So possible the test wouldn't have picked it up if the tank had been near empty.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Possibly, but don't they perform a thorough visual inspection? if they had they would have seen the rust.
Maybe It was a Mr S. Wonder that inspected the car
Number_Cruncher
Active Member
>> if they had they would have seen the rust.
But, they can't fail it for just rust on the filler neck - the fuel must actually be seen to leak for it for it be a vaild failure point. The corrosion on the filler neck might more properly have attracted an advisory.
Dieslman's post above is quite correct, a subsequent MOT does NOT over-ride the previous MOT certificate, which remains in force. However, what the new MOT does is to highlight a possible unsafe aspect of the car.
An MOT is not a test of roadworthiness or safety. By this, I mean that a car with potentially dangerous faults can pass an MOT quite legitimately. For example, the tester cannot remove any panels or trim to inspect, and so, behind a wheel trim, you might only have one bolt holding the wheel on, but your car would pass the MOT.
It's far better to view the MOT as a backup to regular maintenance and servicing - a skilled second pair of eyes giving your car a quick once over. If your car fails, what this really says is that your service and maintenance isn't really up to it. For operators of commercial vehicles, a few failures at annual MOT type inspections will bring them a visit from VOSA who will probe the company's inspection and maintenance arrangements!
An MOT is simply a regulated inspection of prescribed aspects of the vehicle - there are only limited "reasons for failure", and your car can't fail for anything outside of these reasons.
For some who bemoan the subjective and incomplete nature of the MOT, consider the Japanese system - where the cost of the inspection becomes so high that it renders good and servicable vehicles as scrap. IMO, the current MOT system, if correctly used in conjunction with good servicing is effective and good value for money, and I hope that it doesn't become more rigorous, time consuming and expensive.
Sorry about the rant - but I'm consistently amazed by how widespread the misunderstanding of the MOT is among motorists.
But, they can't fail it for just rust on the filler neck - the fuel must actually be seen to leak for it for it be a vaild failure point. The corrosion on the filler neck might more properly have attracted an advisory.
Dieslman's post above is quite correct, a subsequent MOT does NOT over-ride the previous MOT certificate, which remains in force. However, what the new MOT does is to highlight a possible unsafe aspect of the car.
An MOT is not a test of roadworthiness or safety. By this, I mean that a car with potentially dangerous faults can pass an MOT quite legitimately. For example, the tester cannot remove any panels or trim to inspect, and so, behind a wheel trim, you might only have one bolt holding the wheel on, but your car would pass the MOT.
It's far better to view the MOT as a backup to regular maintenance and servicing - a skilled second pair of eyes giving your car a quick once over. If your car fails, what this really says is that your service and maintenance isn't really up to it. For operators of commercial vehicles, a few failures at annual MOT type inspections will bring them a visit from VOSA who will probe the company's inspection and maintenance arrangements!
An MOT is simply a regulated inspection of prescribed aspects of the vehicle - there are only limited "reasons for failure", and your car can't fail for anything outside of these reasons.
For some who bemoan the subjective and incomplete nature of the MOT, consider the Japanese system - where the cost of the inspection becomes so high that it renders good and servicable vehicles as scrap. IMO, the current MOT system, if correctly used in conjunction with good servicing is effective and good value for money, and I hope that it doesn't become more rigorous, time consuming and expensive.
Sorry about the rant - but I'm consistently amazed by how widespread the misunderstanding of the MOT is among motorists.
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Was the tank leaking fuel when you took it in for MOT but did it only leak around the filler when you were adding fuel?
I suppose my point is, could the examinere easily see the leak?
Regards
John
I suppose my point is, could the examinere easily see the leak?
Regards
John
I didn't take it for the MOT, the seller did it just a few days before I bought it.
I fully agree, it is a good system when the tester actually checks what they're supposed to.
Swiss Toni
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,593
- Car
- Pedestrian
If it is a fake MOT (eg a stolen one) and you have been driving around, then you have been driving without a valid MOT Certificate, so you have (and continue) to commit offences.
If the failure is so catastrophic as to cause an accident where you or a passenger in your car is injured, then
And so, the balance of the universe returns.
