AIG requiring NCT/Engineer's report on classics

john hanrahan

hi
i have 2 cars on a classic policy with no modern car, i rang the insurance a few weeks ago as i was thinking of buying a more modern car, the classic's were driving me nuts, asking what was the youngest car i could put on the policy.

i was told amonst other things that from next august? any car added to the policy would have to have an NCT i am assuming that is for a car where an NCT is required as that was the age of the cars i was asking about.

i won't have to have the cars currently on the policy NCT'd although one is as its a 1993 the other is a 1976 only cars added after august, also she said they were no longer insuring 4x4 or commercial vehicles.

that is with AIG, so its the insurance company requiring it

80sDiesel

Fake news. One insurer wants an NCT on all classics and now sudden it's the law. Gotta love the internet huh!

Dades

Envisaged actual scenario: Insurers will require an NCT for any post-79 car to issue a policy. i.e. Any car that currently by law requires an NCT cert to be on the road needs to have one. Fair enough.

Worst case scenario: Pre-80 cars may require some sort of report to get insured.

While it's easy for insurers to change policies, I can't see the present toothless government bothering their arses to actually change the law. I also very much doubt tightening the screw on vintage vehicles would make a blind bit of difference to spiraling insurance costs, or road traffic accidents.

zilog_jones

I'd be concerned that NCT testers won't know how to drive classic cars properly. I'm sure there are many people under 35 or so who have never driven a car with no power steering, no servo-assisted brakes, manual chokes, etc. - never mind pre-war stuff with manual ignition advance/retard and non-standard pedals. I've heard of enough cases of testers breaking modern cars, would you trust them?

If they ever do make tests mandatory for such cars, there should probably be special dispensation to allow the owner to take it through the test.

macplaxton

MOD edit: I've changed the thread title to better reflect the actual situation

w124man

Of course we all know that your insurance company can, if they wish to, invalidate your insurance should you not have a valid NCT at the time of a claim.


We all also know that your insurance company can, if they wish to, invalidate your insurance should you have an accident and their assessor - if they want to employ one to investigate - says the car was not fit for the road at the time of the accident.


We all know that don't we because we have all read the small print, haven't we!!

ajmboyce

kadman wrote: »

Source......try insuring a classic now.....without an NCT or engineers report.

Short answer is you cant, ergo testing in some shape or form is compulsory.

There is absolutely no problem insuring a classic as i have just done so your statements are inaccurate also what percentage of accidents are classic cars involved in? Do you know? Do you live in an imaginary world where "rust buckets"as you called them roll about like tumbleweed? The vast majority of people tend to look after their classic,vintage and veteran cars better than most everyday cars are looked after. So as for feeling a whole lot safer you must be jumping outside of your skin with nerves if the odd classic with a few scabs of rust happens buy to make you feel that unsafe you must live in a little bubble what about a bicycle should they be tested too?? I think you are just stirring the pot and are full of spoof.

Dades

I hate to say it, the fixing of the NCT cutoff date at 1/1/80 was probably a good thing. Otherwise there would be a load of chancers just picking up 80's car and driving them around in any condition for the 'chape tax' and test-free driving.

70's cars require at least some form of commitment to drive regularly.

The downside is it pretty much condemns most 80s and 90s cars to the scrapheap as the increased complexity and electrics make it harder and harder to get through a test.

Thinkingaboutit

ajmboyce wrote: »

There is absolutely no problem insuring a classic as i have just done so your statements are inaccurate also what percentage of accidents are classic cars involved in? Do you know? Do you live in an imaginary world where "rust buckets"as you called them roll about like tumbleweed? The vast majority of people tend to look after their classic,vintage and veteran cars better than most everyday cars are looked after. So as for feeling a whole lot safer you must be jumping outside of your skin with nerves if the odd classic with a few scabs of rust happens buy to make you feel that unsafe you must live in a little bubble what about a bicycle should they be tested too?? I think you are just stirring the pot and are full of spoof.

Yes, OP has posted what's called #fakenews. The idea that engineer's reports are needed to insure one suggests he's confused. I've insured one for ten years or more without even a hint of asking for one. Perhaps he's thinking of modified cars, but that post suggests he isn't thinking. Classic cars tend to show far more evidence of care, than some seven year old covered in nicks and unrepair scratches, and with the beginnings of rust where some damage occurred.

elperello

Dades wrote: »

I hate to say it, the fixing of the NCT cutoff date at 1/1/80 was probably a good thing. Otherwise there would be a load of chancers just picking up 80's car and driving them around in any condition for the 'chape tax' and test-free driving.

