1 year NCT

tintar

Hi All,

My car is up for NCT renewal this month. The NCT is valid till October 2008. I just noticed the NCT cert mentions the last owner did an NCT in Nov 2007.

I thought an NCT has a 2 year validity?

ninty9er

What year is the car?

drunkmonkey

I only got 4mts the last time I nct'd mine....It goes on when you were ment to register it, not when you did...

Skyuser

EXAMPLE : If I buy a car thats sitting in a dealership for a year and then NCT it, I will be testing it for the previous year and the next year....so I will have to test it again in a year.

Esel

OP, the cert you get will be for two years. However, if you wait until Oct 2009 to have it tested, you will get a cert for one year. Motto: You don't save by delaying the test.

Dave147

Retarded system, absolute money making racket.

tintar

I understand now. The car is a 2002 model. Thanks for all the replies :-)

loz

esel wrote: »

OP, the cert you get will be for two years. However, if you wait until Oct 2009 to have it tested, you will get a cert for one year. Motto: You don't save by delaying the test.

What if you wait two years ?

drunkmonkey

loz wrote: »

What if you wait two years ?

Then your putting yourself, your passengers and other road users life in danger, Gaybo Byrne would not be impressed....:)

You'd have to get the car tested again straight away...pointless waiting 2 years...

Cookie_Monster

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Then your putting yourself, your passengers and other road users life in danger, Gaybo Byrne would not be impressed.

How so. How does having a piece of paper make the car safer?

niceirishfella

loz wrote: »

What if you wait two years ?

they'll probably give you a cert for one day or some bollix like that.

Waiting 2 years would be suicide tbh.
1. If you caught by the law, you'll be in trouble.
2. If you have an accident, you're insurer will refuse to cover you if you don't have a valid NCT.

Eventhough its a retarted and anal test, better off getting it done - just for peace of mind.

drunkmonkey

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

How so. How does having a piece of paper make the car safer?

The piece of paper dosen't make the car safer, the test they carry out before they give you the cert can make the car safer....
The lights work, the tyres are ok, the saftey belt works, the suspension works, the brakes work and so on and so forth.....i.e the car is Roadworthy...

Anan1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

How so. How does having a piece of paper make the car safer?

In exactly the same way as another piece of paper makes your car insured, yet other allows you to buy petrol, etc, etc

drunkmonkey

Anan1 wrote: »

In exactly the same way as another piece of paper makes your car insured, yet other allows you to buy petrol, etc, etc

he must have been at the Cookie Jar...Bad Cookie Monster:)

mixer101

Anan1 wrote: »

In exactly the same way as another piece of paper makes your car insured, yet other allows you to buy petrol, etc, etc

Like it!:D A perfect answer to a smart-ass question.

A-Trak

Anan1 wrote: »

In exactly the same way as another piece of paper makes your car insured, yet other allows you to buy petrol, etc, etc

Bravo sir - great answer!:D

Cookie_Monster

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The piece of paper dosen't make the car safer, the test they carry out before they give you the cert can make the car safer....
The lights work, the tyres are ok, the saftey belt works, the suspension works, the brakes work and so on and so forth.....i.e the car is Roadworthy...

at the time of the test only.

Anything could have gone wrong since that wouldn't have been picked up.

Sure I'm only being pedantic anyway;)

The flaws and whole NCT is a money making racket only arguement has been made enough times before that i'm not going to bring it up again

peanuthead

tintar wrote: »

Hi All,

My car is up for NCT renewal this month. The NCT is valid till October 2008. I just noticed the NCT cert mentions the last owner did an NCT in Nov 2007.

I thought an NCT has a 2 year validity?

yeah you can only NCT every 2yrs, if it was not NCT'd for a year the previous owner would have had to include that year in his 2 years when getting his new disc.

Has anyone else heard that there is talk of the NCT becomming like the DOE and being done every year???

I smell a money making racket!!!!

niceirishfella

There's no need to have passenger cars etc NCT's every 12 months.
DOE, well yeah, commercial vehicles on the road all the time making money, ferrying good/people in buses etc.......good reason there..........but not for cars.

but yes, in this nanny state - they probably will introduce a 12 month test or 18 months or the like........its no wonder the airports are soo busy with people getting the flock out of here.

