NCT inconsistencies.

BigBadDom

I have often wondered if all test centres apply the exact same criteria for their tests. I was given proof of it yesterday. I did a test at the end of November in Meath and I failed on one visual issue. Unfortunately, the part I needed had to come from abroad and took longer that the month, so I missed out on a free visual test and had to book another full one instead. Jump forward 6 or 7 weeks and suddenly at Northpoint, a whole rake of stuff that wasn't mentioned in meath is suddenly a problem in Northpoint. One thing in particular caught my attention. Without going into specifics, this visual issue was in exactly the same state 6 weeks ago, yet it didn't get mentioned...however, northpoint chose to fail me on it! I questioned (very strongly I have to say) the tester and the chap wouldn't even look me in the eye, he just kept on rattling out his report. Hope the f**k can a 'National' Test vary so hugely from one region to another?!?! It sounds like false advertising to me, 'Regional', or even 'Individual and depending on mood' test centre would be more apt. I can only think the NCT have quotas, they have to fail a number of cars every month, which would be an unacceptable situation.

kub

There is a private company contracted by the state to operate the test centres, their brief is to make money.

As per human nature, different strokes for different folks I reckon. Think of it like you were a teenager and the problem in those days was bouncers not letting us into clubs, well now its NCT inspectors.

BigBadDom

kub wrote: »

There is a private company contracted by the state to operate the test centres, their brief is to make money.

As per human nature, different strokes for different folks I reckon. Think of it like you were a teenager and the problem in those days was bouncers not letting us into clubs, well now its NCT inspectors.

Maybe so, but that means there ISN'T a consistent standard and I find that very difficult to live with. It maybe because the country has already kicked up about the water charges. Even back in the day, when the NCT was introduced, it was clear as day that road safety was only a marginal concern. The real reason was to get old bangers off the road and increase car sales..pure and simple. The only reason people live with it is because it was introduced years ago. It also angers me how they never...and I have asked both in my own name and under false names..answer direct questions about inconsistencies. My advice to people would be avoid the Dublin test centres. Go to test centres in poorer counties, as the testers are more likely to understand that people have to make do and so long as your motor isn't a death trap, then it is safe to be on the road. The Dublin testers are A rude and B unrealistic as to what people are dealing with.

kub

Hi OP, I just came across this, it confirms your suspicions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/what-s-the-most-reliable-car-in-ireland-1.2073954

niloc1951

Last year my Volvo S40 went in for the test and failed because the front flexible brake pipes were showing signs of cracking/perishing.
Delighted with the life saving finding I got my garage to order in replacements.

When bleeding the new hoses the mechanic was mystified by the lack of a good pedal returning.

On investigation he found a section of rotten pipe to the rear axle had spring a leak :eek::eek::eek::eek:

I considered myself extremely lucky that this happened in the garage and not on the road.
The car had only covered 40 miles since the test the previous week.

BigBadDom

I've no issue with things like that. What I do have issue with is almost passing in one test centre and then, 6 or so weeks later after getting the one visual problem fixed, I go to another test centre and they bring up loads of issues....many of which had been cleared in the previous test?!?!? that's the problem I have!

niloc1951

BigBadDom wrote: »

I've no issue with things like that. What I do have issue with is almost passing in one test centre and then, 6 or so weeks later after getting the one visual problem fixed, I go to another test centre and they bring up loads of issues....many of which had been cleared in the previous test?!?!? that's the problem I have!

You see no issue with a dangerous defect being missed, one which caused a brake line to burst a few days (40 miles) after the test
What could be more serious, more life threatening. We're not talking inconvenience or inconsistencies in non 'fail dangerous' defects.
My vehicle should have been given a 'fail dangerous' notice and been required to be collected from the test center by a recovery truck.

Victor

Moved form Roads.

Moderator

CiniO

BigBadDom wrote: »

Jump forward 6 or 7 weeks and suddenly at Northpoint, a whole rake of stuff that wasn't mentioned in meath is suddenly a problem in Northpoint. One thing in particular caught my attention. Without going into specifics, this visual issue was in exactly the same state 6 weeks ago, yet it didn't get mentioned...

