NCT question.

martyc5674

Car failed this morning due to a dislodged dim bulb nearside.
Fair enough, I hadn’t spotted it...
(I had to get 2 tyres aswell,I was aware they were near the limit)

Got the tyres immediately and popped the bulb back in and rebooked for this eve.

Brought the car back and it failed on offside headlamp alignment this time.

My problem with this is that they didn’t actually test the offside first time round so I couldn’t be aware there was an issue with it.

It clearly says offside N/D (not done) on first examination..., I assume once there was a problem with one headlamp they didn’t check the other!!
Am I right in thinking this is a bit lame?

Marty. V

mikeecho

You're right in thinking it's lame.

But... thems the rules.

They test your car, they don't give it a once over.


If it happened to me, yes, I'd be pissèd off. But suck it up, put it down to an experience learned.

martyc5674

I’m ok with them testing the car... that’s what I paid the to do.

However my point is they DIDNT test the car fully first time round
(they didn’t test offside first time around)

Marty.

Toyotababy98

They will say due to one light of working they couldn't test the allignement or position of lights

JohnBoy26

martyc5674 wrote: »

I’m ok with them testing the car... that’s what I paid the to do.

However my point is they DIDNT test the car fully first time round
(they didn’t test offside first time around)

Marty.

Both need to be working in order for them to test it. When you replaced the bulb one of the lights was to low or too high. Driving it up near a wall and turning on the dipped beams would of confirmed this.

CiniO

But honestly speaking, they could well test the offside light, which in this particular case would save OP another retest.

There's absolutely no reason not to be able to test a offside light, if nearside light bulb is mismounted. One has nothing to do with the other.


I generally think NCT centre should be allowed to do simple repairs during the test (say up to 5 minutes) once agreed by vehicle owner.
There should be no problem for them to align misaligned lights, or replace faulty bulb, or put incorrectly mounted wheel nut the proper way, etc...
Takes only a minute or two, and saved the car owner plenty of money and time.

mickdw

Why didnt you check your lights. They didnt test them cause the bulb wasnt seated so that one couldnt be tested.
How did you know the bulb you reseated would be aligned correctly? You should have had them aligned and avoided this.

CiniO

mickdw wrote: »

Why didnt you check your lights. They didnt test them cause the bulb wasnt seated so that one couldnt be tested.
How did you know the bulb you reseated would be aligned correctly? You should have had them aligned and avoided this.

OP couldn't know if reseated bulb was aligned correctly, but it actually was. Just a luck.
It was other light which was misaligned.

Do you actually check your lights alignment after every bulb change?
IMO if someone changes bulb correctly, this normally shouldn't change alignment.

martyc5674

Toyotababy98 wrote: »

They will say due to one light of working they couldn't test the allignement or position of lights

No... they actually passed the alignment of the nearside on the retest.
(This is the one that had the loose bulb)

They failed the offside on the retest... they didn’t test the offside in the first test.

To answer mickdw. I didn’t have them aligned as I had no cause to believe they needed realignment

martyc5674

CiniO wrote: »

OP couldn't know if reseated bulb was aligned correctly, but it actually was. Just a luck.
It was other light which was misaligned.

Do you actually check your lights alignment after every bulb change?
IMO if someone changes bulb correctly, this normally shouldn't change alignment.

Exactly... the bulb only goes in one way, it had come loose for some reason... it was practically hanging out in fairness.

Anyway that’s not my issue.

My issue is I paid for a test and they only tested one lamp first time round.

martyc5674

CiniO wrote: »

But honestly speaking, they could well test the offside light, which in this particular case would save OP another retest.

There's absolutely no reason not to be able to test a offside light, if nearside light bulb is mismounted. One has nothing to do with the other.

Exactly... and this point is proven in my retest... they tested and passed the nearside.

I also agree on your other point... very easy to align a headlamp when you have it sitting up against the machine, wouldn’t have taken him 2 minutes.
I know the DOE centers would have done this.

martyc5674

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Both need to be working in order for them to test it.

That’s not true... they tested and passed the nearside on its own on the retest. (The side I refitted bulb)
They didn’t even test the offside first time round.

