork you can show to the Gardai and take your punishment.

masterwriter

XJR wrote: »

I'm not aware of there being any sanction for not having a current NCT cert. Does anyone know different?

In the NCT center there is a sign that says a fine of 2,500 euro or a term of imprisionment can be given for not having an up to date nct cert.

Wishbone Ash

TheNog wrote: »

A guard has discretion in minor offences whether to prosecute or to administer a warning/caution. If the guards didn't have this power then we would be living with a police force enforcing zero tolerance and nearly every driver in the country would have penalty points. Even the good drivers make mistakes. Zero tolerance approach for minor traffic incidents would be counter-productive and turn people against the guards and the government.

I think you've missed the point I was making.

Discretion and opinion are two different things.

I agree, understand and approve of a Garda using his discretion.

However a Garda letting his private opinions influence his duties is not acceptable when those private opinions are contrary to official regulations.

You stated that some Gardai turn a blind eye to the lack of an NCT disc because they didn't agree with it. That is not acceptable.

Do you think it's acceptable for Gardai ignore Section 49 offences/suspects simply because they don't agree with the statutory limits?

D_murph

this part i agree with......

ircoha wrote: »

Where does it say that once the NCT cert expires that the car is not roadworthy?

true. the car wont fall apart at midnight when it expires.


this one......:rolleyes:

ircoha wrote: »

The OP's attitude towards the guard who is doing his job is simply deplorable.

the OP is just giving his opinion on what he thinks considering the inconvenience involved and he was going to be emigrating soon as well so its understandable that hes upset. im sure he wasnt nasty to the guard (cos i read the thread) but it was an unlucky thing to happen all the same, just when needed the least as well.

TheNog

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I think you've missed the point I was making.

Discretion and opinion are two different things.

I agree, understand and approve of a Garda using his discretion.

However a Garda letting his private opinions influence his duties is not acceptable when those private opinions are contrary to official regulations.

You stated that some Gardai turn a blind eye to the lack of an NCT disc because they didn't agree with it. That is not acceptable.

Do you think it's acceptable for Gardai ignore Section 49 offences/suspects simply because they don't agree with the statutory limits?

I don't agree. Discretion cannot be made unless an opinion is formed first. An example of this would be say a driver is stopped and they have no tax for just over a month. The guard gets details from the driver and checks his/her details from the station. There is nothing on the system so the guard reckons this person seems like an ok person, was nice/polite when stopped and offered up details when requested. The opinion is formed then this person deserves a break and let on his/her way without a detection using the guards discretion within law.

This example of discretion is used more often than not, however in the case of the OP with NCT expired 14 months is unacceptable and therefore a guards discretion is used to prosecute because basically the OP is taking pee.

The 49 however is a different case all together as it is a more serious crime. Changes in the morals of our society dictate that drunk drivers be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and I would imagine that not many guards would use discretion here to let them off.

Wishbone Ash

TheNog wrote: »

I don't agree. Discretion cannot be made unless an opinion is formed first. An example of this would be say a driver is stopped and they have no tax for just over a month. The guard gets details from the driver and checks his/her details from the station. There is nothing on the system so the guard reckons this person seems like an ok person, was nice/polite when stopped and offered up details when requested. The opinion is formed then this person deserves a break and let on his/her way without a detection using the guards discretion within law

That is different as the opinion is formed based on the 'evidence' presented. Disagreeing with the NCT is a 'general' opinion and not done on an 'ad hoc' basis. It's not as if the Gardai stop a vehicle and then make the decision as to whether they agree with NCT testing or not.

I agree that the Section 49 was a poor example.

OK - lets assume that a Garda disagrees with cannabis being classed as an illicit drug and is of the opinion that it should be legalised.

If he was carrying out a a drug search he would already be of the opinion that cannabis should be legalised and he may possibly form another opinion and use his discretion if a person was caught with one joint. His opinion on the legalisation of cannabis is not based on the evidence to hand but is a general opinion.

Apologies for labouring the point.

TheNog

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That is different as the opinion is formed based on the 'evidence' presented. Disagreeing with the NCT is a 'general' opinion and not done on an 'ad hoc' basis. It's not as if the Gardai stop a vehicle and then make the decision as to whether they agree with NCT testing or not.

I agree that the Section 49 was a poor example.

OK - lets assume that a Garda disagrees with cannabis being classed as an illicit drug and is of the opinion that it should be legalised.

If he was carrying out a a drug search he would already be of the opinion that cannabis should be legalised and he may possibly form another opinion and use his discretion if a person was caught with one joint. His opinion on the legalisation of cannabis is not based on the evidence to hand but is a general opinion.

Apologies for labouring the point.

