What's the point of the nct if the insurance companies ignore it?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Liam McPoyle

What would you consider to be a fair price?

Should everyone be charged the same regardless of car, age, driving experience and claims experience?

Mintoe

jacksie66 wrote: »

What really is the point of the nct these days if you can't get insurance on an older car? Good article here in the independent.
https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/opinion-whats-the-point-of-the-nct-if-insurers-choose-to-ignore-it-36337047.html
I just sold my 14 year old opel vectra as the quotes I was getting for insurance were insane. Car had just passed the nct but it seems the insurance companies just ignore this. I'm looking to get a new car but by the sounds of it I'll need to spend a good chuck of cash to get something newish. It's mad that the government makes insurance mandatory yet the only place you can get insurance if from a private cartel of companies. Will this nonsense ever change? Will we ever have reasonably cheap insurance..

Insurers know Nct is a Mickey Mouse test that’s not worth the paper it’s printed on..... cvrt test for commercials is way more comprehensive a test

whomitconcerns

Business Cat wrote: »

Should everyone be charged the same regardless of car, age, driving experience and claims experience?

In a lot of countries basic mandatory insurance is exactly that.

Liam McPoyle

whomitconcerns wrote: »

In a lot of countries basic mandatory insurance is exactly that.

In these countries, is the average compensation payment for soft tissue injuries / whiplash between €15 and €20k?

It is in its hole.

Henry Ford III

A valid NCT shouldn't necessarily entitle anyone to a cheap insurance quote.

Insurers have seemingly decided they don't want to insure older cars. I'm not exactly sure why but if there was a profitable niche you can be sure someone would have moved to take advantage of it by now.

NUTLEY BOY

AFAIK the NCT is not a certificate of roadworthiness of the vehicle.

My reading of the NCT is that it as a set of tests devised to comply with an EU directive. If your vehicle meets the required standards in respect of what is tested it gets a certificate. The NCT is not as analogously thorough as, for example, a marine survey of a ship by a classification society.

Therefore, I suppose that it is possible to have a current NCT certificate on a vehicle but for it not be roadworthy by virtue of some defect that would not have been specifically tested or observed in the course of an NCT test. This might explain why insurers would not see an NCT certificate as a gold standard test.

In relation to the wider issue of insuring older cars one explanation that was offered was that they were being used in staged accident frauds. Plausible and possible though this might be I just don't know if that is a valid argument as I never saw any evidence of it as being a universal argument.

That said, I really cannot see a fair objection from insurers on the grounds of age alone if the car is actually sound mechanically. If your G.P. or consultant can give you a letter for insurers confirming that you are fit to drive why can they not have a similar concept for older cars ?

As I understand the general principle from insurance underwriters a major concept is risk in the sense of mathematical probability. Maybe they consider that older cars are an inferior risk more likely to suffer a defect and be involved in an accident ? If so, I would expect evidence to stand up the proposition as those insurance guys must have oceans of statistics.

Sue Pa Key Pa

If the cartel thought there was money to be made by insuring older cars, they would be doing it.