AIG requiring NCT/Engineer's report on classics

w124man

mewaldo wrote: »

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.

This has to be the most ridiculous post I've ever read.


Wow, I don't think I'll buy an old banger cuz I might have to make it safe .....

commited

w124man wrote: »

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.

I have no objection to NCTs but when I tried to get my Mini NCTd years ago, the guys testing it absolutely wrecked the bonnet by not knowing how to open it properly. They also claimed the headlights weren't working, and refused to allow me to show them how to turn them on - it was a joke.

irshmerc

How we doing lads,

No objection to having my cars a 71 and 72 tested if i could have them tested by someone who new what they were doing in respect of older cars. My daily driver was tested today and although the fellas doing the testing were up to speed with modern cars i'd seriously hate to hand over the keys to my pride and joy without any concessions for the age of the cars. Just the thought of the fella revving the **** out of 40+ car for an omissions test fills me with dread.

Good luck

millington

irshmerc wrote: »

How we doing lads,

No objection to having my cars a 71 and 72 tested if i could have them tested by someone who new what they were doing in respect of older cars. My daily driver was tested today and although the fellas doing the testing were up to speed with modern cars i'd seriously hate to hand over the keys to my pride and joy without any concessions for the age of the cars. Just the thought of the fella revving the **** out of 40+ car for an omissions test fills me with dread.

Good luck

He wouldn't have to rev it as emissions wouldn't be tested at high idle.

zilog_jones

Emissions should not be tested at all for pre-1980 petrol cars, and is just a visual smoke test (not metered) for diesels.

The manual has a lot of specific information on older cars to accommodate for standards at the time of manufacture: https://www.ncts.ie/media/1004/nct-manual-july-2014.pdf

E.g. no seat belts for pre-1/6/1971, no laminated windscreens for pre-1/1/1986, white (front)/red (rear) indicators or amber semaphores are allowed for pre June '64, and probably a few other things. Of course whether the testers are familiar with these aspects of the test is another thing.

commited wrote: »

I have no objection to NCTs but when I tried to get my Mini NCTd years ago, the guys testing it absolutely wrecked the bonnet by not knowing how to open it properly. They also claimed the headlights weren't working, and refused to allow me to show them how to turn them on - it was a joke.

That's pretty bad form. Did you get any compensation for damaged caused? I know you need to sign a form saying they don't accept responsibility for high RPM test on diesels (e.g. if the timing belt goes) but don't know about anything else.

I had a problem with a dodgy driver's window switch on my non-classic 406 which the tester couldn't get working, but the tester agreed to pass it on the condition that I could open the window (which I could). I did fix the switch eventually

NUTLEY BOY

This is fascinating.

We had a 1966 Triumph Herald. When NCT was being introduced I could see trouble coming i.e. a 1966 car being tested to a modern standard on all points. Obviously things that are safety critical must always be up to standard but I reckoned that emissions might be a problem.

I wrote to the Department of the Environment to enquire what standards they would be using to assess out little pet. They pretty much indicated that there was nothing to worry about as they would not be testing cars of pre-1980 age.

I suspect the truth is that they would not have been able to devise a test to cover all aspects of every classic type car. Therefore, I cannot see how the situation can now be any different unless they want to deliberately get all such cars off the road as a matter of government policy by deliberately "NCTing" them out of existence.

I see no reasonable objection to insurers asking for an automotive engineer's report on the vehicle to validate it's roadworthiness and fitness for insurance. Indeed, any such report would benefit the policyholder by showing technical proof to the insurers that the vehicle is roadworthy and that they - the insurers - have accepted it for cover on that basis. It would kill off insurers trying to repudiate contractual liability if there was an accident and they tried to nullify cover by saying the car was not roadworthy.

I see definite objection to insurers trying to compel a proposer for insurance to submit a car for NCT and then showing a copy of the NCT report. That would be insurers trying to impose a burden that is not legally required and would be a bit overbearing. Anyhow, does the NCT certificate not indicate that it is not a certificate of roadworthiness ? The relevance of this point is that insurers need to be sure that the car is roadworthy and an automotive engineer's report would be more appropriate for that.

