We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A TD HAS claimed that a National Car Test (NCT) inspector failed to test a car because there were dog hairs in it.
Sinn Féin’s Dessie Ellis made the claim during a discussion about the NCT in the Dáil earlier today.
Ellis asked Transport Minister Paschal Donohoe “his plans to investigate the efficiency and effectiveness of the current national car test system and the operation of that system given the high failure rates, the long waiting lists for motorists to have their cars tested, and the regular need for retesting of cars over minor issues”.
The Dublin North West TD said he has been made aware of a case where a tester refused to test a car “because it contains dog hairs and a damaged bulb, which can be replaced fairly quickly”.
“Some of the retesting is over the top,” he added.
A test costs €55 and a retest costs €28.
“Sometimes one gets the impression that on occasion cars are failed and owners are forced to come back for revenue reasons. I am not saying that this always happens.
“I would consider a bulb that is not working to be a serious matter but a person can go from A to B on the way to a test centre and something can happen to cause a bulb not to work. I do not see why the charge should be so high and this is an area where people are being penalised,” Ellis noted.
I dealt with a case where a tester would not entertain the car because there were a few dog hairs in it. This is a bit much and needs to be looked at.
“I know we are dealing with a private company and Applus+ has a contract with the RSA but it is a pity that much of this money is not going back into road safety, which is where it should be going.
“I have concerns about this process, including the speeding up of the test, which the company says is an efficiency measure but could lead to further health and safety issues.”
Appeals
Donohoe said he cannot comment on individual cases but “would hope that the inspectors would inspect cars in nearly all circumstances given the importance of doing so from a road safety point of view”.
He noted there is an independent appeals board operated by the AA, which is independent of his department and the RSA, to which his people’s concerns in regard to their treatment can be addressed.
Donohoe said that the contract the Road Safety Authority has in place with Applus+ to carry out the NCT “requires that specific standards in a number of areas be met, including customer waiting times, customer satisfaction and test integrity”.
I understand this contract sets out specific penalties for not meeting performance requirements which the RSA continually monitors. Both the testing system and vehicle inspectors are subject to a stringent audit system.
“All test centres frequently receive unannounced visits and vehicle inspectors are observed undertaking tests and check tests, which involve vehicles just tested being immediately re-inspected. Theseshow that over 99% of tests are correctly assessed,” the minister said.
He stated that the average waiting time for a full test during October was 9.25 days and retests requiring the use of test equipment are facilitated within three days and visual retests are available without appointment. The minister added that there is currently no backlog at NCT centres.
A number of new test centres are due to come into operation in the first half of 2016. A total of 588 vehicle inspectors are employed and a further 26 will be available at the start of next year, the highest total number in the history of the NCT.
A spokesperson for the RSA told TheJournal.ie: ”If Deputy Ellis has any issues in relation to the integrity of the test he should contact the RSA directly with his concerns.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Biggest bugbear for me is that a 10 yr old car can only be certified for 12 months..after lobbying by simi..cars dont magically fall apart at 10..and all cars have similar wearing parts..bushes..cv joints..pads etc
All cars in Europe and the UK have valid mot/ipo/nct whatever you want to call them
Valid for only ONE YEAR
All tests should be valid for 12/24 months from the day of the test.removing the rush from Jan to April
Not completely true, Kieran, if you’re coming up to the car’s 10th birthday you can voluntarily get it tested early and get the two years.
Wasn’t there a kafuffle on liveline a while back..people voluntarily put their cars in 3 mths early..got their cert from same day..not date of expiry of original cert.
Those people were getting 22 months instead of 26 on the test
It’s a money making racket. Pure and simple. Everyone knows someone who has been failed for something minor. They fail people for their registration light not working but if your car doesn’t have one then that’s alright. Reverse light not working = fail. Doesn’t have one = pass. It’s a f***ing rip off and the government couldn’t give a shite because they are raking it in at our expense. The system needs better regulation.
Only if you get it tested > 90d early. Within 90d it always remains due at original date.
Something I never understood- centre brake light in the back window not working=fail. Don’t have one? Pass. My two back reg lights were out and I only got an advisory. Horseshit
Unless the person was allergic to dog hair, this is pathetic.
Probably a lot dirtier than a few dog hairs, I reckon.
