NCT Retests -- Cars being failed even though nothing wrong with them?

trixyben

Over the last week or so I got talking to 2 lads who's cars failed the nct and where told had to be retested. All very well if there is something faulty/worn etc then it should be replaced and retested, but if theres nothing wrong...

The first lad his car failed as there was part of the brake line was corroded, took to mechanic straight away only to be told there was nothing wrong with the brake lines, so mechanic done nothing and said to put it through again and if it failed he would pay for test, so put it through and it passed Nothing at all done and it still passed!!!

Other lad his car failed as told head lights were misaligned, this lad actually works in a tyre place where they align lights, he told tester its impossible lights are misaligned as he done them himself that morning, tester didnt car told retest require He went back to work checked the lights and they were fine!!!

So what do you make of this? Are the NCT milking the system and stinging people for retest fees?

Anyone else experience similiar?

corktina

I doubt it. I put my 22 yr old sierra through the NCT, a sitting duck for a re-test fee you would think , and it passed first time despite not having been checked out in advance.

Guy:Incognito

I'll save people the bother. "rabble rabble, money racket, rabble rabble"

trixyben

trixyben wrote: »

So what do you make of this? Are the NCT milking the system and stinging people for retest fees?

I would say some of them are.

patwicklow

I think they must have some sort of quota in place and have to fail a certain amount each day we are living in corrupt Ireland after all.

Our man in Havana

I think some fails are on one testers opinion, where one would fail and another would pass it.

Mycroft H

I had "rusty corroded" brake lines on a sunny. I brought it back home sanded the lines down with some wet and dry sandpaper and polished it with brasso. Shiny brake lines

Needless to say it passed.

corktina

BX 19 wrote: »

I had "rusty corroded" brake lines on a sunny. I brought it back home sanded the lines down with some wet and dry sandpaper and polished it with brasso. Shiny brake lines

Needless to say it passed.

thats why they say the car must be reasonably clean underneath. If they LOOK rusty , it will fail, they cant be scraping all the grot off them to check them

Mycroft H

corktina wrote: »

thats why they say the car must be reasonably clean underneath. If they LOOK rusty , it will fail, they cant be scraping all the grot off them to check them

It was reasonably clean, just not clean enough for them. There is no uniform standards for cleanliness with them.

CiniO

To all of you who consider NCT as money racket, and think it's not needed at all.

Do you really think, that if there was no NCT and everyone would take care of keeping his car roadworthy, our road safety records would be as good as they are at the moment?

corktina

On the other hand, there are a hellova lot of people driving with no NCT and these include just the same people who would drive a dangerous car regardless, so it wont have had THAT much effect on safety records. Can anyone cite an accident causeed by a dangerous car?

Mycroft H

When I bought my car it had a bulging sidewall and a 2cm split in the rubber beneath the bulge. It also had an NCT until march of 2013. It was in no way roadworthy with that tyre.

Moral of the story, having a current NCT does not make a Car roadworthy

CiniO

BX 19 wrote: »

When I bought my car it had a bulging sidewall and a 2cm split in the rubber beneath the bulge. It also had an NCT until march of 2013. It was in no way roadworthy with that tyre.

Moral of the story, having a current NCT does not make a Car roadworthy

But requirement to have a car checked every two years (or even every year) gives us way bigger chance that car will be kept roadworthy.

john reilly

trixyben wrote: »

Over the last week or so I got talking to 2 lads who's cars failed the nct and where told had to be retested. All very well if there is something faulty/worn etc then it should be replaced and retested, but if theres nothing wrong...

The first lad his car failed as there was part of the brake line was corroded, took to mechanic straight away only to be told there was nothing wrong with the brake lines, so mechanic done nothing and said to put it through again and if it failed he would pay for test, so put it through and it passed Nothing at all done and it still passed!!!

Other lad his car failed as told head lights were misaligned, this lad actually works in a tyre place where they align lights, he told tester its impossible lights are misaligned as he done them himself that morning, tester didnt car told retest require He went back to work checked the lights and they were fine!!!

So what do you make of this? Are the NCT milking the system and stinging people for retest fees?