Sam Quentin

It would have been a decent thing to do, just to put his wee hand in and click the bulb in place.. Simple basically no time consumed and would have saved op a paid retest(possibly) Yes I know the other one failed anyway!?
I would have failed the other one as well, Because I'd feel guilty as fúck for not popping the loose bulb in place.. And it would cover my áss..... :P

rex-x

What was the issue with the headlight that failed the second time? bulb placement or alignment? I'm not a big defender of the nct but to be fair to the lads they would usually test both headlights and mark then appropriately. Is it possible the misalignment has happened between the first test and the retest?

Stoolbend

Can you post a picture of the first fail sheet?

martyc5674

Sam Quentin wrote: »

It would have been a decent thing to do, just to put his wee hand in and click the bulb in place.. Simple basically no time consumed and would have saved op a paid retest(possibly) Yes I know the other one failed anyway!?
I would have failed the other one as well, Because I'd feel guilty as fúck for not popping the loose bulb in place.. And it would cover my ..... :P

I thought that originally but in fairness the headlamp had to come out to refit it as it’s too tight to get your hand in there.

martyc5674

rex-x wrote: »

What was the issue with the headlight that failed the second time? bulb placement or alignment? I'm not a big defender of the nct but to be fair to the lads they would usually test both headlights and mark then appropriately. Is it possible the misalignment has happened between the first test and the retest?

Second time was for misalignment offside... they didn’t test this first time.

cruizer101

I don't think you will get to far but I would contact them. You paid for test and it wasn't done with no decent reason, they are two separate lights.

martyc5674

First fail sheet attached.

martyc5674

2nd fail sheet attached. Where they were clearly able to test the lights individually.

Sam Quentin

Not getting at the op but..
Isn't there really not a left or right dipped beam test,, surely it's just a dipped beam test involving 2 bulbs!?
Anyway as the op has said the headlamp had to come out(like my Skoda)so I'm now more empathetic towards the nct tester than I was from the start..

cruizer101

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Isn't there really not a left or right dipped beam test,, surely it's just a dipped beam test involving 2 bulbs!?

No the lights are tested individually, as you can see in the second image the OP posted one light passed one light failed it wasn't a fail for both, when they go back it will just be the failed light tested.

martyc5674

cruizer101 wrote: »

No the lights are tested individually, as you can see in the second image the OP posted one light passed one light failed it wasn't a fail for both, when they go back it will just be the failed light tested.

Exactly... and it’s the one that wasn’t tested first time.
I’ve contacted them about it so will see.

I had a similar instance a few years back and I got a refund, doesn’t compensate for the waste of my time though.

grogi

CiniO wrote: »

OP couldn't know if reseated bulb was aligned correctly, but it actually was. Just a luck.
It was other light which was misaligned.

Do you actually check your lights alignment after every bulb change?

Every time I park in front of my garage I can see if both of the headlights are working and if they are horizontally aligned.

Sure, it doesn't give me 100% certainty, but I won't be driving for weeks with a light not working nor a light that summons Batman.

Sam Quentin

cruizer101 wrote: »

No the lights are tested individually, as you can see in the second image the OP posted one light passed one light failed it wasn't a fail for both, when they go back it will just be the failed light tested.

Sorry yes of course with the measurement light box ..(I didn't realise they use those garage things)Do both beams not have to be at the same height also!?...So how would they know beams were equal height?

Cosmo K

CiniO wrote: »

I generally think NCT centre should be allowed to do simple repairs during the test (say up to 5 minutes) once agreed by vehicle owner.

No, that's a terrible idea. There's plenty of garages out there that can repair cars, the NCT system is complicated enough as it is, no need to make things even more complicated.

grogi

Cosmo K wrote: »

No, that's a terrible idea. There's plenty of garages out there that can repair cars, the NCT system is complicated enough as it is, no need to make things even more complicated.

Why? You need to answer what is the purpose of the NCT system?

It is improving the standard of the cars on the roads. A NCT mechanic is more than capable of resolving trivial issues and it is in line with its mission.

CiniO

grogi wrote: »

Every time I park in front of my garage I can see if both of the headlights are working and if they are horizontally aligned.

Sure, it doesn't give me 100% certainty, but I won't be driving for weeks with a light not working nor a light that summons Batman.