Would you mind telling us what item was that?

Stoolbend

niloc1951 wrote: »

You see no issue with a dangerous defect being missed, one which caused a brake line to burst a few days (40 miles) after the test
What could be more serious, more life threatening. We're not talking inconvenience or inconsistencies in non 'fail dangerous' defects.
My vehicle should have been given a 'fail dangerous' notice and been required to be collected from the test center by a recovery truck.

This should've been spotted while the car was being serviced too. Not just the nct at fault.

mickdw

BigBadDom wrote: »

I've no issue with things like that. What I do have issue with is almost passing in one test centre and then, 6 or so weeks later after getting the one visual problem fixed, I go to another test centre and they bring up loads of issues....many of which had been cleared in the previous test?!?!? that's the problem I have!

Your problem is that you didn't manage to avail of the retest in which they would only test the fall items.
To be quite honest, I would expect variation when dealing with different testers where visual items are concerned.

niloc1951

Stoolbend wrote: »

This should've been spotted while the car was being serviced too. Not just the nct at fault.

True, but Item 47 in the testers manual is rigorous and specific with regard to the inspection of brake lines and hoses.

One would expect an inspection carried out by an organisation charged with the specific responsibility to ensure the safety and roadworthiness of vehicles and provided with clear and concise written guidance for checks to be made should not let such an obviously dangerous defect to go undetected.

And, the NCT is supposed to be there to pick up on any defects which exist either through poor standards of servicing or none at all.

How many other owners are blissfully driving around in vehicles they assume to be safe because they have a recent NCT pass but have life threatening defects like mine had.

shawnee

While I agree with the concept of the nct test I do believe that it is really a money making racket. The recent addition of warning lights etc is certainly questionable. Have a friend with a suzuki vitara which had an engine management warning light on for two years and had it checked out and was told to ignore it by a main dealer. Now it won't pass the nct test because of the new regulations. Had a similar problem with a focus light myself a few years ago. Surely the nct should base it's results on safety on not on such issues.

Guy:Incognito

shawnee wrote: »

While I agree with the concept of the nct test I do believe that it is really a money making racket. The recent addition of warning lights etc is certainly questionable. Have a friend with a suzuki vitara which had an engine management warning light on for two years and had it checked out and was told to ignore it by a main dealer. Now it won't pass the nct test because of the new regulations. Had a similar problem with a focus light myself a few years ago. Surely the nct should base it's results on safety on not on such issues.

His problem is with the dealer there.Not the nct.

niloc1951

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

His problem is with the dealer there.Not the nct.

The clue is in the purpose for which the NCT was brought into Irish law.
The NCT was set up to comply with EU requirements that vehicles be tested for roadworthiness.

Items like engine management lights which are not related to roadworthiness should be no business of the NCT.
Many engine managements light will illuminate because of faults in sensors where no 'real' fault exists, others may illuminate for a fault which has no meaningful impact on the engines performance and non on the safety of the vehicle.

If a main dealer says it is of no concern then that should be that.

A friend who has an Opel SUV started having problems of the vehicle going into limp mode, his main dealer altered the wiring to take the offending sensor out of the loop saying it was not really necessary for the efficient running of the vehicle. Appearing it's a known problem and a known 'fix' for that particular vehicle and others which share the same mechanicals.

shawnee

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

His problem is with the dealer there.Not the nct.

No indeed it is not with the dealer , it is probably with the vehicle manufacturers as it is a fault and should be of no concern to the nct. Why should the car driver pay a main dealer to rectify a fault that is not there.

Guy:Incognito

shawnee wrote: »

No indeed it is not with the dealer , it is probably with the vehicle manufacturers as it is a fault and should be of no concern to the nct. Why should the car driver pay a main dealer to rectify a fault that is not there.

