car mot

[stalker1]

You can fail a car for a hole in a sill for example and when it comes back all filled up with whatever you cannot dig about or try to remove the repair.

 

You then have no option but to pass it but you can issue an advise stating that you suspect that a poor repair has been made but you can't prove it

 

 

 

 

LB

 

If its in a prescribed area, and not seam welded you can refail it as an inadequate repair, as the manual states,

[lurcherboy]

You can fail a car for a hole in a sill for example and when it comes back all filled up with whatever you cannot dig about or try to remove the repair.

 

You then have no option but to pass it but you can issue an advise stating that you suspect that a poor repair has been made but you can't prove it

 

 

 

 

LB

 

If its in a prescribed area, and not seam welded you can refail it as an inadequate repair, as the manual states,

 

Not if its covered up with the liberal application of stonechip/underseal etc.

 

 

 

 

LB

[stalker1]

You can fail a car for a hole in a sill for example and when it comes back all filled up with whatever you cannot dig about or try to remove the repair.

 

You then have no option but to pass it but you can issue an advise stating that you suspect that a poor repair has been made but you can't prove it

 

 

 

 

LB

 

If its in a prescribed area, and not seam welded you can refail it as an inadequate repair, as the manual states,

 

Not if its covered up with the liberal application of stonechip/underseal etc.

 

 

 

 

LB

 

if it came back as a coverd repair stonechip underseal what have you then the tester would be within his right to refuse to re-test the vehicle,

[tosspot]

off at a tangent a bit but

 

if you could not get the rear fog light to work (on a 04 motor) because electrickery baffles you

 

could you simply remove the fog light to pass MOT

 

ie

 

if it's there it has to work

 

but if it ain't there

 

failing that anyone know a decent auto electrician

[lurcherboy]

You can fail a car for a hole in a sill for example and when it comes back all filled up with whatever you cannot dig about or try to remove the repair.

 

You then have no option but to pass it but you can issue an advise stating that you suspect that a poor repair has been made but you can't prove it

 

 

 

 

LB

 

If its in a prescribed area, and not seam welded you can refail it as an inadequate repair, as the manual states,

 

Not if its covered up with the liberal application of stonechip/underseal etc.

 

 

 

 

LB

 

if it came back as a coverd repair stonechip underseal what have you then the tester would be within his right to refuse to re-test the vehicle,

 

Thats like saying 'I couldn't check the o/s rear seatbelt as there was a child seat attached' It's not enough reason to fail only to advise.

 

 

 

LB

 

 

off at a tangent a bit but

 

if you could not get the rear fog light to work (on a 04 motor) because electrickery baffles you

 

could you simply remove the fog light to pass MOT

 

ie

 

if it's there it has to work

 

but if it ain't there

 

failing that anyone know a decent auto electrician

 

No you can't as a vehicle of that year requires one for the test.

 

Spend some 10 bob bits you tight wad

 

 

 

 

 

LB

[pin]

There are many ludicrous laws.

 

Like for example if you have a spare tyre it has to be legal, but its perfectly legal to have no spare at all.

 

Go figure.

[tosspot]

off at a tangent a bit but

 

if you could not get the rear fog light to work (on a 04 motor) because electrickery baffles you

 

could you simply remove the fog light to pass MOT

 

ie

 

if it's there it has to work

 

but if it ain't there

 

failing that anyone know a decent auto electrician

 

No you can't as a vehicle of that year requires one for the test.

 

Spend some 10 bob bits you tight wad

 

 

 

 

 

LB

 

 

Thanks LB

 

I think

[Gordon R]

No you could not. If it is supposed to have one it has to work.

 

Took my Discovery for MOT in 2004. Mechanic removed wheel to check the disc - he did not need to do. Did not tighten wheel nuts. Put them just on the thread. Left garage - first big bend - off popped the wheel - big crash. I sued them - decent settlement. This was his second time with wheel nuts. The third time - he got the sack.

[stalker1]

No you could not. If it is supposed to have one it has to work.

 

Took my Discovery for MOT in 2004. Mechanic removed wheel to check the disc - he did not need to do. Did not tighten wheel nuts. Put them just on the thread. Left garage - first big bend - off popped the wheel - big crash. I sued them - decent settlement. This was his second time with wheel nuts. The third time - he got the sack.

 

bad man that,

 

were not allowed to strip any part of your car on an mot test,

 

 

You can fail a car for a hole in a sill for example and when it comes back all filled up with whatever you cannot dig about or try to remove the repair.

 

You then have no option but to pass it but you can issue an advise stating that you suspect that a poor repair has been made but you can't prove it :(

 

 

 

 

LB

 

If its in a prescribed area, and not seam welded you can refail it as an inadequate repair, as the manual states,

 

Not if its covered up with the liberal application of stonechip/underseal etc.