Guy:Incognito

niceirishfella wrote: »

There's no need to have passenger cars etc NCT's every 12 months.

Probably why they're not tested every 12 months so.

niceirishfella wrote: »

DOE, well yeah, commercial vehicles on the road all the time making money, ferrying good/people in buses etc.......good reason there..........but not for cars.
.

Yes, your right, every 10 year old car on carzone has 25000 miles on it. Only vans are driven any decent length at all.

peanuthead

Stekelly wrote: »

Probably why they're not tested every 12 months so.

Yes, but we were having this discussion in relation to the news that they are thinking of changing NCT to every year instead of every second year.

galwaytt

loz wrote: »

What if you wait two years ?

you'll get a spanking new 2 yr cert, and you'll not have had one for the intervening period. They're not backdated.

DannyBuoy

peanuthead wrote: »

Yes, but we were having this discussion in relation to the news that they are thinking of changing NCT to every year instead of every second year.

Any source for that?

L1011

Stekelly wrote: »

Yes, your right, every 10 year old car on carzone has 25000 miles on it. Only vans are driven any decent length at all.

Quite a lot of them have been 'adjusted' to close to that (allegedly)

galwaytt

Anan1 wrote: »

In exactly the same way as another piece of paper makes your car insured, yet other allows you to buy petrol, etc, etc

in which case, please allow me to send you a Eur 5k cheque (recently ink-jetted..), for that bicycle you have on Ebay. Send the Eur4950 change back to me by Western Union by return, thanks.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And the NCT is only marginally less useless in it's current form. It has no merit whatsoever from a technical standpoint, on foot of a claim.

The ins co's will not refuse to pay on non-NCT, and they won't be allowed to by the courts. Same goes for people driving on out of date licences. The courts have already ruled they cannot refuse to pay out where the insurance is mandated by law, and that they have provided a certificate.

This is why the still use assessors to inspect your car after a thump - if the NCT could be relied upon, do you honestly think they'd keep paying those guys (not cheap, btw.......) - these are ins co's we're talking about y'know......

niceirishfella

galwaytt wrote: »

The ins co's will not refuse to pay on non-NCT, and they won't be allowed to by the courts.

If afraid Galway TT, in this instance, you are wrong.
I'm well versed in this area.
And most recently, a lot of vehicle don't get assessed by assessors or engineers - they use a computerised glasmatics system for assessing damage and use many factors like having an NCT or not having an NCT as factoring as only one part in their decision on wheather to pay out or not, but it is deemed as a large part of a claim file and it is judged as part of a claim long before it ever goes to court - and most claims never ever go to court, they get settled outside to keep legal costs down. Its most prudent to have an up to date NCT - like it or lump it for insurance purposes (i fecking hate it myself -not the test,just the company who run it) Sorry but I'm experienced in this area as i worked in the trade for over a decade and was trained myself as an assessor.

SV

If the NCT was REALLY about safety then it'd be paid for by the RSA and we wouldn't have to fork out 50 here and then again for retesting :mad:

galwaytt

niceirishfella wrote: »

galwaytt wrote: »

The ins co's will not refuse to pay on non-NCT, and they won't be allowed to by the courts.

If afraid Galway TT, in this instance, you are wrong.
I'm well versed in this area.
And most recently, a lot of vehicle don't get assessed by assessors or engineers - they use a computerised glasmatics system for assessing damage and use many factors like having an NCT or not having an NCT as factoring as only one part in their decision on wheather to pay out or not, but it is deemed as a large part of a claim file and it is judged as part of a claim long before it ever goes to court - and most claims never ever go to court, they get settled outside to keep legal costs down. Its most prudent to have an up to date NCT - like it or lump it for insurance purposes (i fecking hate it myself -not the test,just the company who run it) Sorry but I'm experienced in this area as i worked in the trade for over a decade and was trained myself as an assessor.

I don't doubt that an insurance co doesn't factor it into the claims adjudication of claims - it is the nature of the beast - however, at the end of the day, if you do take it into the court room, the judge will not disqualify a claim, over the NCT. There may well be, separate, repercussions out of that through civil action afterwards, but you will not be found to be out of cover, and therefore will not be open to prosecution under the RTA.

