Dodgy MOT?

[ms500]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I was wondering what you guys thought.

When I bought my car, the seller had put a new MOT on it just three days before I collected it. I was aware that it needed some work, but some of the issues I would have expected to be an MOT failure, such as:

Petrol tank leaking
Rear exhaust backbox badly corroded and holed
Parking brake didn't work (just needed adjusting)
Juddering from brakes
Rear numberplate lights not working (turned out to be a fuse)

I've fixed all of these now, but what seemed odd was that there weren't even any advisories, it looked like it just flew through. The MOT was from a garage local to the seller in Northumberland. It's not due for another MOT until late July '09.

Does it sound fishy to you?

 

[glojo]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I was wondering what you guys thought.

When I bought my car, the seller had put a new MOT on it just three days before I collected it. I was aware that it needed some work, but some of the issues I would have expected to be an MOT failure, such as:

Petrol tank leaking
Rear exhaust backbox badly corroded and holed
Parking brake didn't work (just needed adjusting)
Juddering from brakes
Rear numberplate lights not working (turned out to be a fuse)

I've fixed all of these now, but what seemed odd was that there weren't even any advisories, it looked like it just flew through. The MOT was from a garage local to the seller in Northumberland. It's not due for another MOT until late July '09.

Does it sound fishy to you?

It is very dodgy to respond to something where we only hear one side of a story, but from the symptoms you are describing I would have taken the car to trading standards. It's easy to get sucked into this and say the test station was not behaving professionally but........

Would you be a witness against this person??

John

 

[ms500]

It is very dodgy to respond to something where we only hear one side of a story, but from the symptoms you are describing I would have taken the car to trading standards. It's easy to get sucked into this and say the test station was not behaving professionally but........

Would you be a witness against this person??

John

I did think of this, I was reading on the back of the certificate about how you could complain within 28 days if you didn't think the car should have passed, but to be honest I'd got most of the issues sorted by that point, and didn't want the bother.

 

[bouncer]

See what it has had advisorys and failed on last time

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/internet/jsp/ECHID-Internet-History-Request.jsp

sTeVe

 

[verytalldave]

And what exactly do you stand to gain even if you find out the MOT was ever so slightly warm?

I would forget it.

Or if you really do want to persue this further take it to an MOT station near you that you know is good and pay for another and then see what they say.

As a further point............

IF you did this and it failed.............would that new MOT superceed the old MOT....OR would the old MOT still be valid as its still within its timescale?
Which MOT would be current?
And as it is now all on computer, they WOULD know.

 

[imadoofus]

IF you did this and it failed.............would that new MOT superceed the old MOT....OR would the old MOT still be valid as its still within its timescale?
Which MOT would be current?
And as it is now all on computer, they WOULD know.

THe MOT is a test of roadworthiness on that day. Therefore, a failure supercedes a pre-existing MOT regardless of the expiry date of the original MOT.

I know this because my Volvo just failed it's test with a blowing exhaust manifold. I swapped the manifold and retested it, with a pass, before the old (good) MOT 'expired'. Nevertheless, it was not legal from the point at which it failed.

 

[Rory]

Does it sound fishy to you?

Yes.

If the seller knows the tester then anything is possible. Years ago my mate's MOT ran out while he was away travelling and his Dad got a new MOT for him by post from a friend of his.

 

[Benzowner]

I though todays MoT stations were linked to the DVLA and thatthe MoT cert was computer generated. I do know the advisory is on a seperate sheet and can easily be thrown away, so maybe that is where it went.

 

[W210 Fan]

Petrol tank leaking
Parking brake didn't work (just needed adjusting)
Rear numberplate lights not working (turned out to be a fuse)

Does it sound fishy to you?

these are MOT fails so wouldnt be on a seperate advisory sheet, if they were like that on that day, chances are they were, yes it sounds fishy, not much point in taking it up as if the MOT guy knows the seller they will have a story that matches each other, live and learn

 

[SilverSaloon]

the guy probably told the MOT station (that he probably knows fairly well) that the car is going to be sold on.

therefore things like handbrake etc probably get "overlooked". or he promised to fix it afterwards and the MOT guy let him on his way as he knew him, but he never did fix the issues.

I got my previous CLK MOT'd before sale. I was told that one of the alloys had a slight warp on it. The guy said it would usually fail but since i was trading in the car, he would pass it, as it was "borderline". I was pleased as it saved me £300 on a replacement and it was hardly an issue.

 

[ms500]

And what exactly do you stand to gain even if you find out the MOT was ever so slightly warm?

I would forget it.

Or if you really do want to persue this further take it to an MOT station near you that you know is good and pay for another and then see what they say.

