NCT failed due to alignment incorrect

soc

I'm not sure if this is one for the consumer issues thread or here... Thought I'd try here first to get motoring feedback, and then if needs be maybe a mod can move if they deem inappropriate?

Anyway, car was due a NCT retest - it failed initial NCT due to bushings needing replacement. Guy at NCT said he would do alignment tests when retesting.

So, got bushings done at a garage during the week - they don't do alignments, so had to go somewhere else.

Literally the day before the NCT retest, husband took the car to a tyre place, where they did alignment. I took the car for NCT retest the very next day. Car failed due to 'appalling' alignment of front wheels. Needless to say I was pi$$ed off.

First thing this morning, I took car to another tyre place to get second opinion on alignment (either NCT or other tyre place machine was wrong). New place told me that alignment was WAY OUT...it was so bad that they couldn't just check the alignment, they re-did the realignment for me (and charged), and gave me a report of the 'before' and 'after' readings, and explained what the problem figures were... figures seemed to match what NCT test centre had put on report (which wasn't shown to them).

Needless to say that I was annoyed about this whole thing, and having to pay AGAIN for realignment, and ANOTHER retest fee due to realignment being done appallingly by first place.

Anyway, went straight back to place that husband got tyres 'aligned' at, and asked the guy for a refund... he didn't really fight me on that one. I then asked him about re-imbursing me for retest fee, as car failed on the item he was paid to do (i.e. alignment), but he flat out refused to. I didn't want to push on this, as it was my husband who he dealt with rather than me.

Anyway, I'm just wondering should I push for first tyre place to reimburse me for the retest fee? Car literally only failed on the crap job of alignment that the guy did...i.e. if he did his job properly and aligned the wheels correctly, that would have been NCT over with & passed. The alignment he did was so bad that the NCT guy said he had to test it twice to make sure that he wasn't misreading it. Or do I just move on, and pay out for the retest again? Just looking for opinions really on situation & guy's workmanship.

dr.fuzzenstein

It would depend on whether the first guy was aware if this was for the NCT and if he gave some kind of assurance that this would pass.

tin79

In cases I have had similar they will refund the cost of the work but you will struggle to get them to fork out for the test.

biko

If you had gone back to the first place and asked for the manager to check his underling's work they would probably have been a bit more forthcoming.
Since you went somewhere else instead I think it'll be hard for you to get more than you already have received.
Keep pushing them though, they may fold.

dr.fuzzenstein

biko wrote: »

If you had gone back to the first place and asked for the manager to check his underling's work they would probably have been a bit more forthcoming.
Since you went somewhere else instead I think it'll be hard for you to get more than you already have received.
Keep pushing them though, they may fold.

I see your point, but in this case the Op now has two readouts that clearly underline the shoddy work carried out by the first garage.
I hope that at least it will cause them to take action to ensure that stuff won't happen again.
If I ran a garage and someone pointed out a problem of that magnitude, I would be thankful.
If they don't care, I would worry about their overall standards.

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It would depend on whether the first guy was aware if this was for the NCT and if he gave some kind of assurance that this would pass.

No matter why the customer came to set the alignment it should have been done properly. I can't see any reason for assurance to pass NCT.
If I go to garage to set alignment, I'm expecting it to be done properly so it would pass NCT and be safe to drive.
In case it was way out, we can assume it could have been dangerous to drive, so reimbursing the cost of failed NCT retest is considerably small cost for garage, which he should pay.
It could have been much worse if there was an accident due to incorrectly set alignment.

slimjimmc

What I can't figure is how come the hubby, nor the OP for that matter, didn't notice anything wrong considering the "'appalling' alignment of front wheels."
Surely a front side slip of more than ± 14m/km (NCT limit) would be fairly apparent even on a cambered road.

Either way, unless the first place took on the job on the basis it was to comply with NCT limits then they are not responsible for testing fees.