One of the reasons for this - and other similar situations, e.g. drivers with lapsed licences - is that enforcement of such things, insurance, licences, DoE, NCT, is solely the remit of the authorities, and no private entity is allowed, or entitled, to determine satisfaction of same under the relevant Acts. That is the job of the judiciary.

Example: I've been on committees for motoring events for many years and it has evolved over that time, largely for legal reasons. One is the issue of insurance of participants/competitors. There was a time when we used to ask to see the Certs. Then we used to put statements regarding same, on the paperwork. Eventually it came to pass, and under legal advice from the Governing Body in the country, that we were to desist from same, and that we may not enquire or stipulate anything in that regard. This came about as a result of a court case where a 'competitor' had an accident, and sued the Body, under it's insurance. It was deemed that, by inspecting a competitor's RTA insurance cert, and accepting a competitor on an event, was a police action - something only An Garda Siochana have the powers to do - and was outside our remit, and we had no power to include/exclude a competitor on the grounds of the presence or absence, of an ins cert.

I know a similar situation exists in regards to licences.

Now, I know that's not the same as NCT, but the mechanism is not dissimilar, and it is in that context that the courts will uphold the cover. As mentioned, civil redress by Ins co's is not excluded, afterwards.......but that's another can of worms.

If it were true that lack of NCT = refusal to pay out by ins co's = lack of insurance, then, all non-NCT holders would be prosecuted for lack of insurance, under the Road Traffic Act. This patently doesn't happen, for the reasons above.

I don't doubt the prudence of having an NCT, but that's what that is - prudence.

What you're saying doesn't actually contradict what I said - it's just one facet of the equation.

mickdw

galwaytt wrote: »

niceirishfella wrote: »

I don't doubt that an insurance co doesn't factor it into the claims adjudication of claims - it is the nature of the beast - however, at the end of the day, if you do take it into the court room, the judge will not disqualify a claim, over the NCT. There may well be, separate, repercussions out of that through civil action afterwards, but you will not be found to be out of cover, and therefore will not be open to prosecution under the RTA.

One of the reasons for this - and other similar situations, e.g. drivers with lapsed licences - is that enforcement of such things, insurance, licences, DoE, NCT, is solely the remit of the authorities, and no private entity is allowed, or entitled, to determine satisfaction of same under the relevant Acts. That is the job of the judiciary.

Example: I've been on committees for motoring events for many years and it has evolved over that time, largely for legal reasons. One is the issue of insurance of participants/competitors. There was a time when we used to ask to see the Certs. Then we used to put statements regarding same, on the paperwork. Eventually it came to pass, and under legal advice from the Governing Body in the country, that we were to desist from same, and that we may not enquire or stipulate anything in that regard. This came about as a result of a court case where a 'competitor' had an accident, and sued the Body, under it's insurance. It was deemed that, by inspecting a competitor's RTA insurance cert, and accepting a competitor on an event, was a police action - something only An Garda Siochana have the powers to do - and was outside our remit, and we had no power to include/exclude a competitor on the grounds of the presence or absence, of an ins cert.

I know a similar situation exists in regards to licences.

Now, I know that's not the same as NCT, but the mechanism is not dissimilar, and it is in that context that the courts will uphold the cover. As mentioned, civil redress by Ins co's is not excluded, afterwards.......but that's another can of worms.

If it were true that lack of NCT = refusal to pay out by ins co's = lack of insurance, then, all non-NCT holders would be prosecuted for lack of insurance, under the Road Traffic Act. This patently doesn't happen, for the reasons above.

I don't doubt the prudence of having an NCT, but that's what that is - prudence.

What you're saying doesn't actually contradict what I said - it's just one facet of the equation.

very good clear response I must say and 100% right re them not being allowed to withdraw cover based on nct.

niceirishfella

It seems Galway TT knows it all off by heart and has the time here to post long posts about this area.
anyone reading this and chancing their arm by not having their car tested would be foolish and trust the mutterings above. As i said previously, Most insurance claims/cases/files never go to court - end of.