I was just replying to poster who was trying to persuade us that after every bulb change we should run to garage to have our headlights aligned.

What you do is very wise, and lots of people should do it, but it's no as through what other poster was proposing, so that's why I replied to him.

CiniO

Cosmo K wrote: »

No, that's a terrible idea. There's plenty of garages out there that can repair cars, the NCT system is complicated enough as it is, no need to make things even more complicated.

What's so complicated in NCT system?

Allowing them to make simple trivial repairs is actually very good idea IMO.

Yes - I know there is plenty of garages around, but you need to take your time, wait in the queue, and eventually have your car driven into the garage, have lights measuring equipment put in front of it, and only then it can be adjusted.
So it costs money and time.

During NCT, car is already on testing lane, lights measuing equipment is already in front of the car, and if lights are misaligned, then very likely it's just a matter of tester turning the adjusting screw to make it right. Takes 30 seconds.

So more efficient than taking car into the garage to check it in advance.

wonski

The whole idea of NCT is for it to be independent testing body.

They test, not fix cars.

CiniO

wonski wrote: »

The whole idea of NCT is for it to be independent testing body.

They test, not fix cars.

Why is it the idea? And who says so?

I can't see a single reason against them doing simple quick repairs which would save huge amount of money and time to vehicle owners.

grogi

CiniO wrote: »

Why is it the idea? And who says so?

I can't see a single reason against them doing simple quick repairs which would save huge amount of money and time to vehicle owners.

Maybe not repairs per se, but adjustments.

CiniO

grogi wrote: »

Maybe not repairs per se, but adjustments.

Light adjustments, bulb changes (if simple to do), and pretty much any other simple repairs requiring minimal amount of labour (few minutes) and widely available parts.


I remember NCT tester failed me once for "incorrect wheel nut assy".
Upon asking, he just said that one of the wheel nuts was the wrong way around (cone side out instead of in). NCT failed.
I first couldn't understand what's he on about, but then when I realised, I said I can fix that in 1 minute, but he said that sorry, they won't do retest now (even though it's free) because I was last customer and now they are closed. I can come tomorrow.

I really took me 1 minute to fix, but I had to travel 120km (60 to and 60 from NCT centre) next day to have it retested.
About €15 lost on fuel, and 2.5 hours of my time wasted.
For a sake of thing, they could have fixed in 1 minute.
I'd be very happy to pay €10 extra to NCT price for that repair.

wonski

CiniO wrote: »

Why is it the idea? And who says so?

I can't see a single reason against them doing simple quick repairs which would save huge amount of money and time to vehicle owners.

While I understand your reasoning a line has to be drawn somewhere. Easier to do I this way.

It is a fair test tbh.

It has some flaws, but before one posts about corruption and other stuff, this is an ongoing issue in countries, where the garages test the cars. First hand experience I have

You can have your pos car passed in Poland for silly money, CiniO.

To get this done illegitimately in the NCT centre would take some time, contacts etc.

Not saying it never happens, and it did happen in the past, but what you are suggesting is a step in wrong direction.

Test, fix if failed and retest.

CiniO

wonski wrote: »

While I understand your reasoning a line has to be drawn somewhere. Easier to do I this way.

It is a fair test tbh.

It has some flaws, but before one posts about corruption and other stuff, this is an ongoing issue in countries, where the garages test the cars. First hand experience I have

You can have your pos car passed in Poland for silly money, CiniO.

To get this done illegitimately in the NCT centre would take some time, contacts etc.

Not saying it never happens, and it did happen in the past, but what you are suggesting is a step in wrong direction.

Test, fix if failed and retest.

I completely agree with you that systems like in UK or Poland where private garages are being granted licences to do roadworthiness tests are far from ideal, and possibly attract corruption.

However that's completely not what I'm proposing.

I'm proposing to leave NCT system as it, but add possibility for NCT testers to do trivial jobs on a car, which only take few minutes of labour to do, but can in return save lots of hassle and time to vehicle owners.