Tigger

by definition all alignment should be within the nct's limits
do you thing some people would like their alignment outside these limits?

CiniO

slimjimmc wrote: »

Either way, unless the first place took on the job on the basis it was to comply with NCT limits then they are not responsible for testing fees.

Are you saying, that any garage can offer a service of "setting alignment" which will not comply with NCT limits unless they are told that customer wishes it to complay?

slimjimmc

CiniO wrote: »

Are you saying, that any garage can offer a service of "setting alignment" which will not comply with NCT limits unless they are told that customer wishes it to complay?

No. I'm saying they are not responsible for the NCT retest fees unless a requirement to pass the NCT formed part of the contract. That can happen in two ways, either the hubby asks for alignment to pass the NCT or them making a promise it would.
If he just asked for alignment without specifying a requirement to pass the NCT then the contract was only for alignment and that's all they have to provide redress for.

CiniO

slimjimmc wrote: »

No. I'm saying they are not responsible for the NCT retest fees unless a requirement to pass the NCT formed part of the contract. That can happen in two ways, either the hubby asks for alignment to pass the NCT or them making a promise it would.
If he just asked for alignment without specifying a requirement to pass the NCT then the contract was only for alignment and that's all they have to provide redress for.

OK.
But they didn't provide appropriate alignment service if it failed NCT.
Therefore they should firstly refund money for alignment which wasn't done to the standards.
And secondly fact that they didn't do alignment to appropriate standards, as they should, caused a loss of failed NCT retest, so they should be responsible for it IMHO.

dougie-lampkin

slimjimmc wrote: »

If he just asked for alignment without specifying a requirement to pass the NCT then the contract was only for alignment and that's all they have to provide redress for.

Do you know what alignment actually means? If the NCT measure the side slip as being either side of 0, alignment did not occur. You can have your front toe set to -45° if you like, but once both wheels are set at -45° then the NCT will measure a side slip of 0. The actual toe setting is irrelevant for the NCT, they're only looking for an imbalance.

It's like failing the NCT for headlight alignment after getting them set by a garage. And then the garage saying "But you didn't specify you wanted them set correctly!".

Kenny Logins

slimjimmc wrote: »

No. I'm saying they are not responsible for the NCT retest fees unless a requirement to pass the NCT formed part of the contract. That can happen in two ways, either the hubby asks for alignment to pass the NCT or them making a promise it would.
If he just asked for alignment without specifying a requirement to pass the NCT then the contract was only for alignment and that's all they have to provide redress for.

Yep, I get what you're saying.

copacetic

Had something very similar happen to the OP, what I was most taken by was similar stories from the nct testers with loads of work done for retests. Garages have to do a specific fix and manage to make a complete arse of it.

It's only the proper retest that spots it. Makes you wonder about a lot more of the work that various garages do.

Del2005

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

Do you know what alignment actually means? If the NCT measure the side slip as being either side of 0, alignment did not occur. You can have your front toe set to -45° if you like, but once both wheels are set at -45° then the NCT will measure a side slip of 0. The actual toe setting is irrelevant for the NCT, they're only looking for an imbalance.

It's like failing the NCT for headlight alignment after getting them set by a garage. And then the garage saying "But you didn't specify you wanted them set correctly!".

They have already refunded the OP for their shoddy work on the alignment. Since that is all they where asked to do they don't need to refund the NCT fee unless it was mentioned when requesting the alignment, as they where never contracted to get the car to pass the NCT.

Unless the garage is doing a pre NCT test or the person says that they want their lights adjusted for the NCT then all they are entitled to is a refund or realignment.

slimjimmc

CiniO wrote: »

OK.
But they didn't provide appropriate alignment service if it failed NCT.
Therefore they should firstly refund money for alignment which wasn't done to the standards.
And secondly fact that they didn't do alignment to appropriate standards, as they should, caused a loss of failed NCT retest, so they should be responsible for it IMHO.