70's cars require at least some form of commitment to drive regularly.

The downside is it pretty much condemns most 80s and 90s cars to the scrapheap as the increased complexity and electrics make it harder and harder to get through a test.

You have a point about chancers but where would they get the cars that would stand up to everyday use. The commitment needed to keep an old car on the road would soon drive most chancers back to more modern cars.

The problem about 80's and 90's cars will need to be addressed before we lose a big chunk of motoring heritage but I'm not holding my breath!

Wibbs

Dades wrote: »

The downside is it pretty much condemns most 80s and 90s cars to the scrapheap as the increased complexity and electrics make it harder and harder to get through a test.

That's a worry alright. Well, in Ireland anyway, they'll survive fine elsewhere, not least with our fellow petrolheads in the UK(maybe even moreso now with Brexit). I personally know of a couple of British lads who have come over here to pick up cars from both decades and on the cheap too, because of our insane insurance and government guff drives the price way down compared to over there.

kyote00

The other half is a "domestic engineer" of some skill.... does that count....

kadman

da_hambo wrote: »

I have got a classic 83 with AIG due for renewal next week and I indeed did get an email looking for an NCT certificate or engineer report or they wont renew me this year. I explained it would be impossible with the car hibernating for the winter to get an NCT in such a short space of time and they replied that AIG could not cover me without one.
Those that have gotten a classic policy recently please Pm me with insurance company and or contact name. Thanks!

But by law you have to have an NCT for your car its 83, nothing unusual
about that.

BUt in my case, my car is 76, and has been insured for the last 10 years as a classic, and was informed that the new thing is for an NCT or engineers report, by the insurance broker. Thats unusual if its going to be the norm.

At the moment its only AIG as far as I,ve been able to find out.

And for those that think I,m new to classics, I,m not. I,ve been insuring
and driving classics for most of my driving career, and its long as I,m 62.
And up until a week ago I,ve never been asked for an NCT or an engineers report in all that time.

I am waiting on replies from other insurance, as soon as I get them, i,ll post

TherapyBoy

kadman wrote: »

And for those that think I,m new to classics, I,m not. I,ve been insuring
and driving classics for most of my driving career, and its long as I,m 62.

Calling them "rust buckets" & "death traps" in your original post had us fooled.

kadman

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Calling them "rust buckets" & "death traps" in your original post had us fooled.

Trust me I,ve seen a lot of rustbuckets at shows, that shouldn,t be on the road,
and from so called experts.

But thats another thread.

jca

kadman wrote: »

Trust me I,ve seen a lot of rustbuckets at shows, that shouldn,t be on the road,
and from so called experts.

But thats another thread.

That's for sure. P.S. The apostrophe (') is on the same key as the (@)

kadman

jca wrote: »

That's for sure. P.S. The apostrophe (') is on the same key as the (@)

So..........

All the future action plans regarding insurance and the government plans
are in the appropriate document online, apostrophe,,,,,,,,s included:p

kadman

Just took this from the online discussion document between the Government and Insurance companies.
I think the points in reference to NCT/CRW proof is an interesting proposal.

In the current situation a pre 80 car needs no test, but insurance companies can demand one presumably if they decide to. And they give insurance, not the government.



10.2 Maximising the use of the NCT/CRW

At present, there is a lack of a facility available to insurance companies to verify whether a driver holds a valid NCT/CRW.

What is proposed?

The establishment of the database of insured and uninsured drivers and the Master Licence Record will provide insurance companies with the
facility to check for proof of the NCT/CRW before offering insurance, or at the renewal stage.
The benefits of this proposal are significant in the view of the Working Group as it should remove a number of unsafe vehicles from our roads.

Once the Master Licence Record is up and running (see Recommendation 30
above for more detail),an insurance company will be able to use the driver licence number to readily access information such as the valid NCT cert when selling insurance.

The Working Group recommends a general protocol be developed between the insurance industry and the NVDF to provide for insurers checking for proof of NCT/CRW.

The Working Group considers it is in the best interests of the insurers and the insured that these checks are done. The introduction of this recommendation should lead to a follow-on reduction in the number of claims.

jca

kadman wrote: »

So..........

All the future action plans regarding insurance and the government plans
are in the appropriate document online, apostrophe,,,,,,,,s included:p

I think you mean comma,,,,,:P

TherapyBoy

kadman wrote: »

Just took this from the online discussion document between the Government and Insurance companies.
I think the points in reference to NCT/CRW proof is an interesting proposal.