F.e. currently test costs €55.
I would be very happy to sign disclaimer when handing my keys to NCT tester, stating that I agree to pay extra €10+parts for possible trivial jobs which NCT tester can do in 5 minutes time and which would result in vehicle passing the test - best example of such job being dipped headlights adjustment or changing bulbs.
Disclaimer should also contain wording stating that there is no guarantee that tester will be able to fix the issue f.e. light adjustment screws might be seized or bulb to be changed might be stuck, etc and in such case repairs won't be done or might even cause damage to vehicle (f.e. seized screw being broken by trying to turn it).
It should be completely up to customer to sign that disclaimer and agree to extra costs but passing the test, or refuse those.

IMO makes sense, and doesn't attract any corruption like you mentioned.

Del2005

CiniO wrote: »

I completely agree with you that systems like in UK or Poland where private garages are being granted licences to do roadworthiness tests are far from ideal, and possibly attract corruption.

However that's completely not what I'm proposing.

I'm proposing to leave NCT system as it, but add possibility for NCT testers to do trivial jobs on a car, which only take few minutes of labour to do, but can in return save lots of hassle and time to vehicle owners.

F.e. currently test costs €55.
I would be very happy to sign disclaimer when handing my keys to NCT tester, stating that I agree to pay extra €10+parts for possible trivial jobs which NCT tester can do in 5 minutes time and which would result in vehicle passing the test - best example of such job being dipped headlights adjustment or changing bulbs.
Disclaimer should also contain wording stating that there is no guarantee that tester will be able to fix the issue f.e. light adjustment screws might be seized or bulb to be changed might be stuck, etc and in such case repairs won't be done or might even cause damage to vehicle (f.e. seized screw being broken by trying to turn it).
It should be completely up to customer to sign that disclaimer and agree to extra costs but passing the test, or refuse those.

IMO makes sense, and doesn't attract any corruption like you mentioned.

The problem is that you can't sign away your rights so if the NCT offer to fix an issue then they are liable regardless. Also why should someone who has correctly prepared their car have to wait for someone who hasn't to get their car fixed.

Then there's the bigger issue. What happens when the 5 minute job becomes an hour job, which often happens? Do they stop the work after 5 minutes or cancel multiple tests?

We have enough rumours of fail quotas, usually from unprepared car owners, so next we'll have people claiming that the NCT tester broke the item to fix it or it was never broken in the first place, which is the reason why it was setup the way it is. The NCT is to test cars, garages are to fix cars.

grogi

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that you can't sign away your rights so if the NCT offer to fix an issue then they are liable regardless.

The legal term you're looking for is a waiver, right?

Cosmo K

CiniO wrote: »

Why is it the idea? And who says so?

The RSA.

JohnBoy26

OSI wrote: »

Christ, the NCT centres are busy enough as it is and already being called out for being "corrupt" and "money spinning" and you want them to take even more time to call out and perform repairs and adjustments on cars?

It's a ridiculous idea. Where do draw the line? "Sorry Miss, your car took more than 3 minutes to swap the bulb so it's currently outside with the headlight hanging off. Gotta keep the line moving, ya know?"

While I don't agree with the nct having to do repairs im not sure they are that busy. I had a test late in the evening recently and there was only one other person there. Even though I was 15 min early myself and the other person were waiting an hour for our cars to be tested. The two testers took about 5 breaks during the test.

martyc5674

I had a van a few years back. My only experience with the DOE.
It was a totally different experience to the NCT... van was LHD and he fitted a set of beam benders for me. (I had rang ahead to find out if they would be sufficient and he said not to fit them that they would do them)

Allowed me in under the van aswell to have a good look while it was up in the air. I’ve no doubt if it needed a bulb/something small say a wiper blade they’d have fitted it.
Do I think it was better?.. yes

khaldrogo

CiniO wrote:

I generally think NCT centre should be allowed to do simple repairs during the test (say up to 5 minutes) once agreed by vehicle owner. There should be no problem for them to align misaligned lights, or replace faulty bulb, or put incorrectly mounted wheel nut the proper way, etc... Takes only a minute or two, and saved the car owner plenty of money and time.

Its easy to see you are not a mechanic!!!!

There has been many, many times I have taken on a 'simple 5 min job' and still been at it an hr later due to some chap who fancied himself a mechanic because he can fits pads.