I'm not disputing they done a bad job, just disputing that they're liable for the NCT.

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

Do you know what alignment actually means? If the NCT measure the side slip as being either side of 0, alignment did not occur. You can have your front toe set to -45° if you like, but once both wheels are set at -45° then the NCT will measure a side slip of 0. The actual toe setting is irrelevant for the NCT, they're only looking for an imbalance.

It's like failing the NCT for headlight alignment after getting them set by a garage. And then the garage saying "But you didn't specify you wanted them set correctly!".

We know alignment did not occur, no one is disputing that, but for some oddball reason you seem to think I am (and yes, I do know what alignment means!)

The OP's complaint is that she expects the shop to be responsible for the cost of the NCT retest because her car failed due to their shoddy alignment. Yes they should have done the job correctly and yes they are responsible for correcting the alignment issue. However unless her requirement to pass the NCT was agreed with the workshop then they made no such no promise or commitment, and hence no liability, for the workshop to pay for the NCT.
If the shop told her husband, "sure boss, she'll pass no bother" then there is a case.

Wheelnut

All of this argument is based on what the second place said about the first place. We don't know yet if the second place is right because the car has not yet passed the NCT.

slimjimmc

Wheelnut wrote: »

All of this argument is based on what the second place said about the first place. We don't know yet if the second place is right because the car has not yet passed the NCT.

The second place's readout seemed to match the NCT's readout and the second place didn't even see the NCT's readout so no risk of fabrication either. And the NCT guy and the second place both said the readings were away off what they should be.
It's not one man's word or opinion over the other. The figures speak for themselves.

soc wrote: »

New place told me that alignment was WAY OUT...it was so bad that they couldn't just check the alignment, they re-did the realignment for me (and charged), and gave me a report of the 'before' and 'after' readings, and explained what the problem figures were... figures seemed to match what NCT test centre had put on report (which wasn't shown to them).

greasepalm

even getting your tracking done and driving car and hitting a pothole or kerb can alter things,maybe nuts were seized and could not adjust it,wondering what bushings on what car,vw and front suspension rear bush?

HarrietD

That happened to me a few years ago. I brought my car to a well known tyre franchise a couple of days prior to the NCT and they aligned the wheels. It passed all aspects of the NCT except for front wheel alignment and it was seriously off line - NCT guy said whoever carried out the work didn't know what they were doing. I brought it back to garage - they aligned again for free.It failed the NCT again - this time front and rear alignment were seriously off. I brought it to a Dealership and they said the rear wasn't tightened back up again after alignment and they wouldn't touch it so it had to go back to original tyre franchise. They re-did it for a 3rd time and it finally passed the NCT. I was completely furious. Utter waste of my time and money. I wrote to them and demanded they pay for the 2 additional NCT tests plus mileage and my time - I asked for €250 approx. I got a call from the regional manager who said he would pay my re-tests but nothing else. I told him if he didn't pay for the inconvenience I would seek legal advice and they paid €250 without any further correspondence.

Del2005

Wheelnut wrote: »

All of this argument is based on what the second place said about the first place. We don't know yet if the second place is right because the car has not yet passed the NCT.

It doesn't matter if the car passes the NCT or not as the first company where not contacted to get the car to pass the NCT so they have no liability for the cost. If it does fail again and assuming that the OP told the company that they needed the alignment done for the NCT they will be entitled to the fee off the 2nd company.

Wheelnut

Del2005 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the car passes the NCT or not as the first company where not contacted ...

Yes, yes, I have understood that distinction from way back in the thread. (BTW I think the word you're looking for is "contRacted"). My point is simply that the second company have not been proven right YET. We would have a very interesting situation if the car failed again because then it would point to something fundamentally wrong with the car.

CiniO

slimjimmc wrote: »

I'm not disputing they done a bad job, just disputing that they're liable for the NCT.