In the current situation a pre 80 car needs no test, but insurance companies can demand one presumably if they decide to. And they give insurance, not the government.



10.2 Maximising the use of the NCT/CRW

At present, there is a lack of a facility available to insurance companies to verify whether a driver holds a valid NCT/CRW.

What is proposed?

The establishment of the database of insured and uninsured drivers and the Master Licence Record will provide insurance companies with the
facility to check for proof of the NCT/CRW before offering insurance, or at the renewal stage.
The benefits of this proposal are significant in the view of the Working Group as it should remove a number of unsafe vehicles from our roads.

Once the Master Licence Record is up and running (see Recommendation 30
above for more detail),an insurance company will be able to use the driver licence number to readily access information such as the valid NCT cert when selling insurance.

The Working Group recommends a general protocol be developed between the insurance industry and the NVDF to provide for insurers checking for proof of NCT/CRW.

The Working Group considers it is in the best interests of the insurers and the insured that these checks are done. The introduction of this recommendation should lead to a follow-on reduction in the number of claims.

You need to stop doing this. The article you have posted above contains nothing whatsoever about insurance companies or the government implementing a national car test or any form of testing for cars registered before 1980. It simply says that insurance companies would like to have access to a database that will associate a car with a drivers license number & therefore the insurance company can tell whether the car has a valid current NCT or not before they will insure it.

Nothing about vintage or classic cars.

Wibbs

kadman wrote: »

Trust me I,ve seen a lot of rustbuckets at shows, that shouldn,t be on the road,
and from so called experts.

Indeed. I saw similar. A few years back now I grant you, but structural rust stuff was present in a few cars, not many, but enough that a very basic NCT would catch.

commited

I just renewed with AIG, no mention of NCT/Engineers report requirement.

kadman

commited wrote: »

I just renewed with AIG, no mention of NCT/Engineers report requirement.

Nice one. What was it you insured??

kadman

TherapyBoy wrote: »

You need to stop doing this. The article you have posted above contains nothing whatsoever about insurance companies or the government implementing a national car test or any form of testing for cars registered before 1980. It simply says that insurance companies would like to have access to a database that will associate a car with a drivers license number & therefore the insurance company can tell whether the car has a valid current NCT or not before they will insure it.

Nothing about vintage or classic cars.

Stop doing what exactly??

I,m posting a clip from the current discussion document going on between
the insurance industry, and the government now.

Sorry if its content scares you.
I never said anything about any test being implemented, and i am staying on topic.

kadman

Here is the action plan of the cost of motor insurance report 2017 link,
in case any one wants to read it.

Action plan 67 and 68 refer to proof of NCT and CRW which we obviously dont
have for pre 80 cars

http://iba.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Exec-Summary-Action-Plan-Cost-of-Motor-Insurance-Report-2017.pdf

TherapyBoy

kadman wrote: »

Stop doing what exactly??

I,m posting a clip from the current discussion document going on between
the insurance industry, and the government now.

You're posting a clip from the current discussion document going on between the insurance industry & the government now, that has NOTHING to do with requiring NCT or an engineers report/certificate of roadworthiness for cars older than 1980.

Your initial claims have been disproven, everything you said has been shown to be untrue & you have no evidence that there is anything happening in the future to do with testing or certification of vintage vehicles. All you have is what one insurance company (yours) told one person (you) in regards to one vehicle (yours), none of which can be verified by anyone but yourself. If testing does come in the future I have no problem with it as long as it's appropriate to the age of the car, I've said this already in this thread.

Sorry if its content scares you.
I never said anything about any test being implemented, and i am staying on topic.

The content doesn't scare me, my car is 2007 & has to be tested yearly. To contradict your last sentence here's your own post.

kadman wrote: »

Heard on the grapevine, industry level, that this is going to happen.

No longer will classic death traps be allowed to participate in
social and domestic motoring.

Nct testing or otherwise is going to be the order of the day, if you
want to drive your classic. And it doesn,t matter what year it is.
Pre 80 included.

No doubt heaps of rust buckets will now hit donedeal by the score.

I feel safer already:D

hi5

All cars after 1979 require an NCT, where was last years NCT?

mewaldo

Wow, this doesn't sound good at all. I was considering buying a beetle, ( like my first car) but all this about engineers reports, nct, insurance problems is really off putting.

commited

kadman wrote: »

Nice one. What was it you insured??

2 cars - '74 & '85. They have only asked for mileage declarations.

w124man

What is wrong with having to show a valid report or NCT for a car? The only reason you'd object to it is if you're trying to insure a 'bucket'.


NCT's and engineer's reports are GOOD.