Driving without nct

Sin City

This maybe a stupid question but here it goes anyway .
My car was off.the road for two years with minor problems which I could only afford to fix recently. All fixed now, insured and taxed , only thing is my nct test isn't until end.of september. Is it possible to drive the car and, show the books form for nct or do I have to,wait to get nct . Still need to get car valeted and other stuff

corktina

strictly no, but 99% of time a Gard would leave you alone if you can produce booking letter/email imo

johndaman66

As per Corktinas comment I would think you are most likely fine to drive the car as long as you have proof of booking of the NCT if you were to be stopped at a checkpoint. Make sure your tyres are legal and all lights/ indicators etc. are working

CiniO

If you get pulled over by gards in Ireland you most likely will be fine.
But if you have an accident, your insurance company might use "lack of NCT" argument as a getaway from paying up for the claim.

Bruthal

CiniO wrote: »

If you get pulled over by gards in Ireland you most likely will be fine.
But if you have an accident, your insurance company might use "lack of NCT" argument as a getaway from paying up for the claim.

They will still pay third party claims.

corktina

yes they will, but they may well come after you for recompense.

Lemlin

corktina wrote: »

yes they will, but they may well come after you for recompense.

Not unless it can be proved that there was a mechanical fault with the car which resulted in the accident.

The lack of an NCT would had to have had a bearing on the accident for it to be considered by the insurance company.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

If you get pulled over by gards in Ireland you most likely will be fine.
But if you have an accident, your insurance company might use "lack of NCT" argument as a getaway from paying up for the claim.

I really dont think that they would have any legal grounds to do so to be honest, unless perhaps your car had recently failed the NCT and they could prove that the item on which it failed was the cause of the accident.

Ordinarily insurance policies seem to stipulate that the car must be kept in a good state of repair (or words to that effect) rather than specifically mentioning an NCT. A lack of NCT does not mean an unsafe car, likewise a valid NCT does not always equate to a mechanically sound and safe car!

corktina

a fault in the car isn't relevant. What counts is what is in the Policy Conditions. If it says you MUST have an NCT, then they can refuse to pay out your damages qnd come after you for third party losses

I just insured my Mondeo and had to produce the NCT cert to do so

Sin City

corktina wrote: »

a fault in the car isn't relevant. What counts is what is in the Policy Conditions. If it says you MUST have an NCT, then they can refuse to pay out your damages qnd come after you for third party losses

I just insured my Mondeo and had to produce the NCT cert to do so

I didnt have to produce any NCT cert when insuring my car.
Car is up to code regarding work that has to be done to it (Was really just dodgy electrics for the windows and other small minor things that wouldnt really effect the drivability of my car)

So basically its a 50/50 thing probably depending on which guard you get if your stopped.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

I really dont think that they would have any legal grounds to do so to be honest, unless perhaps your car had recently failed the NCT and they could prove that the item on which it failed was the cause of the accident.

Ordinarily insurance policies seem to stipulate that the car must be kept in a good state of repair (or words to that effect) rather than specifically mentioning an NCT. A lack of NCT does not mean an unsafe car, likewise a valid NCT does not always equate to a mechanically sound and safe car!

If the NCT was out for 2 years? That's very possibly grounds enough I'd have thought.

What does an NCT pass signify btw?

The following is from the NCT website:-

"1. Greater Road Safety

The NCT tests the roadworthiness of motor vehicles and identifies any defects, such as faulty brakes, Suspension and rusty bodywork. These defects must be repaired and the car must pass a re-test before the car owner will be issued with an NCT Certificate."

mikeoneillmayo

if the insurance co cancels your policy after a smash

that's another major headache when you look for insurance

dingding

You can get your nct early and you will get the full benefit of the test. I.e. it won't export next time until its normal expiry date.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

CiniO

Lemlin wrote: »

Not unless it can be proved that there was a mechanical fault with the car which resulted in the accident.

The lack of an NCT would had to have had a bearing on the accident for it to be considered by the insurance company.

djimi wrote: »

I really dont think that they would have any legal grounds to do so to be honest, unless perhaps your car had recently failed the NCT and they could prove that the item on which it failed was the cause of the accident.

Ordinarily insurance policies seem to stipulate that the car must be kept in a good state of repair (or words to that effect) rather than specifically mentioning an NCT. A lack of NCT does not mean an unsafe car, likewise a valid NCT does not always equate to a mechanically sound and safe car!