I understand your point and you make a good point indeed.

But try this for a scenario. Say you are a guard and are against drugs and you search a fella and find one joint. You check this person on the computer back at the station and find nothing on him. What you do?

Back to the NCT, are you in favour it in its present form? ie testing a car every 2 years?

ghouldaddy07

quick question lads I have a car that has been off the road for 3 years just recently got it up and running,The NCT is 3 years out of date but I have taken it to a mechanic to get it ready for the nct etc and booked an appointment.

If I have Proof with me in the car that im awaiting an NCT can I be fined etc if im pulled by the garda.

daingeanrob

just a quick personal experience with the nct i had two years ago. i was driving my partners car (which had tax and insurance displayed) where the nct had expired by 8 months, i passed a checkpoint and i explained that it wasn't my car to the garda and he took my details, i didn't think any more of it till a local garda called to my door in full uniform and marked car with a summons, it had in the mean time been nct'd but i still had to take a day off work and go to court. the judge fined me €70. this experience makes me sure to keep everything up to date from now on in my and my partners car, i had never any previous convictions, penalty points or anything, the car was a 1.3 corrolla. i think a summons is stupid for no nct and a fixed penalty should be applied in all cases, be it a day or a year overdue, this would mean not having to turn up in court and rely on the whim of a guard or judge.:mad:

TheNog

daingeanrob wrote: »

just a quick personal experience with the nct i had two years ago. i was driving my partners car (which had tax and insurance displayed) where the nct had expired by 8 months, i passed a checkpoint and i explained that it wasn't my car to the garda and he took my details, i didn't think any more of it till a local garda called to my door in full uniform and marked car with a summons, it had in the mean time been nct'd but i still had to take a day off work and go to court. the judge fined me €70. this experience makes me sure to keep everything up to date from now on in my and my partners car, i had never any previous convictions, penalty points or anything, the car was a 1.3 corrolla. i think a summons is stupid for no nct and a fixed penalty should be applied in all cases, be it a day or a year overdue, this would mean not having to turn up in court and rely on the whim of a guard or judge.:mad:

Unfortunately a fixed penalty cannot used for no nct but that is not the fault of the garda or the judge. It is up to the Government. It doesn't really matter if the car is owned by you or someone else it is always the driver who pays the penalty.

TheNog

ghouldaddy07 wrote: »

quick question lads I have a car that has been off the road for 3 years just recently got it up and running,The NCT is 3 years out of date but I have taken it to a mechanic to get it ready for the nct etc and booked an appointment.

If I have Proof with me in the car that im awaiting an NCT can I be fined etc if im pulled by the garda.

Yes you could be still be fined but having said that most guards will try to give you a chance. If you carry proof that the nct is booked and maybe any proof to show the car is off the road or recently fixed would help too.

celerond

Hi, very interesting thread.. good points on both sides regarding safety v's money spinner for the revenue... though I do remember the NCT being first introduced and too many cars passing so they tightened up the system... which made me lean towards the governemnt intoriducing it more for the money...

anyways.. a quick question for you

if i have imported a vehicle which was first registered on 17th Jan 1980 can I wait until next Jan to have it NCT'd.. as it seems to suggest in on the NCT site?? is this legal?? or will the garda be on my case;)

cheers

faceman

Any update from the OP?

prodigal_son

javaboy wrote: »

I wouldn't consider no VRT/tax as more serious offences than no NCT. Regardless of what you might think of the NCT, it does have some element of safety involved. A banger with no brakes can be fully paid up for NCT and tax but won't pass the NCT. So which is the worse offence?

People complain here all the time about the Guards acting as tax collectors and now the younger Templemore graduates start enforcing something which is about safety (the NCT) for once and there's more complaining.

To be blunt, the NCT means nothing really, An NCT stamp means that the car was in pretty good nick at some point in the last couple of years.

Brakes can fail, steering can fail etc etc..

Its not true to assume that someone who just cant be bothered with the NCT is driving a less safe car.

A member of my family had a car, which had no NCT for over half a year, when they finally got it done, there was only one problem, a single bushing needed replacing.

People have been brainwashed into thinking that anything without an nct is a heap of junk to be discarded, when that simply isnt true.

When i was a kid, my dad had a car, which had holes in the floor, He never once had an accident in it, so i fail to see how having an nct makes you safer either

javaboy

prodigal_son wrote: »

To be blunt, the NCT means nothing really, An NCT stamp means that the car was in pretty good nick at some point in the last couple of years.

We all know the NCT is not a true indicator of roadworthiness. But it does mean that at some point recently it was in good nick. It also encourages people to keep their car in good condition since they will have to NCT it again in 2 years.