There is a fault with something. Either the light or whatever the light refers to. If it's an engine management light then there's something wrong. A dealer pawning someone off with "ah it's grand" doesn't change that. You can drive a car with lots of things broken, it doesn't mean they aren't broken though.

cletus

shawnee wrote: »

No indeed it is not with the dealer , it is probably with the vehicle manufacturers as it is a fault and should be of no concern to the nct. Why should the car driver pay a main dealer to rectify a fault that is not there.

Either way his problem is not with the NCT. The NCT are not a diagnostics centre. It is not up to them to determine whether an engine management light is a real issue or not, that's between the car owner and dealer as you pointed out. I know first hand people who get eml's, and the attitude is "sure be grand"

BigBadDom

niloc1951 wrote: »

You see no issue with a dangerous defect being missed, one which caused a brake line to burst a few days (40 miles) after the test
What could be more serious, more life threatening. We're not talking inconvenience or inconsistencies in non 'fail dangerous' defects.
My vehicle should have been given a 'fail dangerous' notice and been required to be collected from the test center by a recovery truck.

Are you playing with me now? Where did I say I was ok with dangerous defects being missed? Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote please.

BigBadDom

For the trolls, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting one centre left me off with dangerous defects, to quote the troller above. One example. My exhaust system had spots welded on it as it was cheaper than importing an entire piece. The first centre I went to passed me, they didn't mention the exhaust, 6 weeks later, Northpoint fail me on it.
You can say all you like, but how can a 'National' (it's even mentioned in the title of the test) test differ from one part of the country to the next? It suggests no standard test. It fails a trade description test in that case!

Del2005

niloc1951 wrote: »

The clue is in the purpose for which the NCT was brought into Irish law.
The NCT was set up to comply with EU requirements that vehicles be tested for roadworthiness.

Items like engine management lights which are not related to roadworthiness should be no business of the NCT.
Many engine managements light will illuminate because of faults in sensors where no 'real' fault exists, others may illuminate for a fault which has no meaningful impact on the engines performance and non on the safety of the vehicle.

If a main dealer says it is of no concern then that should be that.

A friend who has an Opel SUV started having problems of the vehicle going into limp mode, his main dealer altered the wiring to take the offending sensor out of the loop saying it was not really necessary for the efficient running of the vehicle. Appearing it's a known problem and a known 'fix' for that particular vehicle and others which share the same mechanicals.

Emissions are part of the road worthiness test and an engine management light means that there is something wrong. Just because it doesn't affect the running of the vehicle doesn't mean that it isn't affecting how clean the vehicle runs. I can remove the cat and fit straight through pipe to my car and even pop a plug off, the car will still run but will be far from roadworthy.

shawnee wrote: »

No indeed it is not with the dealer , it is probably with the vehicle manufacturers as it is a fault and should be of no concern to the nct. Why should the car driver pay a main dealer to rectify a fault that is not there.

It's with a dealer who doesn't want to fault find the issue as the motorist will then come onto here, or "Talk to Joe", bitching and moaning about getting charged €100+ for a dealer to "Just switch off a light". Even to find out it's a false reading will cost money so it's easier for the dealer to say ignore it as the dealer knows it's not critical to the running of the car, but it is critical to the clean efficient running which is what the NCT is about!

BigBadDom

The main point I am making is how can one centre have one set of standards that differ from another. Forget about road worthiness, it is distracting you all from the point. My point is this and this alone: a 'national' test isn't national, it's not standard from one centre to another. If it was any other consumer product, people would kick up a fuss. I'm basically saying when it comes to the NCT and it's running, the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.

Guy:Incognito

BigBadDom wrote: »

You can say all you like, but how can a 'National' (it's even mentioned in the title of the test) test differ from one part of the country to the next? It suggests no standard test. It fails a trade description test in that case!

Theres this thing that's been going on a few years now called human error. Lots of things could have happened. For all you know the first guy could have been going through a difficult time at home and phoning it in at work, or maybe he was just a lazy git. Unfortunately all humans are different and have personalities. These things cant be all done by machines so for the moment we're stuck with a human element that is prone to letting various things affect their work.

niloc1951

Del2005 wrote: »

Emissions are part of the road worthiness test and an engine management light means that there is something wrong. .......................................................!