The OP's complaint is that she expects the shop to be responsible for the cost of the NCT retest because her car failed due to their shoddy alignment. Yes they should have done the job correctly and yes they are responsible for correcting the alignment issue. However unless her requirement to pass the NCT was agreed with the workshop then they made no such no promise or commitment, and hence no liability, for the workshop to pay for the NCT.
If the shop told her husband, "sure boss, she'll pass no bother" then there is a case.

Del2005 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the car passes the NCT or not as the first company where not contacted to get the car to pass the NCT so they have no liability for the cost. If it does fail again and assuming that the OP told the company that they needed the alignment done for the NCT they will be entitled to the fee off the 2nd company.

It's not clear for me.
Garage, who provide a service of repairing vehicles is expected to know the trade and do things properly.
If you go to the garage to set your alignment, you expect it to be done right. I'm sure there must be legal ground for it as well.
It could be different if I asked my retired mechanic neighbour to fix my car. But if I go to the place which profesionally fix cars, and pay them for service I expect job to be done properly.
If they don't do the job properly, they should be liable for it, and any consequences which result from it.

If garage forgets to tighten the nuts, and my wheel comes off 2 miles out the garage after I pick up the car, I would expect them to compensate me for the damage to the car, etc. Not just for returning the cost of inappropriate repair.
That's because their negligance was direct cause of the event of wheel coming off.

The same with alignment. If I go there to have it set up properly, and then straight away I go to NCT to find out it is not right, and I loose my test fee, time, etc, I would expect garage to recoup the cost of all this - not just cost of alignment. That's because I trusted them they will do the work properly, as they are professionals.

If case like that is not to be won in court, then I'm off here - would be inbelievable.

Tigger

CiniO wrote: »

If garage forgets to tighten the nuts, and my wheel comes off 2 miles out the garage after I pick up the car, I would expect them to compensate me for the damage to the car, etc. Not just for returning the cost of inappropriate repair.
That's because their negligance was direct cause of the event of wheel coming off.

only if you told them you wanted it not to fall off in advance

copacetic

Tigger wrote: »

only if you told them you wanted it not to fall off in advance

Yeah, clearly asking for your alignment to be done is meaningless, you have to ask that it is done right. Not just 'done'. Done can mean anything and they are perfectly entitled to do it wrong.

slimjimmc

Tigger wrote: »

only if you told them you wanted it not to fall off in advance

No, there is a major difference. The loose wheel example is a serious situation which would leave the car in a dangerous state with possibly disastrous consequences. There is a obligation not to release the car in a dangerous state. While the alignment job was not done correctly it did not render the car dangerous, the consequences are minor inconvenience and cost. The examples are at opposing scales of severity and any judge would distinguish between the two different situations.

CiniO wrote: »

It's not clear for me.
Garage, who provide a service of repairing vehicles is expected to know the trade and do things properly.
If you go to the garage to set your alignment, you expect it to be done right. I'm sure there must be legal ground for it as well.
It could be different if I asked my retired mechanic neighbour to fix my car. But if I go to the place which profesionally fix cars, and pay them for service I expect job to be done properly.
If they don't do the job properly, they should be liable for it, and any consequences which result from it.

If garage forgets to tighten the nuts, and my wheel comes off 2 miles out the garage after I pick up the car, I would expect them to compensate me for the damage to the car, etc. Not just for returning the cost of inappropriate repair.
That's because their negligance was direct cause of the event of wheel coming off.

The same with alignment. If I go there to have it set up properly, and then straight away I go to NCT to find out it is not right, and I loose my test fee, time, etc, I would expect garage to recoup the cost of all this - not just cost of alignment. That's because I trusted them they will do the work properly, as they are professionals.

If case like that is not to be won in court, then I'm off here - would be inbelievable.

You're scheduled to sit a professional exam so you go into a stationary shop and ask for a pen with black ink (because you know only black ink is allowed). The shop sells you a red ink pen by mistake unknown to either of you. You head off into your professional exam, pay the exam fee and start writing only to discover you have a red pen. You must forfeit the exam and it's fee but you can pay again and re-sit the exam at a later time.