Anyone else experience similiar?

took a car for test that had passed everything a month before bar a fuel leak. it then broke a drive, so had to have a full test a month later. failed for a list as long as your arm. but only thing that had to be paid for was lights. so i asked him which light too low are were they too high. he mumbled something about getting them checked. so i pointed out he had just checked them and he walked away

john reilly

also can somebody explain why a mark on a tyre are baldy tyre means a retest. as opposed to just a visual

corktina

john reilly wrote: »

also can somebody explain why a mark on a tyre are baldy tyre means a retest. as opposed to just a visual

i can't. I don't understand the question

galwaytt

CiniO wrote: »

To all of you who consider NCT as money racket, and think it's not needed at all.

Do you really think, that if there was no NCT and everyone would take care of keeping his car roadworthy, our road safety records would be as good as they are at the moment?

There is absolutely no link between mechanical failure and the lowering of accident statistics. Don't take my word for it : according to the RSA only about 5% of accidents are attributable to mechanical condition.
QED.

trixyben

CiniO wrote: »

To all of you who consider NCT as money racket, and think it's not needed at all.

Do you really think, that if there was no NCT and everyone would take care of keeping his car roadworthy, our road safety records would be as good as they are at the moment?

Of course the NCT is a big factor as to why are roads are a safer place nowadays and im all for the test...but it seems that there isnt a standard test procedure and its really down to the tester you get on the day

galwaytt

trixyben wrote: »

Of course the NCT is a big factor as to why are roads are a safer place nowadays

Nonsense.
As both I and RSA will confirm for you, there is NO connection between NCT-std cars and accident statistics.

john reilly

corktina wrote: »

i can't. I don't understand the question

what do you not understand. if your car fails for a baldy tyre, why do you have to pay for a retest instead of the tester checking that a good tyre has been fitted and give you a cert

Mycroft H

CiniO wrote: »

But requirement to have a car checked every two years (or even every year) gives us way bigger chance that car will be kept roadworthy.

It depends. There are two reasons imo, the pretty sloppy standards in the NCT and more so, the incredibly lax attitude to maintenance that the average Irish person has. The don't fix it unless it doesn't pass the NCT attitude.

There is a vast amount of Irish people that do very little preventative maintence to their cars, and it shows.

I'll give you another example; I was test driving a Citroen Saxo that was advertised in 'mint' condition (it was in its bollocks, but thats for another thread....). I could tell it had a hard life. On the test drive I performed the standard brake test to see if there was any wobbles, vibrations, pulling left to right ect, however, when I planted the brakes, they were non existent. I may have been sticking my hands out the windows for all the good they were. It was lethal in that condition. Again another car with a long current NCT. And when I pointed the fault out to the seller, I was told; 'sure it only passed the NCT recently, they're grand.'

Cinio, whats it like in Poland? Is your road worthiness test less sloppy? And do people look after their cars?

dr.fuzzenstein

john reilly wrote: »

what do you not understand. if your car fails for a baldy tyre, why do you have to pay for a retest instead of the tester checking that a good tyre has been fitted and give you a cert

Mine failed on two worn rear tires. Re-test was free. That was December.
When it failed, I was advised that it was a visual re-test and free of charge.

As for the NCT being a good thing:
When I came here first, every car had a chipped, broken windscreen, dents everywhere, bumpers held on with bailing twine, one car I saw had a plant growing under a seat, cars crabbing sideways, one car I bought (young and dumb) had collapsed suspension "fixed" with bits of wood wedged in the springs, headlights where shining up at the birds in the trees, rustholes the size of my fist, 4 odd tires, smoking, leaking, headlamps and tail lights filled with water, dodgy engine swaps, I could continue this list another three pages.
Yes, the NCT is a good thing.
Do some testers like throwing their weight around and fail on arbitrary and random things?
I don't doubt it.
But overall, it's a good thing.

Guy:Incognito

BX 19 wrote: »

It depends. There are two reasons imo, the pretty sloppy standards in the NCT and more so, the incredibly lax attitude to maintenance that the average Irish person has. The don't fix it unless it doesn't pass the NCT attitude.

There is a vast amount of Irish people that do very little preventative maintence to their cars, and it shows.