If the failure is so catastrophic as to cause an accident where you or a passenger in your car is injured, then
Would you be a witness against this person??
And so, the balance of the universe returns.
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,206
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
Who said it might be fake.? It's just a 'sloppy' test.
supercharger
Active Member
im certain its a dodgy test they are easy to obtain if you now the right places and people, i know of a station where £100 buys you an mot regardless. the system has always been abused and always will be regardless of technology.
If it is a fake MOT (eg a stolen one) and you have been driving around, then you have been driving without a valid MOT Certificate, so you have (and continue) to commit offences.
If the failure is so catastrophic as to cause an accident where you or a passenger in your car is injured, then
And so, the balance of the universe returns.
Not my problem I'm afraid, The seller arranged the MOT before I bought the car.
Number_Cruncher
Active Member
>>im certain its a dodgy test
I'm not.
>>Petrol tank leaking
As mentioned above, unless evidence of fuel leakage was evident, it's not a failure point. Depending upon how visible the corrosion was from beneath the car, the MOT tester may not have seen the worst of it - did you need to remove the wheel to really see where the problem was?
>>Rear exhaust backbox badly corroded and holed
How seriously holed? Slight leakage is acceptable.
>>Parking brake didn't work (just needed adjusting)
The requirements for parking brake efficiency for a car fitted with dual circuit brakes isn't great - it is possible that the parking brake was sufficient for the MOT, but not working at full efficiency, which was rectified by the simple expedient of an adjustment.
>>Juddering from brakes
Unless the braking force was fluctuating wildly at the slow speeds used for the roller brake test (which rotates the wheels at little more than walking speed), there's no reason for failure. Is the judder something that only happens at speed? If so, it's completely outside the scope of the MOT.
>>Rear numberplate lights not working (turned out to be a fuse)
It takes milliseconds for a fuse to blow, and this could have happened at any time (incidentally, do you know why the fuse blew? Is the wiring shorting as the harness passes through the grommets near the hinge?)
To check the validty of your MOT;
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/
I'm not.
>>Petrol tank leaking
As mentioned above, unless evidence of fuel leakage was evident, it's not a failure point. Depending upon how visible the corrosion was from beneath the car, the MOT tester may not have seen the worst of it - did you need to remove the wheel to really see where the problem was?
>>Rear exhaust backbox badly corroded and holed
How seriously holed? Slight leakage is acceptable.
>>Parking brake didn't work (just needed adjusting)
The requirements for parking brake efficiency for a car fitted with dual circuit brakes isn't great - it is possible that the parking brake was sufficient for the MOT, but not working at full efficiency, which was rectified by the simple expedient of an adjustment.
>>Juddering from brakes
Unless the braking force was fluctuating wildly at the slow speeds used for the roller brake test (which rotates the wheels at little more than walking speed), there's no reason for failure. Is the judder something that only happens at speed? If so, it's completely outside the scope of the MOT.
>>Rear numberplate lights not working (turned out to be a fuse)
It takes milliseconds for a fuse to blow, and this could have happened at any time (incidentally, do you know why the fuse blew? Is the wiring shorting as the harness passes through the grommets near the hinge?)
To check the validty of your MOT;
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/
Last edited:
No, it was easily visible just by bending down and looking under the back. Someone had tried to patch it up with some kind of sealant / tape.
Big enough that the car made a nasty droning noise when accelerating. Rectified now I have a new Backbox.
The judder isn't really noticeable at high speed, it's most noticeable when pulling up slowly to a junction.
The fuse wasn't blown per se, but I think it must have had some kind of invisible gunk on the contacts which prevented it from making a good connection. A new fuse solved it.
I've done this and it checks out, the MOT is real and valid but I just don't think the garage should have passed it.
Number_Cruncher
Active Member
>>Someone had tried to patch it up with some kind of sealant / tape.
For failure, the vital point is whether the tester could see fuel leaking. If no fuel is seen leaking, the car passes.
>>Big enough...