Is the shop liable for replacing the pen? Of course. You asked for black, they gave you red so you're entitled to a replacement black pen, or a full/partial refund of the red pen's price;

Is the shop liable for your exam fee, bus fare, time off work to sit exam, the 'wee drop' in the pub next door to 'settle the nerves', etc? No, because you never stipulated you wanted a pen that met the exam centre's spec nor did the shop promise it met that spec; even though had they done their job correctly you would have been ok. You might expect full compensation but you're not entitled to it.

However, had the shop sold you the pen on the stipulation it met the exam centre's spec then you would have grounds for the extra consequential costs.

soc

slimjimmc wrote: »

What I can't figure is how come the hubby, nor the OP for that matter, didn't notice anything wrong considering the "'appalling' alignment of front wheels."
Surely a front side slip of more than ± 14m/km (NCT limit) would be fairly apparent even on a cambered road.

Either way, unless the first place took on the job on the basis it was to comply with NCT limits then they are not responsible for testing fees.

Alignment was done on Saturday 15/03 at 12pm. Husband drove home. Car parked in driveway. Tyre place closed at 1pm.

I drove car next day to NCT on Sunday 16/03. I noticed (and said to my husband when I got home) that when driving the car it felt like I was on a rollerskating rink... just felt slippy.

Monday, 17/03. St Patrick's Day. No tyre place open... didn't drive car that day.
Tuesday 18/03, first thing in the morning after dropping kids to playschool, I went straight to another tyre place to get independent review of wheel alignment... as either NCT or first tyre place machines were out.

How much more quicker could I have dealt with the issue?

soc

Firstly, it doesn't matter if alignment was done for NCT or not. We paid to have alignment done - and they didn't do it. Going to the NCT test merely confirmed that they did a shoddy job. There is no 'NCT standard' wheel alignment, and 'normal' wheel alignment... wheel alignment IS wheel alignment.
I asked National Consumer Agency for their opinion, and this is what they said:

Whenever a consumer pays a trader to carry out a service they are covered by consumer legislation. If the services do not meet certain criteria, the consumer may be entitled for the trader to either put right the wrong or to receive a full/partial refund.
Further information can be found here:
http://www.consumerhelp.ie/services-contracts
In addition to this, where a consumer is at a financial loss because of a direct fault with a product or service the consumer may be entitled to claim for damages, this concept is known as consequential loss. The issue of consequential loss is purely a matter between the parties and is governed by principles of contract law. The general principle is that a consumer is entitled to be compensated for consequential loss, once it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a breach of contract. Therefore, each individual case will be decided on the particular facts involved. Given the issue arises out of the formation of a private contract between the parties, the NCA has no statutory role. Ultimately, only a Judge can decide what is reasonably foreseeable, if it cannot be agreed between the parties in the contract.
Therefore, if you have not done so already, we would suggest that you raise the matter with the garage outlining the above and requesting the issue to be resolved. Further details on how to make an affective complaint can be found through the following link:
http://www.consumerhelp.ie/how-to-complain
If after putting a complaint in writing to the trader and the issue is still unresolved one further option that may be available to you would be the Small Claims Process (SCP). However, it may be worth noting that the SCP can accept cases up to the value of €2,000 and the current fee for submitting a claim is €25. Further details on the SCP can be found through the following link:
http://www.consumerhelp.ie/small-claims
We hope you have found this information useful and if you would like to discuss your query further, please contact us on 1890 432 432 or 01 4025555 (quoting your reference number: #######).
Thanks,
National Consumer Agency

I'm not going to pursue the issue with the garage - as it's just not worth the hassle of paying €25 courts fee for €28 retest fee (plus hassle of bring 4 kids under 4 to the darn place because I had to get a cancellation appt slot but that's another story...). But it's good to know if something similar happens in future with regard to a service, I now know that I can go further than just a refund.