I'll give you another example; I was test driving a Citroen Saxo that was advertised in 'mint' condition (it was in its bollocks, but thats for another thread....). I could tell it had a hard life. On the test drive I performed the standard brake test to see if there was any wobbles, vibrations, pulling left to right ect, however, when I planted the brakes, they were non existent. I may have been sticking my hands out the windows for all the good they were. It was lethal in that condition. Again another car with a long current NCT. And when I pointed the fault out to the seller, I was told; 'sure it only passed the NCT recently, they're grand.'

Cinio, whats it like in Poland? Is your road worthiness test less sloppy? And do people look after their cars?

Thats not sloppy testing though. They set a limit and if the car is above that they have to pass it, even if its only barely above it. Theres not a lot you can do about that. Any similar system anywhere is only a snapshot at the time. They cant turn around and fail you because your pads may well wear before the next test,

john reilly

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Mine failed on two worn rear tires. Re-test was free. That was December.
When it failed, I was advised that it was a visual re-test and free of charge.

As for the NCT being a good thing:
When I came here first, every car had a chipped, broken windscreen, dents everywhere, bumpers held on with bailing twine, one car I saw had a plant growing under a seat, cars crabbing sideways, one car I bought (young and dumb) had collapsed suspension "fixed" with bits of wood wedged in the springs, headlights where shining up at the birds in the trees, rustholes the size of my fist, 4 odd tires, smoking, leaking, headlamps and tail lights filled with water, dodgy engine swaps, I could continue this list another three pages.
Yes, the NCT is a good thing.
Do some testers like throwing their weight around and fail on arbitrary and random things?
I don't doubt it.
But overall, it's a good thing.

that doesnt happen where i live. as for nct being good. one thing it is good for. if you have a bucket of ****e that you cant get rid of. nothing like a bit of green and yellow paper to help pass your trouble on to somebody else

Guy:Incognito

john reilly wrote: »

what do you not understand.

It took me a few rereads to get it to, I assume it should have read

john reilly wrote: »

also can somebody explain why a mark on a tyre are or a a baldy tyre means a retest. as opposed to just a visual

The "are" in there makes it read a bit like gibberish tbh, even though its just a little 3 letter word.

A bald or a bulging tyre is a free visual retest, or at least it was a couple o fyears ago when the missus car failed for a bulge.

john reilly

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It took me a few rereads to get it to, I assume it should have read



The "are" in there makes it read a bit like gibberish tbh, even though its just a little 3 letter word.

A bald or a bulging tyre is a free visual retest, or at least it was a couple o fyears ago when the missus car failed for a bulge.

sorry about the grammar didnt know we where having a spelling test. i had a car fail with was a tiny nick on a tyre, and had to pay for a retest

Cosmo K

john reilly wrote: »

sorry about the grammar didnt know we where having a spelling test. i had a car fail with was a tiny nick on a tyre, and had to pay for a retest

When was that? Did the car fail on other things as well?

Guy:Incognito

john reilly wrote: »

sorry about the grammar didnt know we where having a spelling test. i had a car fail with was a tiny nick on a tyre, and had to pay for a retest

Nothign to do with a grammar test, it just genuinly made the sentence unreadable unless you read back over it a couple of times and worked out what it should have been, hence corktina's confusion.

john reilly

Cosmo K wrote: »

When was that? Did the car fail on other things as well?

no. this has happened more than once

Cosmo K

john reilly wrote: »

no. this has happened more than once

Tyre Re-tests are free of charge since 2006 or 2007. If you were charged for Re-test on a tyre only, you should contact NCTS and complain.

spiggotpaddy

I had my headlight alignment checked two hours before the NCT, and it failed
on, headlight alignment. So of course I said "but I've just had them checked"
But the guy said one of the lights is way off to the right. So I went back to have it fixed, and of course they were fine. Then back to the test centre where it passed. It really makes you wonder, is it honest mistakes, negligence,
fraud or a combination of these things.

CiniO

galwaytt wrote: »

There is absolutely no link between mechanical failure and the lowering of accident statistics. Don't take my word for it : according to the RSA only about 5% of accidents are attributable to mechanical condition.
QED.

Ehe...
If there was no NCT probably there would be something like 25% instead of 5%.
Also quite often it's might not be mechanical failure.
Surely loose tie-rods will cause steering to be less precise, and in emergency while driver could react adequately, with loose steering he won't be able.
This kind of accident however wouldn't be classes as machanical failure, but as driver's fault. There are plenty of things similar to that.