AFAIK insurance policy is just a contract between the insured person and insurance company.
If in this contract is stated: "you must hold valid NCT, otherwise we might refuse to pay for the claim", I suppose this is good enough for them to refuse to pay.
No one is saying that car without NCT must be non-roadworthy or dangerous. It can be 100% allright and safe.
But if the policy requires NCT, then driving without it is breaking rules of this policy, which easily might lead to getting big zero when claiming.

CiniO

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And I find it really strange here in Ireland that they don't bother - because they should
Otherwise it's all us who pay for that.

Bruthal

CiniO wrote: »

AFAIK insurance policy is just a contract between the insured person and insurance company.
If in this contract is stated: "you must hold valid NCT, otherwise we might refuse to pay for the claim", I suppose this is good enough for them to refuse to pay.
No one is saying that car without NCT must be non-roadworthy or dangerous. It can be 100% allright and safe.
But if the policy requires NCT, then driving without it is breaking rules of this policy, which easily might lead to getting big zero when claiming.

Only for personal claims. They must pay out third party regardless of whether you had an NCT or not.

Bruthal

CiniO wrote: »

And I find it really strange here in Ireland that they don't bother - because they should
Otherwise it's all us who pay for that.

For small amounts, it probably would not be worth while for the insurance company to chase after it.

For amounts that would be worth while chasing, the average person wont have the means to pay it.

Scortho

Bruthal wrote: »

Only for personal claims. They must pay out third party regardless of whether you had an NCT or not.

Yes but that doesn't stop them coming after you.
Liberty won't insure me without a valid nct for example.

Bruthal

Scortho wrote: »

Yes but that doesn't stop them coming after you.
Liberty won't insure me without a valid nct for example.

No it doesnt, but it would seem unlikely unless you do a lot of damage and win the lotto as well.

Scortho

Bruthal wrote: »

No it doesnt, but it would seem unlikely unless you do a lot of damage and win the lotto as well.

However they can secure a judgement against you. So if you don't have money now, they can get you later when you do.

Mar4ix

Garda may request produce NCT cert after date you done NCT.

Bruthal

Scortho wrote: »

However they can secure a judgement against you. So if you don't have money now, they can get you later when you do.

Not really likely though, in the overall scheme of real life.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If the NCT was out for 2 years? That's very possibly grounds enough I'd have thought.

What does an NCT pass signify btw?

The following is from the NCT website:-

"1. Greater Road Safety

The NCT tests the roadworthiness of motor vehicles and identifies any defects, such as faulty brakes, Suspension and rusty bodywork. These defects must be repaired and the car must pass a re-test before the car owner will be issued with an NCT Certificate."

An NCT pass signifies nothing more than the car was roadworthy for the 30 minutes that it was in the test center. I could crash my car on the way home with my fresh NCT cert and drive around in a potentially dangerous car for the next 12 months.

For an insurer to use it as some sort of benchmark for roadworthiness is quite ridiculous tbh. Having a valid NCT means next to nothing; they should be stipulating the car must be kept in a high state of repair and in a safe roadworthy condition at all times rather than taking the easy option and just saying that it must have a valid NCT (which in fairness it seems a lot of them do).

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

AFAIK insurance policy is just a contract between the insured person and insurance company.
If in this contract is stated: "you must hold valid NCT, otherwise we might refuse to pay for the claim", I suppose this is good enough for them to refuse to pay.
No one is saying that car without NCT must be non-roadworthy or dangerous. It can be 100% allright and safe.
But if the policy requires NCT, then driving without it is breaking rules of this policy, which easily might lead to getting big zero when claiming.

Ah yeah no if the policy expressely states that the car must have a valid NCT for cover to apply then obviously it must have a valid NCT. They are free to put whatever conditions they want on the car in fairness.

My point was more that if it is not expressely stated that the car must have valid NCT then they would have a very hard to legally denying cover for a car that is not NCT'd unless they could prove that the car failed the NCT and the reason for the fail was a contributing factor in the accident.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Ah yeah no if the policy expressely states that the car must have a valid NCT for cover to apply then obviously it must have a valid NCT. They are free to put whatever conditions they want on the car in fairness.

My point was more that if it is not expressely stated that the car must have valid NCT then they would have a very hard to legally denying cover for a car that is not NCT'd unless they could prove that the car failed the NCT and the reason for the fail was a contributing factor in the accident.

Agree 100%.
The only issue is that in recent year or two more and more insurers started adding "NCT requirement" clause to their policies, and by now I'd say most insurers have it as a condition in their policies.

slimjimmc

djimi wrote: »

Ah yeah no if the policy expressely states that the car must have a valid NCT for cover to apply then obviously it must have a valid NCT. They are free to put whatever conditions they want on the car in fairness.