Thanks everyone for feedback

BTW Husband did tell the guy we were having an NCT the next day - cos when I went into the shop on Tuesday, I didn't know what guy was dealing with my husband, and told guy behind counter that 'my husband was in on Saturday for wheel alignment', and he said, 'ah yes for the NCT.' Which I then said, 'that failed abysmally'...

CiniO

slimjimmc wrote: »

You're scheduled to sit a professional exam so you go into a stationary shop and ask for a pen with black ink (because you know only black ink is allowed). The shop sells you a red ink pen by mistake unknown to either of you.

That's hardly comparable with original example. Selling pen in wrong colour is just a matter of overlook, misunderstanding,, etc..
Selling red pen to someone is neither dangerous or incorrect. It can be classified as mistake.
Person selling it, without knowing black is a necessity for exam, couldn't have a clue it was really important.

On opposite side, aligning the wheels to be way off, is way out of industry standard and can be even classed as dangerous.
This can not be treated like mistake - selling other product, as no one in the right mind would ever ask for alignment to be set way off.
OP assumed it was done correctly and that's what he expected.
That's why garage should be responsible for covering the cost of failed NCT, because they could have expected if they do allighment wrong, this might casue some loss to the customer.

soc

slimjimmc wrote: »

No, there is a major difference. The loose wheel example is a serious situation which would leave the car in a dangerous state with possibly disastrous consequences. There is a obligation not to release the car in a dangerous state.

Actually improper wheel alignment IS dangerous.
When I went to the second place to get wheel alignment checked (to verify who was wrong: NCT or first tyre place), the second place said that the wheels were so bad they couldn't let me drive off with them in that state. Like I said, driving the car felt like I was on a rollerskating rink... it felt very slippy. The guy told me, that was because ALL four wheels were pointing diagonally outwards instead of dead straight

According to this site, http://www.weresotiredtires.com/wheelalignment.htm
Improper wheel alignment IS dangerous:

Another problem with improper alignment isn’t just the fact that it’s expensive, the car become dangerous to drive. The car will drift on a straight road and you’ll need to fight to keep it in a straight line. It may want to pull to the right or the left and force you of the road or cause you to hit other vehicles. When your car is out of alignment you can also suffer from tire problems such as a flat tire or complete tire blowouts as well as poor traction on surfaces. When you have poor tires you’re at a greater risk of causing an accident

dr.fuzzenstein

soc wrote: »

Alignment was done on Saturday 15/03 at 12pm. Husband drove home. Car parked in driveway. Tyre place closed at 1pm.

I drove car next day to NCT on Sunday 16/03. I noticed (and said to my husband when I got home) that when driving the car it felt like I was on a rollerskating rink... just felt slippy.

Monday, 17/03. St Patrick's Day. No tyre place open... didn't drive car that day.
Tuesday 18/03, first thing in the morning after dropping kids to playschool, I went straight to another tyre place to get independent review of wheel alignment... as either NCT or first tyre place machines were out.

How much more quicker could I have dealt with the issue?

Don't worry OP, this is Motors, the 1st rule of motoring is the OP is always at fault.
If you had parked your car in your own drive and someone had crashed into it drunk and the first words he said to you where "I did it on purpose!", some people would have found a way to make it your fault.
It's just one of those things...

copacetic

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Don't worry OP, this is Motors, the 1st rule of motoring is the OP is always at fault.
If you had parked your car in your own drive and someone had crashed into it drunk and the first words he said to you where "I did it on purpose!", some people would have found a way to make it your fault.
It's just one of those things...

yeah, clearly he hadn't officially asked anyone NOT to crash in to his car so it was his fault.

crazy thing was it was the guys alignment which caused the crash, but that wasn't the fault of the people who did it, because he hadn't requested the 'non crashy' alignment.