Of course your're right and if the emissions are out of parameter then the vehicle will fail, and rightly so.

However, the fact that an engine management light is on does not necessarily mean the engines emissions are out of parameter, quite often the cause can be a faulty sensor not an actual real fault.

In fact if all the engine related tests are a pass a light suggesting otherwise should be of no concern to the tester, or does a suspect light overrule the the findings of expensive high-end test equipment.

TheDoc

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres this thing that's been going on a few years now called human error. Lots of things could have happened. For all you know the first guy could have been going through a difficult time at home and phoning it in at work, or maybe he was just a lazy git. Unfortunately all humans are different and have personalities. These things cant be all done by machines so for the moment we're stuck with a human element that is prone to letting various things affect their work.

Unfortunately the government outsourcing a required test and documentation to drive your call, to a private entity always raises questions and concerns.

I havn't had too many issues with the NCT, when I've gone above to speak to a team leader or supervisor I've usually been dealt with happy enough. But there is enough absolute garbage stories out there that really do just make the eyes roll.

Went down with the girlfriends sister just before christmas, her father normally did it for her. Were walking away and reminded her to click in all the belts, and take anything she had in the boot out. Handed me a few empty shopping bags and I walked away.

Came through the other side and the guy called us up and said the car had failed. No big deal, lets hear what the problem is.

"A few kind of notes here in terms of thread depth but its ok for now, but the fail is on the car seat in the back not secured properly".

To be blunt my response was simply " The ****ing what?"

Basically what had happened was as I walked away, the sister in law was sorting out the belts and took my meaning wrong. She clicked all the belts in and put the car seat in the middle. OK so she isn't car savy. But this took the piss.

Explained the situation of the belts and she must have taken my meaning the wrong way, and what has the car seat got to do with the function of the car? My point being that I could have taken the car seat into the waiting area with me and it wouldn't have been a factor.

Was pretty calm about it and a team lead came along and was pretty understanding of the situation. I didn't actually get a clear explanation if the car seat was or was not something to be tested, but a new cert was done up saying it was past.

Only really ridiculous thing I've witnessed first hand was a fail on corroded brake pipes. Asked to be shown as they'd only been replaced the year before and there is no way they rust in a year. Turned out it was muck. Was no big deal, had a bit of a laugh about it, but makes you wonder people that maybe wouldn't feel like questioning something.

BigBadDom

I'm not talking about a year in between test, I'm talking about WEEKS, 6 and a half to be exact. Human error, fair enough, but that's not good enough in my opinion. You have just answered my question, The test is not standard, hence it cannot call itself national! I am a little shocked by the amount of acceptance of this too. At least you are discussing challenging decisions they make. Most seem to blindly accept. Anyway, thanks for the replies...they leave me none the wiser, but we carry on rewardless!

TheDoc

Oh I wouldn't be a fan of the NCT at all. I don't see how the government can claim requirement of a NCT certificate for cars to be driven on the roads, yet can't provide a streamlined service that ensures consistency.

Although I wouldn't be surprised to find the agreement between the government and the operators here, has little to no scope for review and or inspection.

Guy:Incognito

BigBadDom wrote: »

I'm not talking about a year in between test, I'm talking about WEEKS, 6 and a half to be exact. Human error, fair enough, but that's not good enough in my opinion. You have just answered my question, The test is not standard, hence it cannot call itself national! I am a little shocked by the amount of acceptance of this too. At least you are discussing challenging decisions they make. Most seem to blindly accept. Anyway, thanks for the replies...they leave me none the wiser, but we carry on rewardless!

Are you the exact same person in work every day of every year? Do you ever makes mistakes?

The test is the same in every centre , the testers are not, nor can they ever be.

Guy:Incognito

TheDoc wrote: »

Unfortunately the government outsourcing a required test and documentation to drive your call, to a private entity always raises questions and concerns.

I havn't had too many issues with the NCT, when I've gone above to speak to a team leader or supervisor I've usually been dealt with happy enough. But there is enough absolute garbage stories out there that really do just make the eyes roll.