And finally, the point about acquiring a pre-1980 car to avoid testing. Always remember that a Garda observing your vehicle in a public place who suspects that it is defective has power to inspect and have it inspected. See RTA 1961 S.20. link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/20/enacted/en/html#sec20

zilog_jones

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

We had a 1966 Triumph Herald. When NCT was being introduced I could see trouble coming i.e. a 1966 car being tested to a modern standard on all points. Obviously things that are safety critical must always be up to standard but I reckoned that emissions might be a problem.

I wrote to the Department of the Environment to enquire what standards they would be using to assess out little pet. They pretty much indicated that there was nothing to worry about as they would not be testing cars of pre-1980 age.

I suspect the truth is that they would not have been able to devise a test to cover all aspects of every classic type car.

See my previous post - there are lots of very specific things regarding pre-1980 cars in the NCT manual. Petrols are exempt from emissions tests for starters. Your Herald won't be checked for three-point seat belts, laminated windscreen, E marks on tyres, and various other items.

commited

zilog_jones wrote: »

That's pretty bad form. Did you get any compensation for damaged caused? I know you need to sign a form saying they don't accept responsibility for high RPM test on diesels (e.g. if the timing belt goes) but don't know about anything else.

Zero come back - the guy was arrogant and aggressive towards me, basically he pulled up the bonnet without releasing the safety catch and completely distorted it. It was a real pity as it was a totally original 38k mile example with a very bent bonnet after that I never bothered getting it NCT'd after that.

kadman

Update..

I requested the appropriate engineers report form from AIG, in order to comply
with their request for an engineers report in accordance with their requirements for same.

And their reply is..............they dont actually have one, nor a suitable template for one, any garage one should suffice.

Bangs head on wall:eek:

Does that mean that we can now go back to the nudge,nudge,wink,wink,
Mr greasemonkey,back alley, laneway, mick...anic to get one.

In the words of Arfur Daley....you're avving a larf mate:p

Harry Palmr

Do you know a local garage? Write a report on their headed paper and get them to date and stamp it. Job done!

kadman

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Do you know a local garage? Write a report on their headed paper and get them to date and stamp it. Job done!

Gaw on you gurrier.............:D:D

mewaldo

w124man wrote: »

This has to be the most ridiculous post I've ever read.


Wow, I don't think I'll buy an old banger cuz I might have to make it safe .....

What are you talking about? could you please point out to me where i said i wanted to drive an unsafe classic.

I was stating that it now seems like a lot of hassle to drive a classic.
NCT=more money, time and possibly a tester that doesnt understand classics

Engineers report again = more money and time

Insurance increases, more money
As I understood up until now I could just buy a classic, make sure it was SAFE insure it (reasonably), tax it and enjoy it. Not have to jump through extra hoops, like emmissons etc, for an NCT


I think you'll find that your post sir is the most ridiculous one here!

BTW I notice your posts are very defensive of the OP. Are you a personal friend or relative of his by any chance?

kadman

mewaldo wrote: »

BTW I notice your posts are very defensive of the OP. Are you a personal friend or relative of his by any chance?

I,m a bit mystified by that statement.

I do not know this chap at all, as a friend or relative or whatever else you think.
I,m not sure whether any poster at all supported my original post, I thought the opposite actually was the case.

My reason for posting was to highlite the fact that my insurance company was now calling for some sort of testing proof for my classic, and i felt it may be something coming down the line, and posted info to support that.....in my view.

A discussion topic...end of.

I personally believe that any 2 ton lump of metal flying down the motorway, should be safe, and proved to be such. At the moment there is no test, and i dont object to one, if one is coming.

40+ year old vehicles on the road untested is a nonsense, but thats my 3 cents worth, and i dont care who agrees with me or not, and thats what forums are for, discussion on different opinions.:)

da_hambo

kadman wrote: »

Update..

I requested the appropriate engineers report form from AIG, in order to comply
with their request for an engineers report in accordance with their requirements for same.

And their reply is..............they dont actually have one, nor a suitable template for one, any garage one should suffice.

Bangs head on wall:eek:

Does that mean that we can now go back to the nudge,nudge,wink,wink,
Mr greasemonkey,back alley, laneway, mick...anic to get one.