Maybe the tester was polite..It may have also stank of dog shite
What I don’t get is how you can drive your car to the NCT centre and fail the test, thereby deeming the car unworthy for road use…yet they allow you to drive it away again? Some of the failure things are stupid though, my car failed for having a sunstrip on the windscreen, that’s not going to make my car more or less dangerous on the road. I might add the strip was higher than where the regular sunvisors would come down to.
They wouldn’t pass me cos the licence plate didn’t have the EU flag!!
Call it what you want, but at least the rules are clear. If you’ve modified your car, it’s your responsibility to ensure it complies with national road safety rules.
I had a car fail a couple of years ago because the tester couldn’t find the button to open the petrol cap.
That dog looks smug as fk
I’m sure thats not the real dog. That ones probably a highly paid model.
It looks like a real dog to me
i would believe that………….
the nct tests around here are notorious for pulling people back in for a retest for the extra fee. they will do this for anything they can find that takes the use of a lane.
I have a 10 year old car. I give it a clean before it goes in, and time my service to be just before the test so that any obvious issues can be fixed. I’ve never had anything more than a visual reinspection. This claim about recalling cars for monetary reasons is just nonsense. If people look after their cars and read the documentation before the test, there should very rarely be anything minor that causes them to fail.
Much as I hate the expense and hassle, the NCT has kept my 24 year old car on the road, by pointing out flaws that would have led to something serious. I wouldn’t mind the fee at all if the motor tax was based on actual road usage.
Currently no back log ??? Tell that to the person who has an appointment for 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning !!!!
It’s an accepted fact that an NCT will almost always cost you €78 and two trips to the NCT centre. It always has been a money making scam that’s why the contract to do them is so lucrative for the Government… I’m actually Surpised Denis O ‘Brien hasn’t taken it over too, yet.
I have never paid for a second test. The most I have ever done is a free visual reinspection. But then, I have my car serviced beforehand and make sure it’s clean before I bring it. Takes 30 minutes a year.
“It’s an accepted fact that an NCT will almost always cost you €78 and two trips to the NCT centre.”
Accepted fact?
Nonsense. I never had to do a retest.
Nor I…
Nope…not me..
I have never paid for a retest. But I do pay for a fun service and pre-NCT check, so, in the end I expect I pay more than €78, but at least only €55 is going to the Government.
“full”
Perhaps the guy had an allergy. Did Dessie think of getting two sides of the story first by contacting the NCT centre in question, in writing, and asking them. Or is he just prone to repeating unsubstantiated rumours as he has fcuk all else to say? I’d go with the latter.
As Jammin would say – “Do you have evidence for that” Dessie?
In that line of work, dog hairs are something you’d be faced with every day.
If he was allergic to dog hair another tester could of tested the car.. The NCT is nothing more than a money scam
The car is supposed to be clean. That’s a requirement. If there’s a lot of dog hair, it’s not clean. So, instead of the guy getting his work uniform covered in dog hair, perhaps the client should have cleaned it?
@ Niall there are more than one so called inspector, anyway he is right you pay your 58 euro before the test he would have lost that,
Doesn’t matter if the tester had an allergy someone else could have done the test the guy didn’t have to be a dcik and fail the car over tat.
If he has an allergy he should wear appropriate protective gear . Having dog hairs in ones car is not a valid reason to force someone to retest at a cost.
Meant not test the car not fail it
The guidelines say It’s supposed to be “reasonably clean”, not fumigated to the standards of an OCD sufferer or somebody who’s allergic to everything.
At the end of the day Dessie Ellis has accused a private company (however distasteful it is) operating in Ireland, an employer like any other, of malpractice on the basis of an unsubstantiated rumour (hearsay). He may have well made it up entirely. That is not the way for an elected member of parliament to treat anyone and is an abuse.
He didn’t even bother to contact the centre to get their version of events. He could have written to them on official letter-headed paper and he would have got his answer. That is outrageous carry on and is typical of what a shower of time wasters SF really are. And it’s bloody irresponsible.
“Reasonably clean” Neal means that the tester DOESN:T have to go and clean himself off after testing the car. THAT is REASONABLE. You’re splitting dog hairs here.
It means a reasonable person with no special needs such as allergies or compulsions, doesn’t need to clean his or herself off after testing the car.
By the way, in an ideal world this tester would be re-deployed to somewhere like a hospital, where cleanliness is so important that his particular issues would be an advantage
I bet if a car was refused it was over more than a few dog hairs. When he went to Dessie with his complaint, he probably said it was a few dog hairs, when it was probably just in a disgusting state. Anyway, a broken lightbulb is a visual reinspection, which is a free retest.