 

 

 

 

LB

 

if it came back as a coverd repair stonechip underseal what have you then the tester would be within his right to refuse to re-test the vehicle,

 

Thats like saying 'I couldn't check the o/s rear seatbelt as there was a child seat attached' It's not enough reason to fail only to advise.

 

 

 

LB

 

 

off at a tangent a bit but

 

if you could not get the rear fog light to work (on a 04 motor) because electrickery baffles you

 

could you simply remove the fog light to pass MOT

 

ie

 

if it's there it has to work

 

but if it ain't there

 

failing that anyone know a decent auto electrician

 

No you can't as a vehicle of that year requires one for the test.

 

Spend some 10 bob bits you tight wad

 

 

 

 

 

LB

 

as it had been in for a test and failed then if it is presented for re/test the repair must be clearly visible for inspection, if not clear then it fails the re/test or it is refused a re-test,

[dunganick]

could you not just take it toa different place to get it mot'd

[lurcherboy]

You can fail a car for a hole in a sill for example and when it comes back all filled up with whatever you cannot dig about or try to remove the repair.

 

You then have no option but to pass it but you can issue an advise stating that you suspect that a poor repair has been made but you can't prove it

 

 

 

 

LB

 

If its in a prescribed area, and not seam welded you can refail it as an inadequate repair, as the manual states,

 

Not if its covered up with the liberal application of stonechip/underseal etc.

 

 

 

 

LB

 

if it came back as a coverd repair stonechip underseal what have you then the tester would be within his right to refuse to re-test the vehicle,

 

 

That would merely move the problem somewhere else and the tester may not know the history of the repair. Surely it would be better to test it and issue a advise?

 

 

LB

[SNAKEBITE]

This debate between LB and stalker1 has proved to me that the MOT test is very open to personnal interpritation.

Not critising but you can begin to see why a car might pass at one one garage and fail at another. It might not be down to dishonesty just a different reading of the rules

[lurcherboy]

The standard set by VOSA is so low when compared to servicing that it is a complete joke

[SNAKEBITE]

I might be one of the few but I like the idea of the MOT. I can at least have some feeing of safety knowing what shape my car is in.

Yes, I do check the car over at intervals but the MOT does give me peace of mind.

[stalker1]

This debate between LB and stalker1 has proved to me that the MOT test is very open to personnal interpritation.

Not critising but you can begin to see why a car might pass at one one garage and fail at another. It might not be down to dishonesty just a different reading of the rules

 

 

exalant point you just stated there, and how true it is,

 

but we do our best to be fair when testing your cars,

 

it makes me laugh when we have tested a car and its passed but with a vt32 advisery notice of things that will need looking at in the near future, and 12 moth later that car returns for another mot, and the last years adviserys have not been done, ok there only an advisey, but now the car might just fail its mot cause them adviserys have got a lot worse,

 

 

 

The standard set by VOSA is so low when compared to servicing that it is a complete joke

 

yes i agree with you on that lurcherboy,

 

but as you will know there are a lot of people out there that never have there cars serviced untill something as broken, and by that time it could be to late as what as broken might just have killed some one,

 

so i think even though the standards set by vosa are not as high as we would like, its still better than nothing.

 

and as for them looking at mots every 2 years, all i can say it that is going to cause more deaths on the road

[Gordon R]

Stalker1 - you are right. I believe you can't remove a spare wheel to check it. Why he removed - who knows. Got a big settlement, but didn't need the injuries.

[Cranfield]

On both our vehicles I have the service intervals set, so that there is a service the day before, or the same day as, the MOT.

I haven't had one fail yet.

[pin]

I think the age of the vehicle should dictate the level and standard of the test.

 

All cars can develop faults, and some can do it within weeks (brand new) or it might take months, years or never happen.

 

All manufacturers have servicing schedules which dictate what should be checked, how often and what the standards are governing replacement etc. Since servicing to manufacturers spec isn't compulsory I think the MOT, or whatever people might want to call it, should use the same guidelines and standards.

 

For instance, it is incredibly unlikely a 3 year old Audi will have any significant rust anywhere, sills, chassis or suspension. It could have faulty brakes though, since out of warranty the owner can have it looked after by anyone. However a 20 year old sierra will probably be full of rust, have worn parts all over the place and be much more likely to be a risk than the brand new car.

 

The owner should have to provide documentation proving required works have been done, if he/she can't then a more thorough check is performed (at cost to the owner) and any faults should generate a VDRS ticket rather than some poncy "advisory".

 

This isn't about "have I bought a decent car" but a lot more about peoples lives.

[bobt]

I had a new Peugeot that needed all new brake pipes at its first MOT due to rot.