30 year change

unkel

shineon23 wrote: »

NCT Exemptions: All cars taxed as vintage and cars permanently based on islands not connected by road do not have to be tested.

If I had a car first registered between 01/01/1980 and 12/02/1984, I'd bookmark that link on my phone

Cleveland Hot Pocket

shineon23 wrote: »

I probably didn't explain myself right, what i meant is, insurers may take this stance, to get out of paying out, claim car was unsafe.
But then by right they shouldn't have agreed to cover it in the first place.

It all is too much of a grey area regarding classic I think.

More confusion:

'My NCT has expired. Can I drive on the roads?
Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 as amended by Section 19 Road Traffic Act 2006 – a member of An Garda Síochána may seize a vehicle being used in a public place without proof of passing a road worthiness test in accordance with Council Directive 96/96/EC (O.J. No. L46 17.02.97, P1) of the 20th December 1996 which for the time being in force in respect of the vehicle.

NCT Exemptions: All cars taxed as vintage and cars permanently based on islands not connected by road do not have to be tested.


See www.ncts.ie for further details.'

Source: http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=14

Wow, thanks for that link.
That clarifies everything. One classic I'm looking at is an '83 - I'll drive around with a printout of that legislation in the car so!

quenching

shineon23 wrote: »

I probably didn't explain myself right, what i meant is, insurers may take this stance, to get out of paying out, claim car was unsafe.
But then by right they shouldn't have agreed to cover it in the first place.

It all is too much of a grey area regarding classic I think.

More confusion:

'My NCT has expired. Can I drive on the roads?
Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 as amended by Section 19 Road Traffic Act 2006 – a member of An Garda Síochána may seize a vehicle being used in a public place without proof of passing a road worthiness test in accordance with Council Directive 96/96/EC (O.J. No. L46 17.02.97, P1) of the 20th December 1996 which for the time being in force in respect of the vehicle.

NCT Exemptions: All cars taxed as vintage and cars permanently based on islands not connected by road do not have to be tested.


See www.ncts.ie for further details.'

Source: http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=14

Unless they state it in the policy document that an NCT is required then it should never be an issue, but we all know what insurance companies are like!

unkel wrote: »

If I had a car first registered between 01/01/1980 and 12/02/1984, I'd bookmark that link on my phone

Indeed, or 13/02/1984 as its still there today, but I reckon it wouldn't be a valid defence if it came to court.

hi5

There's lots of old information still hanging around on the Net that hasn't been taken down, that information has since been amended.
Cars post 1980 need an NCT and its written in the statute books.

Dades

hi5 wrote: »

There's lots of old information still hanging around on the Net that hasn't been taken down, that information has since been amended.
Cars post 1980 need an NCT and its written in the statute books.

Agreed. The An Garda website is not something I'd rely on in court. Maybe at a checkpoint... but not in a serious situation. Ignorance of the law, etc. etc.

quenching wrote: »

Unless they state it in the policy document that an NCT is required then it should never be an issue, but we all know what insurance companies are like!

I'd assume the insurer would try and wriggle out this way unless you get something in writing from them with your policy. At any rate I'll continue to test my car despite it hitting 30 last year.

quenching

quenching wrote: »

Unless they state it in the policy document that an NCT is required then it should never be an issue, but we all know what insurance companies are like!

Dades wrote: »

I'd assume the insurer would try and wriggle out this way unless you get something in writing from them with your policy. At any rate I'll continue to test my car despite it hitting 30 last year.

Whereas I'd take the opposite view, if something isn't stated in the policy documentation its not relevant, they can't add extra conditions that you didn't agree to when taking out the policy.

My car hits 30 this year and I'm happy to test it, and like you will continue to do so even if the current rules change to say that its no longer necessary.

corktina

Dades wrote: »

Could care less about getting stopped. Valid insurance is the only thing that would concern me.

no NCT = mandatory court appearance, 5 points and €1500 fine on conviction I believe. "Don't care was made to care" my Oul Ma used say.

Dades

I remain sceptical. Especially with regard to classics.

elperello

Quote -

"There's lots of old information still hanging around on the Net that hasn't been taken down, that information has since been amended.
Cars post 1980 need an NCT and its written in the statute books."

And that's another bit of misinformation it's cars post 31/12/79 that need an NCT.
Honestly I'm not being a smart alec it's an easy mistake to make.I just want to get it right so we don't add to the confusion.

spooky donkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not convinced a yearly Nct is the way to go, but maybe an initial road worth test, then an NCT every 20,000 or 5 years which ever comes first.

I totally agree with you that this should happen thought it never will. the NCT is a revenue generating system for the government...... they are never going to bring in something that will save you money and cost them money...

dtm

quenching wrote: »

I don't think this is true at all, it certainly doesn't state that anywhere in my policy document, in fact no mention of NCT at all, anywhere. If some policy does state that a valid NCT is required and you don't have one then it can't invalidate the 3rd party liability aspect of your insurance and that's all that's legally required. You may get an argument from them about your own costs but thats policy dependent I suppose. Same way being drunk doesn't invalidate your insurance.

