NCT re-test - do I need to prepare car again?

cormee

Hi,

The car is due a re-test (failed due to issues with the wishbone), it will be hoisted up, so do I need to prepare the car as I did for the firsat test, ie. hubcaps off, kids' seats out etc? Thanks.

shebzie

No there just going to test what ur car failed on, once it's in time they gave u to retest

CiniO

I would think that hubcups will have to be off.
If wishbone failed, to have if fixed surely wheel had to come off, so they should look up the screws.

Child seats don't need to come off for retest, the same as they didn't need to come off for original test.
I don't get why people take them off?

Rebellion

what a rip off, and the fact that they are turning down people for car insurance if the vehicle is 15 years old renders the nct invalid, joke

ironclaw

Rebellion wrote: »

what a rip off, and the fact that they are turning down people for car insurance if the vehicle is 15 years old renders the nct invalid, joke

The insurance embargo has nothing to do with the NCT. Its to do with risk, statistics and probability of which the NCT is a minor factor. Older cars are involved in collisions that carry higher risk / pays outs and / or can be driven by high risk candidates. The risk is too much on the balance sheet so they remove it by not insuring them. NCT or no NCT does not mitigate risk. The metal objct and the squishy bit driving it does. Its that simple and I really wish people would get the facts straight.

NCT is a valid test and I welcome it as it gives Joe Soap some inclination to look after their car. But it has nothing to do with the insurance news the past few weeks.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

NCT or no NCT does not mitigate risk.

It will mitigate the payout you get from your insurer pretty quickly if you don't have a valid NCT.

ironclaw

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It will mitigate the payout you get from your insurer pretty quickly if you don't have a valid NCT.

Depends on the insurer.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

Depends on the insurer.

An assessor won't value your car depending on NCT status?

ComfortKid

Rebellion wrote:

what a rip off, and the fact that they are turning down people for car insurance if the vehicle is 15 years old renders the nct invalid, joke

Whats this about? Is this all insurance companies?

SCOOP 64

Its the driver that crashes the car, nothing to do with how old it is, if its road worthy
and nctd ,insurance should not be refused because of a cars age.

Seth Brundle

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Its the driver that crashes the car, nothing to do with how old it is, if its road worthy
and nctd ,insurance should not be refused because of a cars age.

I would presume that the view considers that younger less experienced on average tend to drive older cars and in general have less money to maintain them.

pippip

I think a huge part of it is the older the car the less safety features it has.

bazz26

Yes, older cars are deemed less safe meaning higher chances of injury or fatality as a result of an accident which in turn can result in higher medical expenses or payouts for insurance companies, so they assess the risk to be higher.

SCOOP 64

kbannon wrote: »

I would presume that the view considers that younger less experienced on average tend to drive older cars and in general have less money to maintain them.

But younger drivers pay higher premiums anyway because of lack of experience be it a 1998 or 2008, but seems a bit unfair for older drivers with experience and max no claims who drive older cars, normally a 2 car family the second is always alot older.

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

I would presume that the view considers that younger less experienced on average tend to drive older cars and in general have less money to maintain them.

And there's no way the brainpower of an actuary can tell the difference between a person driving 10yrs with max NCB, who just happens to like older cars and the college kid with a provisional and no NCB? ??

Special Circumstances

pippip wrote: »

I think a huge part of it is the older the car the less safety features it has.

If you believe that cars are getting safer, then you would also believe that a car that is 15yrs old in 2015 must be significantly more safe than a car that was 15yrs old in 2000.

So if anything, the loading/banning should be getting less strict? Or it really is a wonder we were allowed drive anything over 3 yrs old in 2000. Hmmmm.

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

And there's no way the brainpower of an actuary can tell the difference between a person driving 10yrs with max NCB, who just happens to like older cars and the college kid with a provisional and no NCB? ??

...or the person with 10yrs NCB who can barely afford to keep the car on the road and has not had it serviced in years and the tyres are as bald as he'l?
...or the average Irish person who gets a cheapo service from their local mechanic but has not followed the manufacturers guidelines in a long time?
There is always people who look after their car but the insurance.industry feel that the risk on older cars isn't worth it.
Either way, let's not hijack the thread.

biko

It's imperative threads stay on topic. Not just for now but also for when people are googling this topic in the future they won't be blinded by all the side chat so good information is readily available.
Signal/noise ration must be good.

The OP has got their answer. I close this now.