My point was more that if it is not expressely stated that the car must have valid NCT then they would have a very hard to legally denying cover for a car that is not NCT'd unless they could prove that the car failed the NCT and the reason for the fail was a contributing factor in the accident.

I don't think they can, there is legislation which explicitly prohibits an insurer imposing certain conditions on compulsary third party cover. Fire & theft/comprehensive cover is fair game though.

Eg. .See SI 14/1962 First Schedule

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

djimi

Sorry yes, should have stated comprehensive cover. Third party cover cannot be revoked by conditions in the policy.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

...

Ordinarily insurance policies seem to stipulate that the car must be kept in a good state of repair (or words to that effect) rather than specifically mentioning an NCT. A lack of NCT does not mean an unsafe car, likewise a valid NCT does not always equate to a mechanically sound and safe car!...

and then you said

For an insurer to use it as some sort of benchmark for roadworthiness is quite ridiculous tbh. Having a valid NCT means next to nothing; they should be stipulating the car must be kept in a high state of repair and in a safe roadworthy condition at all times rather than taking the easy option and just saying that it must have a valid NCT (which in fairness it seems a lot of them do).

I've seem acrobats flip flopping slower than that

garhjw

My NCT expires this week but I can't get an appointment in dublin until October. I have been trying to get a cancellation but no luck so far.

I rang my insurance company to ask what was my position as I will have no NCT for approx. 6 weeks.

Insurance informed me if I have aclaim during this period it "could affect any payments" as the car must be of a "roadworthy condition" which means you "need a valid NCT".

So basically, they are saying I might not be covered.

Anyone else have a similar situation. I'm not sure what to do as my wife and I need the car toget to work.

Car was only serviced last week so I'm sure it is roadworthy...

CiniO

garhjw wrote: »

I rang my insurance company to ask what was my position as I will have no NCT for approx. 6 weeks.

Insurance informed me if I have aclaim during this period it "could affect any payments" as the car must be of a "roadworthy condition" which means you "need a valid NCT".

This is typical example, that ringing insurance company to clarify any issue is completely pointless. Car having NCT doesn't mean it's roadworthy, and vice versa.
You might ring again, and while you will be talking to other person, you will get completely different answer.

Looking up what's written in the policy is the only way to find out what's the story.
If your policy states that car must be NCTed as otherwise it might affect payment in case of claim, then it most likely must be NCTed.

F.e. my insurance policy states the following:

Looking after Your Car
You must take all reasonable care to:
1. Safeguard Your Car from loss or
damage and prevent injuries.
2. Maintain Your Car in a roadworthy
condition, ensure that lights, mirrors
and braking systems are working
correctly and, where necessary, has a
valid NCT certificate.
3. Fit tyres appropriate to the Car, and
ensure tread depths comply to the
legal limit.
4. Ensure You do not leave Your keys in
the Car while unattended or leave
Your Car unlocked.
If You do not do so, We reserve the right
not to pay a claim or if, by law, We are
obliged to meet a claim, then We reserve
the right to seek recovery of the payment
from You.
The Company shall have at all times free
access to examine the Car.

garhjw

Thanks cinio,

I won't be near a computer until tomorrow to check my policy details but will look it up then

djimi

garhjw wrote: »

Insurance informed me if I have aclaim during this period it "could affect any payments" as the car must be of a "roadworthy condition" which means you "need a valid NCT".

This is what I have an issue with. Having a valid NCT does not automatically mean that the car is roadworthy, and I really wish that insurance companies would not encourage people into thinking that your car is roadworthy while it has a valid NCT. That little disc means absolutely nothing once you drive out of the test center; it is an indication that the car was roadworthy at a single point in time; it is not an indication of future road worthiness. Its a dangerous mindset to allow motorists to get into and its stupid of insurance companies to be promoting it.

biko

djimi wrote: »

it is an indication that the car was roadworthy at a single point in time; it is not an indication of future road worthiness. Its a dangerous mindset to allow motorists to get into and its stupid of insurance companies to be promoting it.

Dangerous mindset? Aren't you overreacting a tad now?
Can you exemplify the dangers?

I understand why insurance companies promote having nct, it's the only way to keep rust buckets off the road.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

This is what I have an issue with. Having a valid NCT does not automatically mean that the car is roadworthy, and I really wish that insurance companies would not encourage people into thinking that your car is roadworthy while it has a valid NCT. That little disc means absolutely nothing once you drive out of the test center; it is an indication that the car was roadworthy at a single point in time; it is not an indication of future road worthiness. Its a dangerous mindset to allow motorists to get into and its stupid of insurance companies to be promoting it.