CiniO

trixyben wrote: »

Of course the NCT is a big factor as to why are roads are a safer place nowadays and im all for the test...but it seems that there isnt a standard test procedure and its really down to the tester you get on the day

Nothing is perfect.
It's better to have what we have, that have nothing.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

On the other hand, there are a hellova lot of people driving with no NCT and these include just the same people who would drive a dangerous car regardless, so it wont have had THAT much effect on safety records.

I know quite plenty of people who do care about having up to date NCT, but they don't care about their car maintenance.
They just put car for NCT whenever it's due, and fix whatever must be fixed to pass retest.
The same people if there was no NCT, would drive those cars until they would break down to the level unableing them to drive.

CiniO

BX 19 wrote: »

Cinio, whats it like in Poland? Is your road worthiness test less sloppy? And do people look after their cars?

Road worthiness test in Poland is a joke.
Few months ago I was looking at my father's car down there in Poland as he mentioned something about leaking oil. There was an oil leak indeed and it was quite serious.
I asked him how come his car passed a test a month earlier, as I remembered his due date was in December.
He said that the tester didn't even look underneath the car. He just checked brakes and suspension on the rollers, and lights alignment. That was it.

Problem in Poland is that test system is similar to UK MOT, that it's private garages doing the test after obtaining adequate license for doing so.
Those garages know that if they will be too strict, that everyone will go to other garage and pass. That's why tests are not really adequate, however brakes, and lights are things which are always checked.
I've done maybe 6 or 7 test with my cars when I used to live there, and I as not looking underneath the car by tester is a bit extreme, and never happened to me, but emissions test was done only once over this 6 or 7 times. And even it was probably about 10 years ago I still remember the guy telling me that my results were bit over. I can't remember what it was (HC, CO, or whatever) but the machines was showing something like 260 units. I asked him what was the limit and he said limit was 20. So I laughed he was right that is was just a bit over the limit.

Anyway - even though tests are not really through, people do care about cars more that in Ireland. Simplest example is I can't think of any person I know from Poland which wouldn't change oil and filters in their car at least once a year, while in Ireland I barely know anyone who would do that.

Our man in Havana

The test in Bulgaria consists of a brake test and a check of the lights. That is it.

My jeep is a permanent 4 wheel drive and cannot be tested on the rollers. The test for it was a walk around to see there was nothing falling off it.

lostboy

My parents drive a 2008 tiida and it had its first test before christmas, front shock imbalance, so new shocks were fitted, same imbalance, nothing the tester could do, the shocks were returned as faulty and another set tested, same story again, its a 2 lane test center so finally the father told the lad to test in the other lane, low and behold they passed.

to be fair the tester was a friend of a friend to my father and tried his best to help us out and urged us to complain afterwards, which we did, got nowhere fobbed off with excuses to the last and finally dad gave up on it, even with the tester on our side.

CiniO

lostboy wrote: »

My parents drive a 2008 tiida and it had its first test before christmas, front shock imbalance, so new shocks were fitted, same imbalance, nothing the tester could do, the shocks were returned as faulty and another set tested, same story again, its a 2 lane test center so finally the father told the lad to test in the other lane, low and behold they passed.

to be fair the tester was a friend of a friend to my father and tried his best to help us out and urged us to complain afterwards, which we did, got nowhere fobbed off with excuses to the last and finally dad gave up on it, even with the tester on our side.

Yeah, that actually might be the case.
Just over a month ago, I had a NCT on my car.
It passed, but I was very surpriced that brakes imbalance was quite big (over 20% - fail is from 30%). I had my brakes tested 2 weeks earlier on professional equipment and they were nearly ideal (imbalance of less then 3%).
Only after I pointed it out here on this forum, someone noticed, that imbalance was always stronger force on the right for both front brakes and rear brakes, as well as handbrake.
I'm pretty confident that my brakes are in very good shape and imbalance is nearly zero, so those results (similar imbalance during all 3 tests - front, rear and handbrake) show that most likely their equipment is not calibrated properly.

kevinkmb36

brought my girlfriends car for retest at 8 this morn .it had failed for rear fog light and near side track rod which we replaced..paid the €28 ofcourse...and passed....
when we originally brought car for test, we didnt touch the car, we said we would see what would fail and take it from there..it did recently get a new clutch, fan and radiator fitted alright but wasnt serviced in abt 2 years..they guy that did did first test, flew through the test, just failed it for those two things...now i know that the lights are way off on the car, one is way up, the other is way down, but still passed the test...how was this missed??
while i was there that day, the 5 people that were before me, all failed for some reason or another...is this a scam really just to get retests done and collect the easy €28..??