Went down with the girlfriends sister just before christmas, her father normally did it for her. Were walking away and reminded her to click in all the belts, and take anything she had in the boot out. Handed me a few empty shopping bags and I walked away.

Came through the other side and the guy called us up and said the car had failed. No big deal, lets hear what the problem is.

"A few kind of notes here in terms of thread depth but its ok for now, but the fail is on the car seat in the back not secured properly".

To be blunt my response was simply " The ****ing what?"

Basically what had happened was as I walked away, the sister in law was sorting out the belts and took my meaning wrong. She clicked all the belts in and put the car seat in the middle. OK so she isn't car savy. But this took the piss.

Explained the situation of the belts and she must have taken my meaning the wrong way, and what has the car seat got to do with the function of the car? My point being that I could have taken the car seat into the waiting area with me and it wouldn't have been a factor.

Was pretty calm about it and a team lead came along and was pretty understanding of the situation. I didn't actually get a clear explanation if the car seat was or was not something to be tested, but a new cert was done up saying it was past.

Only really ridiculous thing I've witnessed first hand was a fail on corroded brake pipes. Asked to be shown as they'd only been replaced the year before and there is no way they rust in a year. Turned out it was muck. Was no big deal, had a bit of a laugh about it, but makes you wonder people that maybe wouldn't feel like questioning something.

Baby seats in are part of the test if fitted. This is well known and listed.
He has no way of knowing if the situation was as you described or if he was dealing with a bunch of ****ing morons that think the seat just needs to be placed in the car to function.

Get a job in retail and you wont be long seeing that there is no shortage of people that are well capable of falling in to the latter category supposedly fully functional in society.

There are plenty of studies out there relating to ill -fitted car seats, and the dangers of same.

niloc1951

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Are you the exact same person in work every day of every year? Do you ever makes mistakes?

The test is the same in every centre , the testers are not, nor can they ever be.

So what's the point of the test if testers can't be relied upon to focus on even the most critical items on the test list.

Guy:Incognito

niloc1951 wrote: »

So what's the point of the test if testers can't be relied upon to focus on even the most critical items on the test list.

Whats the point of any job involving humans so? They are prone to mistakes. That's just something every industry has to deal with.

Surely all the cases against hospitals that go through the courts and end up being settled for millions due to doctors errors haven't passed you by completely?

Agricola

Heres an example of the idiocy of the NCT. I brought a car for a test this week. Failed on one item, perished wiper rubber on drivers side. I had driven to the test in the rain and the wiper was doing a great job, could not fault it. It's a 6 year old car, wipers are usually decent! When I checked the offending item, I found that the backing of the wiper rubber had separated from the part that touches the screen, a little 2 cm tear on the very tip. For that I have to go back to the test centre for a visual re-inspection, despite the fact it was working fine.

2 months ago, I brought a 23 year old Mini to the test. No complaints about the wipers, as they were a week on the car. However the wipers werent sitting right on the windscreen and werent really clearing the rain at all. In fact, the first couple of months I had the car on the road, I commented how shít the wipers compared to modern cars. Ive now improved them as best I can, but they are still mickey mouse wipers which don't really cut the mustard. But they will always pass an NCT!

Del2005

BigBadDom wrote: »

I'm not talking about a year in between test, I'm talking about WEEKS, 6 and a half to be exact. Human error, fair enough, but that's not good enough in my opinion. You have just answered my question, The test is not standard, hence it cannot call itself national! I am a little shocked by the amount of acceptance of this too. At least you are discussing challenging decisions they make. Most seem to blindly accept. Anyway, thanks for the replies...they leave me none the wiser, but we carry on rewardless!

6 weeks is plenty of time for corrosion to develop with a liberal dosing of salt, moisture and heat, especially if the metal for the patches wasn't the same as the exhaust.

Jesus.

shawnee wrote: »

The recent addition of warning lights etc is certainly questionable. Have a friend with a suzuki vitara which had an engine management warning light on for two years and had it checked out and was told to ignore it by a main dealer. Now it won't pass the nct test because of the new regulations.

What the fukk? When did this happen?