What alternative would you suggest? Daily NCTs?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

djimi

biko wrote: »

Dangerous mindset? Aren't you overreacting a tad now?
Can you exemplify the dangers?

Dangerous is the wrong word but its not good to get people into the mindset that once their car has passed its NCT that it is automatically roadworthy for the next 12 month. People start thinking like that and you get people driving on dangerously bald tires etc because they dont reckon they need to check them until the next NCT.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What alternative would you suggest? Daily NCTs?

Leave any mention of the NCT out of the wording and just say that the car must be maintained in a roadworthy condition at all times. I have no problem with the NCT, but in terms of talking about ongoing road worthiness it has absolutely zero value and should not be used as a criteria for insurance validity.

biko

djimi wrote: »

People start thinking like that and you get people driving on dangerously bald tires etc because they dont reckon they need to check them until the next NCT.

Right I see what you mean. Well, people are still adults and thus able to handle the everyday things in life, like check tyres and oil in car occasionally, handle a mortgage, get the kids to school on time etc etc.
We can't nanny everything and I don't think anyone/many believe just because you got a fresh nct car can be driven as is for 12/24 months*.





*that said there are clearly a few imbeciles out there. Hopefully we won't be near when they spin off the road and into a tree.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Leave any mention of the NCT out of the wording and just say that the car must be maintained in a roadworthy condition at all times. I have no problem with the NCT, but in terms of talking about ongoing road worthiness it has absolutely zero value and should not be used as a criteria for insurance validity.

So exclude mention of NCT, and just rely on the individuals judgement (of whom many will be clueless, or perhaps not inclined spend money on essential maintenance).

You haven't thought this through at all.

visual

I have known of claims where there is no NCT on car and if the car is written off the insurance company pay out less. The reasoning a car without NCT is less valuable. But I have never heard of any insurance company refusing to pay out.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

So exclude mention of NCT, and just rely on the individuals judgement (of whom many will be clueless, or perhaps not inclined spend money on essential maintenance).

You haven't thought this through at all.

But what is the point in mentioning the NCT? In this context it doesnt really mean anything. Tell someone that they have to have a valid NCT and they will make sure that it passes the test once every 12/24 months, after which time they have a piece of paper on their windscreen that tells absolutely nothing about the ongoing road worthiness of the car. Tell someone that they must maintain the car in a roadworthy condition at all times and maybe they might take a bit more ongoing care of it.

I know it probably sounds a bit knit picky, but I just feel that too many people already put too much faith in the NCT, and things like this doesnt help. How many people do you see looking to buy a second hand car who think that just because it has 9 months of test left it must be in good nick? How many people do you know that only check their car over the week before it has to be tested? Its not a healthy mindset for the average motorist to get into.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

But what is the point in mentioning the NCT? In this context it doesnt really mean anything. Tell someone that they have to have a valid NCT and they will make sure that it passes the test once every 12/24 months, after which time they have a piece of paper on their windscreen that tells absolutely nothing about the ongoing road worthiness of the car. Tell someone that they must maintain the car in a roadworthy condition at all times and maybe they might take a bit more ongoing care of it.

I know it probably sounds a bit knit picky, but I just feel that too many people already put too much faith in the NCT, and things like this doesnt help. How many people do you see looking to buy a second hand car who think that just because it has 9 months of test left it must be in good nick? How many people do you know that only check their car over the week before it has to be tested? Its not a healthy mindset for the average motorist to get into.

Of course it means something. It means the car concerned passed the test within a certain time period.

Ordinary motorists can't be left to self regulate as regards the roadworthiness of their vehicles. That's why the NCT was introduced in the first instance.

An NCT pass can't guarantee roadworthiness for 1 or 2 years obviously, but no workable system I can imagine could.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Dangerous is the wrong word but its not good to get people into the mindset that once their car has passed its NCT that it is automatically roadworthy for the next 12 month. People start thinking like that and you get people driving on dangerously bald tires etc because they dont reckon they need to check them until the next NCT.

But that's because NCT is the only check most cars get in this country.
Have you ever seen gards doing random technical checks on vehicles on the side of the road?

In other countries they do it pretty regularly.
In Poland f.e. they might have a checkpoint, where they check tyres, lights, steering, sometimes even brakes and suspension.
Also they pull over cars that look they might not be roadworthy, and do check them.

If car is found to be not roadworthy, they give owner a week to fix a problem and have it tested again in vehicle test centre. If it's something really dangerous, vehicle will have to be towed away by owner and not used on public road.

Never seen anything like that in Ireland. Even opposite. Vehicle which look very not-roadworthy might drive right in front of garda car, and they will do nothing.