My thoughts exactly. Top post.

steveone

Some harsh comments about owners on here not wanting to part with cash etc-there is a whole thread elsewhere on boards about stinges and what they get up to.
now I know that I've seen plenty of classics bonnet open and in excellent repair and this costs money. I for one do the simple work and leave the tech stuff to a trusted mechanic. Some lads stand on their heads to get correct or better parts for classics while spurious will do for the daily. 50 in exchange for a list of what needs doin on your car is quite reasonable however i have had three issues where the nct have broken my daily and returned it to me with a fail and sod all i can do about it and I have had two cars die on the side of the road having passed the nct with flying colours.

The long and short of it is they are not putting their hands on the Capri. I don't trust their operatives with my property nor do I regard it as a quality rating. How could I?

oceanman

steveone wrote: »

Some harsh comments about owners on here not wanting to part with cash etc-there is a whole thread elsewhere on boards about stinges and what they get up to.
now I know that I've seen plenty of classics bonnet open and in excellent repair and this costs money. I for one do the simple work and leave the tech stuff to a trusted mechanic. Some lads stand on their heads to get correct or better parts for classics while spurious will do for the daily. 50 in exchange for a list of what needs doin on your car is quite reasonable however i have had three issues where the nct have broken my daily and returned it to me with a fail and sod all i can do about it and I have had two cars die on the side of the road having passed the nct with flying colours.

The long and short of it is they are not putting their hands on the Capri. I don't trust their operatives with my property nor do I regard it as a quality rating. How could I?

very good post, I feel the same...

galwaytt

shineon23 wrote: »

No NCT (if required-registered post 1/1/1980) = Car 'not roadworthy' = Insurance Invalid.

Wouldn't be my personal opinion, but as I've seen stated before, an insurance company may look to avoid paying out should an accident occur, on the above reasoning.

shineon23 wrote: »

I probably didn't explain myself right, what i meant is, insurers may take this stance, to get out of paying out, claim car was unsafe.
But then by right they shouldn't have agreed to cover it in the first place.

It all is too much of a grey area regarding classic I think.

I don't think there is any grey area. As quenching has eloquently put it, even the lack of NCT where legally required, will not negate your insurance.

Date of registration determines whether you do/don't need an NCT. That's all there it to it.

I don't care how much screaming & shouting and deep tones they use, the fact is, that once a Certificate of Insurance has been issued, the insurance company is legally bound to honour it. Issues of licence, NCT or anything else will not invalidate it.

Now, that does not mean that if you mis-declare something, or if you withhold a material fact that would influence your insurance that you get away with it. What happens there is that you are covered under the Road Traffic Act and cannot be prosecuted by AGS. So no conviction or penalty points. But, if the Ins co had paid out on a claim, then do have the right to pursue you to reclaim any cost they incurred on your behalf through the civil court process. Naturally, as soon as they find out, they will cancel the policy. The key phrase here is called 'utmost good faith' - and they assume this is what you exercise when filling out a proposal for cover.

With regard to the NCT you need to remember that it is only a statement of fitness on the day it was issued. As soon as you leave the place, it effectively means nothing. It does not mean your vehicle is roadworthy (especially into the future..........to the next date of test).

And the proof of this, if you require it, is that the insurance companies continue to retain and use Assessors. On foot of an accident/claim, he/she will come out and inspect your vehicle. Even with a shiney new NCT on your windscreen, but he/she finding something awry with your vehicle which may have had an influence or contribution to your accident (say, worn suspension), then he can declare the car 'unroadworthy' and as such reduce the payout or administer 'blame' on your part, with the result you get less money. This is not a legal issue, this is a commercial one. And you can challenge it btw........

But, there again, it's a two-way street: it can go the other way. Say you missed your NCT appointment, and were driving the car, and had an accident. Assessor comes out, inspects it, and finds all in order, and your car is perfect. Then your claim will be paid in full. The only fault there is an administrative one, and so long as it is not material to the cause of your accident, your payout will be unaffected.

Finally, bear in mind that a Garda can do similar: even with a valid NCT, if he finds fault with your car, deeming it unroadworthy, then you may actually be summonsed as well. Having an NCT on the windscreen does not insulate you from a duty of care to keep the vehicle...........yep, that word again..........roadworthy. It is not a forcefield So passing your NCT with shiney steelies, and then putting magnesium split rims with racing slicks on it.........is no defence :pac: :pac:

Moral of the story: the single most important thing is that your vehicle is not only in good working order, but is actually 'roadworthy' from both a legal and 'assessor' point of view. Having the disc on the windscreen is somewhat secondary. The former will keep you alive, whilst the latter may just keep you poor.........

da_hambo

corktina wrote: »

an eu directive, doesn't mean it will pass into law here though apparently

Lads, is there anywhere on the interweb where I can read this directive? Or point me towards a source of this rumour?

Thanks