If it was refused over something more substantial, surely it would be in the failure certificate or whatever documentation is provided when they officially refuse to do a test?
I don’t believe you get a refusal “certificate”. I know there is a long tradition in Ireland of everything being someone else’s fault. We’re not much good as a nation at accepting personal responsibility. But my experience is that the rules are there, are very clear, and people seem to think that they can show up with their car full of dog hairs, or stinking of fish, any ol’ modification they want, and that they are entitled to have the car tested and passed.
Uniform?. A pair of manky overalls more like.
Bleeding joke.
@Niall…Not the first time they’ve refused to test a car because of dog hair. Happened to a friend of mine earlier this year. And no, the car was not covered in dog hair. She had hoovered the car but there were a couple of them on the back seat.
I know of a case that the inspector (idiot) refused to test car because of the smell of fish in car.
The bit I hate about the NCT is having to sign the waiver if you have a diesel car allowing them to rev the engine for the emissions test. If the timing belt snaps and the engine is destroyed tough luck ! No self respecting mechanic would ever rev an engine the way they do…
Completely agree with that. I brought the wife’s car to NCT before and said I wasn’t comfortable signing that. I was told sign it, or leave.
Yes, it’s a disgrace, sign it or have no nct and end up in trouble. I often wondered how many engines they have destroyed / destroy per year.
I work in the motor trade. Some cars presented to us for work to be done are disgusting. You literally have to do an Ace Ventura on some the condition inside is so bad.
The smell of wet, damp, stale dog coupled with copious amounts of dog hair probably isn’t something most people would happily sit into to do their job. As much as I’m not a fan of the NCT system I can 100% see why the tester declined to test the car.
Clean your car before you bring it to a garage or the NCT. If you’re happy enough to live in your own stink and mess that’s your own business but don’t inflict it on someone else.
Some people are allergic to soap.
The NCT test only proves that the vehicle was roadworthy while it was at the test centre, you have no comeback if it falls apart on the way home from the test centre…
As an ex NCT inspector let me make some points here
Firstly, the NCT don’t make the rules, NCT inspectors follow rules lay down by the dept of transport and reviews by the AA annually. If fact most NCT inspectors would disagree with some of the rules and failure types.
NCT inspectors are subjected to random checks internally and by the AA so they must follow the rules or lose their jobs.
Retests for headlamp bulb failure are in my option too expensive as this rest eat takes less than 5 mins.
And lastly as for dog hairs, some of the vehicles presented for testing are absolutely disgusting and the inspector has every right to refuse to enter it. The issue arises that their clothing is now full of dog hair and they have to enter another 20 cars that day. Would you be happy if a tester left your car full of dog hair?
A friend of mine had his car tested and passed.two days later the wishbone came loose. The car had no engine oil. No windshield water and low brake fluid. Yet it passed.
A relative of mine bought a secondhand car already NCT d. ( 2009 ) car. After 2 weeks the brake went, and there was a rattle in the car plus the windscreen wiper connection was loose and it was hard to see out the windows.Remember it WAS NCT d already when bought from the garage.I advised to complain and get money back( 7, 000 ) euro! They said they would repair everything!
my relative emailed the NCT. A supervisor checked the car, And said……..It Was ROADWORTHY!!?? The morale of this story is, you may think after an NCT service your car is safe, but it is not, since they can still say it is roadworthy. How could the brakes be faulty and pass the test? If you can’t see out the window..thats roadworthy? When people say they wouldn’t pass their car because of dog hair, I can hardly believe it. My conclusion is they want you to keep paying for NCT & in my relatives case,how were they allowed pass a car that was a deathtrap!
I was once getting my car done and there was an elderly lady in front of me in the waiting room where we were awaiting the results of our cars.
The tester came out and said to her that “We have good news and bad news, the good news is that your car passed but the bad news is that the car won’t start”.
I think this sums up the inefficiencies with the NCT. Great in theory but I think it does need to be reformed.
What do you think the tester did to the car to make it not start?
If a car is covered in dog hair or cat hair or just dirty in general, I don’t want a tester sitting into that car and then half an hour later sitting into my car to test it. If people are too lazy to clean their cars of dog hairs, it says a lot really. Anyway afaik if the car is not tested at all, the customer is refunded.