Ive seen clips from other makes of cars jammed in to try to hold the bulb. I've seen bulb holders held together with glue and prayer disintegrate the second they were touched.

khaldrogo

CiniO wrote:

During NCT, car is already on testing lane, lights measuing equipment is already in front of the car, and if lights are misaligned, then very likely it's just a matter of tester turning the adjusting screw to make it right. Takes 30 seconds.

And when the tester comes out to the owner and says 'sorry I can't adjust your lights because the adjuster is broken' and the owner says 'it was working an hr ago, you broke it!' What then?

CiniO

khaldrogo wrote: »

And when the tester comes out to the owner and says 'sorry I can't adjust your lights because the adjuster is broken' and the owner says 'it was working an hr ago, you broke it!' What then?

And what happens in exact same case when it's not NCT centre but just private garage?
I.e. person drives up to a garage, asks to adjust the lights, and mechanic comes out to say that sorry, but adjuster is broken, and the owner says - it was working an hour ago, you broke it!!!...
What then?

wonski

CiniO wrote: »

And what happens in exact same case when it's not NCT centre but just private garage?
I.e. person drives up to a garage, asks to adjust the lights, and mechanic comes out to say that sorry, but adjuster is broken, and the owner says - it was working an hour ago, you broke it!!!...
What then?

A post on boards about the money rocket NCT is and twitter and whatever

And a prime time show followed by Facebook comments of similar nature.

That's what gonna happen.

The NCT centres were contracted to test the cars.

If the same company was to change bulbs etc someone would have to pay for it. Guess who?

I do NCT at least once a year and had no issues whatsoever. It is a simple test.

khaldrogo

CiniO wrote:

And what happens in exact same case when it's not NCT centre but just private garage? I.e. person drives up to a garage, asks to adjust the lights, and mechanic comes out to say that sorry, but adjuster is broken, and the owner says - it was working an hour ago, you broke it!!!... What then?

You're suggesting that there is certain easy peasy work (from your limited experience) that the NCT should be doing and I'm saying that even the easy peasy stuff(from my professional experience) can be time consuming and troublesome.

The only way what you are suggesting could possibly work is if we had a system more like the MOT.

barneygumble99

CiniO wrote: »

And what happens in exact same case when it's not NCT centre but just private garage?
I.e. person drives up to a garage, asks to adjust the lights, and mechanic comes out to say that sorry, but adjuster is broken, and the owner says - it was working an hour ago, you broke it!!!...
What then?

Would you be happy to pay €10 every time for the testers to adjust your lights?? That’s the first thing they’d be accused of, focusing them when they didn’t need to be focused for the extra €10.

In our garage we offer to focus lights the day of the test for free, if the car was serviced a few weeks before. It’s easy to focus them if the adjusters are working but you’d be surprised how many people have replaced dip beam bulbs and put them in arseways in the meantime. If there weren’t so many YouTube and google mechanics a lot more cars would pass first time.

Del2005

grogi wrote: »

The legal term you're looking for is a waiver, right?

I can sign a waiver for anything but I can't sign away my rights, so like a pre nup in this country a waiver is essentially worthless.

Del2005

martyc5674 wrote: »

I had a van a few years back. My only experience with the DOE.
It was a totally different experience to the NCT... van was LHD and he fitted a set of beam benders for me. (I had rang ahead to find out if they would be sufficient and he said not to fit them that they would do them)

Allowed me in under the van aswell to have a good look while it was up in the air. I’ve no doubt if it needed a bulb/something small say a wiper blade they’d have fitted it.
Do I think it was better?.. yes

You do realise that the DOE was replaced by the CVRT due to the fact that VOSA had to get the UK government to tell our government that nearly every Irish commercial vehicle they inspected was a death trap and the reason was because the test was carried out by the same person who maintained it. Even our Northern neighbours followed our system for their MOT not the system used by their rulers.

martyc5674

Just to update.
Got a free retest as they admitted they eff’d up the first test by not actually testing both lights.

So all good I suppose but you shouldn’t have to bring this stuff to their attention.
Marty.

Pkiernan

Just consider it a small type of Karma for driving around with defective and misaligned lights!
It's fixed now, so you're good!

grogi

Del2005 wrote: »

I can sign a waiver for anything but I can't sign away my rights, so like a pre nup in this country a waiver is essentially worthless.

How does an insurance settlement works then?