Syllabus

john reilly wrote: »

sorry about the grammar didnt know we where having a spelling test. i had a car fail with was a tiny nick on a tyre, and had to pay for a retest

i understood it first time

JP 1800

I have my old BMW E30 going in tomorrow, so far I have done a full service, all filters, oil, power steering fluid, brake fluid flush, all bulbs checked, new tie rods, steering gaitors, timing belt and water pump, tracking and new brakes but I still get the feeling it is a ripe candidate for a fail going by some of peoples experience. We shall see tomorrow.

mondeo

I believe testers have quotas to meet. X amount of fails passes to balance out the paper work and keep stats nice and balanced. After all the nct is a business and every business has targets to be met.

If a tester keeps getting in cars in perfect condition and worthy of a pass he will probably feel his supervisor will think he is not doing his job right if he is passing every single car. There might be pressure involved to fail a few for no reason so his own record shows he Is competant in identifying a faulth.

Stealthirl

my experance is that at the end of the day the tester can fail the car if they feel like it.
I had my 93 soarer in there last may,it failed on a very slight worn bush in the rear LCA.
Tester said it took him a long time to find it [he checked thoroughly to find 1 single fault :rolleyes:]
It took me awhile to even notice the small amount of flex when i got it home.
I think it was unfair to fail the car on this as it was not shot and didnot effect the allinment
its like failing a car because the pads are nearly worn or the threads are just above min.

I have had the shock imbalance a few times on 3 cars and also lightalinment even tho it was fine
Yes it is good to have the NCT but i think the way it's done is a joke

Guy:Incognito

Stealthirl wrote: »

Yes it is good to have the NCT but i think the way it's done is a joke

What way would you suggest so?

Stealthirl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What way would you suggest so?

If a fail is something based on a testers oppinion then if you get a 2nd oppinion that said there is no fault/defect the test fee should be waved and you get your pass

end of the day if the tester is in a bad mood he can fail a car on his oppion and you have no comeback at all

Guy:Incognito

Stealthirl wrote: »

If a fail is something based on a testers oppinion then if you get a 2nd oppinion that said there is no fault/defect the test fee should be waved and you get your pass

end of the day if the tester is in a bad mood he can fail a car on his oppion and you have no comeback at all

And who checks the legitimacy of the 2nd opinion? If I get my mate the mechanic to say all is well I get my test fee waived?

kn1

took my dads car in and it failed on a rear bushing despite having only 47000 miles onthe clock
so i jacked it up,powerwashed it,sprayed the rear section with a can of matt black,sent it back and it passed !!!
when i told the tester what id done he called me outside and said i was branding him a liar !
i just laughed and left with the new cert:p

Stealthirl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And who checks the legitimacy of the 2nd opinion? If I get my mate the mechanic to say all is well I get my test fee waived?

Nope a qualified engineer obviously :rolleyes:
Who watches the testers ?
Not passing a car for non exising faults,no one in the NCT are going to care.

its just like a mechanic saying theres a fault with your car but he can fix it for a few €€€ when there is no prob

Guy:Incognito

Stealthirl wrote: »

Nope a qualified engineer obviously :rolleyes:

Would you get an engineers report for €28?

Be cheaper to just do the retest.

Mar4ix

Stealthirl wrote: »

Nope a qualified engineer obviously :rolleyes:
Who watches the testers ?
Not passing a car for non exising faults,no one in the NCT are going to care.

its just like a mechanic saying theres a fault with your car but he can fix it for a few €€€ when there is no prob

Unless while you driving, can hear and feel some knocking from underneath car, ok, mechanic may fix, unless car feels fine, and mechanic says that need to be fixed, then questions may ask, and looking for second mechanic/garage opinion.

Stealthirl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would you get an engineers report for €28?

Be cheaper to just do the retest.

well in my case it would have cost me 600+ to fix something that realy didant need fixing,it passed without commant on the retest and also passed this year without commant