Brakes can fail, steering can fail etc etc..

What is your point? A car that has been NCT'd recently has at least passed some minimum standard of braking ability. A car that has no NCT has not proven it has good brakes. Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that every NCT'd car has good brakes and every non NCT'd car hasn't but I would say statistically, an NCT'd car is in better nick than a non NCT'd.

Its not true to assume that someone who just cant be bothered with the NCT is driving a less safe car.

Nobody's saying it is. What are you suggesting though? Do you think there should be no minimum standard of roadworthiness?

A member of my family had a car, which had no NCT for over half a year, when they finally got it done, there was only one problem, a single bushing needed replacing.

Well done. Again I don't see your point. Nobody is saying that not having a cert on your dash will make your car fall apart.

People have been brainwashed into thinking that anything without an nct is a heap of junk to be discarded, when that simply isnt true.

I haven't been brainwashed into thinking anything. A car without an NCT is a car that has not proven some minimum standard of roadworthiness. Nothing more nothing less. With so many people out there doing the bare minimum maintenance (i.e. nothing) on their cars, the NCT can only be a good thing.

When i was a kid, my dad had a car, which had holes in the floor, He never once had an accident in it, so i fail to see how having an nct makes you safer either

If the car had holes in the floor, I can only imagine what else was wrong with. A rusty car would be a little more dangerous in an accident if he did have one. This is the same kind of argument about smoking where people say "my granny smoked 80 a day and lived to a 100". It's just anecdotal evidence. In the grand scheme of things it means nothing.

An NCT doesn't make you safer. It's the required minimum level tyres/brakes/suspension/lights etc. that you need to pass the NCT that makes you safer.

Guy:Incognito

prodigal_son wrote: »

To be blunt, the NCT means nothing really, An NCT stamp means that the car was in pretty good nick at some point in the last couple of years.

:

Thats true of every car test in every country. The MOT in the UK carries a lot of weight yet it only shows that the car was roadworthy on the day of the test.

staker

i got done before for speeding, effed off outta the country and came back 6 months later to find myself disqualified and my licence endorsed!!!! my advice- if you do a legger, be sure and get a solicitor to represent you on the day.. that way you'll maybe get a more lenient or no sentence

bublehead

Bendihorse wrote: »

Iv got a 04 Car, newly registered in the state in about October last year... Its been taxed and everything ok, but i haven't been called for NCT. Do i wait for a letter or what happens?

As a recent importer of a car to Ireland (moved home) I have to agree with

rambler924 wrote: »

The information data systems used by the VRT, Car Tax and NCT are not interlinked, so if you have not brought your registration document to your local NCT centre for them to input it onto their system you will never get an appointment letter. You usually get an appointment very quickly and sometimes you will be given it while they are putting it on the system for you.

NP14 As far as the NCT is concerned, you were taking the P**s not NCT'ing it for 14 months. I'm not surprised at the guarda's attitude to it as it had to be a conscious choice of yours not to have it NCD'd. Nobody could go that long without noticing it was out of date.

The NCT is not as bad as a lot of people make out. The Idea is to have a minimum standard of maintained vehicle on the road. It was introduced to take the amount of unsafe junkers off the road that were killing people years ago. Yes not having it doesn't mean your vehicle is unroadworthy, but it does try and insure it is roadworthy.

IMHO it doesn't go far enough. I would like to see it done on a yearly basis. I am still shocked at times to see cars on the roads with bald tyres, bits hanging off or my personal favourite was the car I followed to work on a daily basis in the dark, that had no working rear lights :eek:

To the people who think it's another Tax, grow up. €50 is not much for a car test. Well worth it to know your car's not going to fall apart (or the main parts anyway). I had to pay £50 (relatively cheap €75) a year for a mot on my car in the uk. This was done by a garage who could charge what they wanted, were open to inventing problems or pricy fixes (or backhanding).

If anything were to be complained about, it's the road tax, which is nearly double in Ireland what the UK tax is.

Did you ever consider that driving without NCT and tax (nearly out of date) might also invalidate your insurance. Considering that insurance is issued under the condition that your car is taxed and NCT's !

ednwireland

there seems to be a opinion here that if you have an nct the guards cant do you for having something wrong on your car (the guards might be less inclined to check) but if i remember rightly its your duty as a motorist to ensure your vehicle is in a roadworthy condition, if the guards stop you and the car has something wrong with it that is deemed to be dangerous they can prosecute (i would guess they would say get it fixed ) the nct does not exclude you from maintaining your car on a regular basis

javaboy

ednwireland wrote: »

there seems to be a opinion here that if you have an nct the guards cant do you for having something wrong on your car

Any quotes/examples?