In the words of Arfur Daley....you're avving a larf mate:p

Same to me I asked the AIG dude do they have a form for engineer report, they then replied.."there is no specific form. Car must be roadworthy. Every car after 1980 requires a valid NCT certificate...."
So it seems they are asking for engineer report or nct but they dont seem to know what or where one can get an engineer report.

So basically they want an NCT certificate only before insuring you.

kadman

da_hambo wrote: »

Same to me I asked the AIG dude do they have a form for engineer report, they then replied.."there is no specific form. Car must be roadworthy. Every car after 1980 requires a valid NCT certificate...."
So it seems they are asking for engineer report or nct but they dont seem to know what or where one can get an engineer report.

So basically they want an NCT certificate only before insuring you.

Yep thats my feeling too,

Dades

Here's a template form from Liberty Insurance.

Something like this completed by a mechanic I'm sure would suffice for AIG, seeing as they don't know themselves. Certainly no need to assume in their ignorance that an NCT is required.

w124man

mewaldo wrote: »

What are you talking about? could you please point out to me where i said i wanted to drive an unsafe classic.

I was stating that it now seems like a lot of hassle to drive a classic.
NCT=more money, time and possibly a tester that doesnt understand classics

Engineers report again = more money and time

Insurance increases, more money
As I understood up until now I could just buy a classic, make sure it was SAFE insure it (reasonably), tax it and enjoy it. Not have to jump through extra hoops, like emmissons etc, for an NCT


I think you'll find that your post sir is the most ridiculous one here!

BTW I notice your posts are very defensive of the OP. Are you a personal friend or relative of his by any chance?

Well the OP answered some of this stupid post!


What is the problem in getting an NCT or an engineers report on a classic car? How can it be extra hassle?

elperello

Can't ye be nice?!!

Just agree to differ and move on. No need to be calling each others posts ridiculous or stupid.

It's a fact that to do an NCT you have to put yourself out to book and turn up for the test and pay the fee. If it's an engineers report you need to arrange it with the mechanic and presumably also pay a fee.

Some people consider these things a hassle some don't.

mattroche

I recently took a car for an N.C.T. which failed on rust issues. I got a form from the tester, stating that when the welding was done, it had to have an engineers report. When I queried this, I was told it was only required if the repair was painted over. I had the welding done, and brought it back without painting, and got me cert. I understand an engineers report is E100 +. P.S. I am a great believer in having cars tested in order to ensure they are roadworthy, and safe to drive.

Silvera

mattroche wrote: »

I recently took a car for an N.C.T. which failed on rust issues. I got a form from the tester, stating that when the welding was done, it had to have an engineers report. When I queried this, I was told it was only required if the repair was painted over. I had the welding done, and brought it back without painting, and got me cert. I understand an engineers report is E100 +. P.S. I am a great believer in having cars tested in order to ensure they are roadworthy, and safe to drive.

I recall reading that welding repairs mustnt be painted over prior to NCT test.

I wonder how this would work in the situation where a vehicle was partly or fully restored (i.e. lots of welding repairs)?

....or perhaps it's only and issue where a vehicle fails the test due to rust?

kadman

Silvera wrote: »

I recall reading that welding repairs mustnt be painted over prior to NCT test.

I wonder how this would work in the situation where a vehicle was partly or fully restored (i.e. lots of welding repairs)?

....or perhaps it's only and issue where a vehicle fails the test due to rust?

Better be the case, as my Fastback has had 1 1/2 sheets of new 1mm thick
metal put in it already. Welded and primered.Owing to the fact you cant buy panels, so you have to make them.........carefully.

http://s1093.photobucket.com/user/beetle661/library/Fastback?sort=3&page=1

Of course its a pre 80 classic, so wont need an nct anyway...........yet.:D

zilog_jones

Silvera wrote: »

I recall reading that welding repairs mustnt be painted over prior to NCT test.

I wonder how this would work in the situation where a vehicle was partly or fully restored (i.e. lots of welding repairs)?

....or perhaps it's only and issue where a vehicle fails the test due to rust?

There has to be prior knowledge of the rust on the NCT's side.