NCT Centres - Exemtion clauses that have you over a barrel

Hunchback

When you go to the NCT centre you have to sign forms, and typically enough, I rarely if ever read the small print. (I'm usually too nervous to think straight anyway when I am in a situation that in some way involves somebody talking to me about cars).

Someone I know did read the T's and C's however. I believe that contained within the small print is an exemption clause that exonerates the testers from all damage that your car might incur whilst being tested at the centre.

The point is that here you have a situation where the tester seeks to exclude themselves from all manner of liability for damage, but the driver is legally required to have the NCT done. I THINK I am right in saying that one company only is responsible for carrying out the NCT across the country (meaning there is no option for the driver to opt for a company with less expansive exemption clauses).

So, if I am not mistaken, all drivers must legally relinquish their property at least once a year, or once every two years depending on how old the car is, during which time they have no comeback regardless of the extent of damage that might befall their property, and have no option or choice as to who they would like to carry out the test.

Seems both onerous and unreasonable to the untrained eye. Any opinions? Is it right to say that there is only one provider of this test nationwide? Does that make a difference?

I probably should have done this before I posted here :rolleyes: but I don't know if the exemption clause excludes liability for damages arising out of negligence, so I am going to search online for that now

But, it's not like a contract that's optional - you HAVE to submit your car for the test - that appears to me to make the exemption clause overly onerous.

Beano

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

When you go to the NCT centre you have to sign forms, and typically enough, I rarely if ever read the small print. (I'm usually too nervous to think straight anyway when I am in a situation that in some way involves somebody talking to me about cars).

Someone I know did read the T's and C's however. I believe that contained within the small print is an exemption clause that exonerates the testers from all damage that your car might incur whilst being tested at the centre.

The point is that here you have a situation where the tester seeks to exclude themselves from all manner of liability for damage, but the driver is legally required to have the NCT done. I THINK I am right in saying that one company only is responsible for carrying out the NCT across the country (meaning there is no option for the driver to opt for a company with less expansive exemption clauses).

So, if I am not mistaken, all drivers must legally relinquish their property at least once a year, or once every two years depending on how old the car is, during which time they have no comeback regardless of the extent of damage that might befall their property, and have no option or choice as to who they would like to carry out the test.

Seems both onerous and unreasonable to the untrained eye. Any opinions? Is it right to say that there is only one provider of this test nationwide? Does that make a difference?

I probably should have done this before I posted here :rolleyes: but I don't know if the exemption clause excludes liability for damages arising out of negligence, so I am going to search online for that now

But, it's not like a contract that's optional - you HAVE to submit your car for the test - that appears to me to make the exemption clause overly onerous.

I believe a clause excluding liability for negligence would be unenforceable.

hullaballoo

There is an interesting exclusion in the Terms relevant to owners of diesel cars. During the test, the engine is revved to 5-6k rpm to test emissions at various rates of rpm.

In most diesels, when you get beyond 5k rpm, you're in the red zone. But the terms exclude any liability for damage caused to the engine during this test - IIRC, they specifically address this issue so it is not an oversight, but something of which they are aware.

I can't see how this exclusion could be enforced but it would have to be challenged for any of us to find out.