My hiace minibus basically did the splits on me one day as the subframe was broken and should have been spotted as it was only tested.I was blessed it happened where it did. Shocks don’t have to be good or bad just as long as there equally good or bad.. And I once had a 270 bhp Evo with literally no brakes pass because it’s a 4×4 and can’t be tested on their machine.Pads and discs were good but cylinder was gone..Only 3 personal examples and I’m sure there are plenty more, I agree in principle with the test and like many would say €55 is an alright price to pay knowing that your car is safe. But it gives me no piece of mind and although I’d want it I would not rely on it when buying a new car.
I disagree with the petty failures in the NCT. most are not mechanical failures. more revenue and unfortunately we have no choice but go with it. Failing to hand over the cert without producing your D/licence must be against some rule data etc it’s just ridiculous. rant over sorry guys.
As someone who’s NCT failed last week because the licence plate (which passed the previous 10 years) had the wrong font*, I don’t think they are being too petty to get retests! * no indication what exactly was wrong, by the way.
Alien, look up the website. It’s clear on what the font and sizing requirements of licence plates should be. Whoever sold you the licence plate should be the subject of your complaint. This rule has to be in place and enforced because of the idiots who were using some form of small script font on the licence plates making them unreadable by traffic corps or cameras.
Yes, that’s valid, but what about the “fail” if the Irish translation of the county is missing? That is NOT anything to do with the safe running of the car!
That was a bit ruff..
Have they that little to do in the dail? No wonder the country is in the state its in, when they are discussing dog hairs!!
They’re talking about road safety which costs 300 Irish lives a year. But all you heard was “dog hair”.
Right if this about safety…
Tell me why when driving at night do we see so many cars with one headlight on… How many cops have pulled drivers on that. There seems little money in that yet it is dangerous…
And secondly, visibility of other road users. We see it all winter bikes with no lights, runners and walkers with no reflectors… They are very dangerous…
If there was a genuine interest in Road Safety then these would be addressed but it seems to me that road safety has more to do with revenue generation. I wonder are the traffic cops judged on the number of accidents in their area or the number of fines handed out?
I don’t know. Why don’t you put in a freedom of information request to find that out instead of stating what you assume the facts are and then making broad sweeping statements based on these self-identified facts. My observation is that there are far fewer one-lighters than there used to be. There will always be some because people often use the back roads when they know they will be pulled, and secondly it is tough to get a new lightbulb when these things blow (in the evening). You’re screwed if it’s a Saturday evening.
…and yet, I see the same cars, again and again, for months on end, with lights out. People only seem to check/replace bulbs when the car is up for a service/NCT. There is one car I come across every day that has no (zero) tail lights. The only reason you see the car is because it crosses cars with lights in front of it…
Hair today – gone tomorrow – or else! LOL
I’ll get my coat…
I was refused a cert because my number plates didn’t have the cill dara sticker on them..and had to re book to show they were now on..absolute madness and over the top.
You don’t have to rebook to show number plates. Stop talking rubbish will ya.
Bs
That was woof on the owner
They didn’t have a problem with cat hairs in my car. Personally I think cars were safer before the NCT. Most here were held together by baling twine and they didn’t go much over 30 in case they fell to bits. All those were forced off the road by the test and scrapage and people who had never taken a test got a shiny new quiet car they couldn’t drive to kill themselves and others in. If you ride a horse on Irish roads now you die.
I know someone whose car was failed because of dog hair, bloody ridiculous! It’s supposed to be testing the safety of your car, how does dog hair make it unsafe? Money spinning scam as usual in this country
what a knob. Deserves to be stuck nct testing for the rest of his life.
Good old AA hiding in the bushes.
Just yesterday I had to take a retest and after paying 20 to have my newly replaced bulbs refocused the previous day, I had to still shell out the 28 quid to retest because “we need to use the equipment to check your bulbs”. Really? A receipt from a Honda garage to say they’ve been refocused and a quick glance at the bulbs will tell you they’re clearly working properly. It’s all about the money
Best photo of the day lol.
Big pussy tester
Car is not tested or failed full refund giving clean your car
My car failed last week bushes snd linke were worn i was told got thdm rrplaced to day and mechanjc told me there was no ward on thdm complete and utter farce money racket
If a car is presented filthy or with dog hairs the car is not tested and a full refund giving why would you present your car in a dirty state anyway the reason they don’t test cars with dog hairs is it sticks to there uniform and gets transferred into other cars just clean your car full refund giving car is not failed it’s not even tested.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say