Didn't say I wanted to pursue it further, I was just wondering if this kind of thing happened often.

See what it has had advisorys and failed on last time

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/internet/j...ry-Request.jsp

sTeVe

I've done this.

 

[Rory]

So much of the MOT (apart from the emissions, and that's easy to fiddle) is down to opinion.

I got wifey's Clio MOT'd in the village garage where it passed. Took it to a Renault dealer next day for service and they phoned me to say the front indicator bulbs needed changing as they weren't orange enough and would fail MOT.

 

[ms500]

So much of the MOT (apart from the emissions, and that's easy to fiddle) is down to opinion.

I got wifey's Clio MOT'd in the village garage where it passed. Took it to a Renault dealer next day for service and they phoned me to say the front indicator bulbs needed changing as they weren't orange enough and would fail MOT.

I thought only the filters were orange?

 

[W210 Fan]

So much of the MOT (apart from the emissions, and that's easy to fiddle) is down to opinion.

I got wifey's Clio MOT'd in the village garage where it passed. Took it to a Renault dealer next day for service and they phoned me to say the front indicator bulbs needed changing as they weren't orange enough and would fail MOT.

but they would make many out of that, I think it was Glojo who made a point a while back to get an MOT at an MOT station that does not do repairs, less chance for them to generate work for themselves and rip you off

 

[Chattonmill]

Which Garage was it? I can tell you if they are straight or not...

 

[Dieselman]

THe MOT is a test of roadworthiness on that day. Therefore, a failure supercedes a pre-existing MOT regardless of the expiry date of the original MOT.

I know this because my Volvo just failed it's test with a blowing exhaust manifold. I swapped the manifold and retested it, with a pass, before the old (good) MOT 'expired'. Nevertheless, it was not legal from the point at which it failed.

You are wrong here. The existing MOT covered the car until its expiry date a new test with a failure is just that, but doesn't override an exisiting valid cert.

The car may not have been legal as it had a broken exhaust, but that didn't invalidate the MOT in force.

 

[Will]

Petrol tank leaking
Rear exhaust backbox badly corroded and holed
Parking brake didn't work (just needed adjusting)
Juddering from brakes
Rear numberplate lights not working (turned out to be a fuse)

Some of those issues won't have been testable items (ie juddering brakes), and some of them are grey areas - eg a corroded backbox isn't neccesarily a fail, even if it's slightly leaking (it depends on how bad the corrosion and the leak are)

The numberplate lights could have failed at any time theoretically.

The only main items on that list that would have concerned me would be the leaking petrol tank and the parking brake - however even the parking brake is another grey area - depends on how bad it was (they test it's efficiency - doesn't actually need to be very strong to pass)

Where was the petrol tank leak out of interest?

It does sound slightly fishy to me and if I'm honest it sounds like they didn't check the car as thoroughly as other stations might have - but remember that the testers are human and the fact that some items are discretionary means that undoubtedly results may vary!

I generally like to have a feel for things with my cars and it sounds as though you must do also, as many people would probably not be aware of the items that you've noted. So at least it should be fairly sound for next time

Will

 

[ms500]

Some of those issues won't have been testable items (ie juddering brakes), and some of them are grey areas - eg a corroded backbox isn't neccesarily a fail, even if it's slightly leaking (it depends on how bad the corrosion and the leak are)

The numberplate lights could have failed at any time theoretically.

The only main items on that list that would have concerned me would be the leaking petrol tank and the parking brake - however even the parking brake is another grey area - depends on how bad it was (they test it's efficiency - doesn't actually need to be very strong to pass)

Well, it did hold a little bit on very slight inclines, but not much at all. To give you an idea, the car could be driven fine with it applied. If you were on any kind of hill the only way to stop the car rolling was to put it in 'P'.

Where was the petrol tank leak out of interest?

It had rusted where the filler neck joined the tank, a common problem on 124 estates as this bit is right behind the rear wheel. A local garage sent it away for welding and they did a grand job.

Cost me around £200. I've since protected the tank with waxoyl underbody sealant to stop it happening again.

 

[Dieselman]

Cost me around £200. I've since protected the tank with waxoyl underbody sealant to stop it happening again.

Hopefully. The problem is that petrol tanks corrode from the inside unless especially exposed to road filth.

I'd say the test was dodgy..

 

[bigstuff]

in every town & city in the uk you will have a m.o.t station that is known to be a bit relaxed in the way they view your car esp if they know you .what this guy has done is tell the tester he will do the jobs & then sold the car .the tester trusts the clown not good for him or the buyer if it whent wrong