It's difficult to say one way or the other without actually seeing the fault, even a very small exhaust leak can make a lot of noise - although it's definitely odd that there wasn't at least an advisory. The applicable guidance to testers is;
"Note: A minor exhaust leak from, for example, a connection joint or a pin hole, is not a Reason for Rejection"
From your description this is not the case, and, perhaps, the car should have failed on this point.
>>The judder isn't really noticeable at high speed, it's most noticeable when pulling up slowly to a junction.
That's a bit odd on these cars, that sort of low speed brake force fluctuation is much more common with rear drum brakes - where the drum has been damaged by ham fisted attempts at removal.
Whether it should have been failed or not, again, is a judgemen call - the wording for the appropriate reason for failure is;
"Evidence of severe brake grabbing or or judder as the brake is applied"
So, pass or fail on this point comes down to the definition of severe.
>>The fuse wasn't blown per se
I'm sure most W124 owners have had the odd gremlin caused by dodgy contacts in the fuse box. It's possible that they were actually OK when tested - something as trivial as slamming the bonnet down could affect a dodgy fuse connection with this type of continental fuse.
For failure, the vital point is whether the tester could see fuel leaking. If no fuel is seen leaking, the car passes.
>>Big enough...
It's difficult to say one way or the other without actually seeing the fault, even a very small exhaust leak can make a lot of noise - although it's definitely odd that there wasn't at least an advisory. The applicable guidance to testers is;
"Note: A minor exhaust leak from, for example, a connection joint or a pin hole, is not a Reason for Rejection"
From your description this is not the case, and, perhaps, the car should have failed on this point.
>>The judder isn't really noticeable at high speed, it's most noticeable when pulling up slowly to a junction.
That's a bit odd on these cars, that sort of low speed brake force fluctuation is much more common with rear drum brakes - where the drum has been damaged by ham fisted attempts at removal.
Whether it should have been failed or not, again, is a judgemen call - the wording for the appropriate reason for failure is;
"Evidence of severe brake grabbing or or judder as the brake is applied"
So, pass or fail on this point comes down to the definition of severe.
>>The fuse wasn't blown per se
I'm sure most W124 owners have had the odd gremlin caused by dodgy contacts in the fuse box. It's possible that they were actually OK when tested - something as trivial as slamming the bonnet down could affect a dodgy fuse connection with this type of continental fuse.
I suppose this could have been the case, when I got the car there were times when it would leak badly, and others where it would barely leak at all. I assumed the test was more thorough.
I wouldn't say it was severe, it's irritating but not dangerous. The brakes still feel powerful and reassuring. I personally think it's down to uneven wear or a warped disc.
Number_Cruncher
Active Member
>>I assumed the test was more thorough.
It really is just a snapshot.
Where above I gave an example of an unsafe car which could pass, I would say that if your car does fail, then it is likely to be unsafe. (Apart from the political nonsense of the emissions part of the test)
However, it's really clear that you are taking the maintenance and repair of the car seriously, and so, practically, you're on top of the situation.
When my father was testing, he had a policy on this. When a known trader presented a car for MOT, he was extremely strict. His view was that if he gave the car a ticket, it would be sold on and if there was a problem, it was his MOT station number on the MOT embossing stamp.
It really is just a snapshot.
Where above I gave an example of an unsafe car which could pass, I would say that if your car does fail, then it is likely to be unsafe. (Apart from the political nonsense of the emissions part of the test)
However, it's really clear that you are taking the maintenance and repair of the car seriously, and so, practically, you're on top of the situation.
When my father was testing, he had a policy on this. When a known trader presented a car for MOT, he was extremely strict. His view was that if he gave the car a ticket, it would be sold on and if there was a problem, it was his MOT station number on the MOT embossing stamp.
Frank O' Phile
Active Member
I use a local garage run by a guy who has now become a friend. When I asked him to pass my old 200e as the new buyer was collecting it tht evening, he said 'what if it fails?' I told him it couldn't fail.
He failed it. Chip on the windscreen, blowing exhaust and weeping rear shock.
The man has integrity. That's why I will continue to use him until he retires.
He failed it. Chip on the windscreen, blowing exhaust and weeping rear shock.
The man has integrity. That's why I will continue to use him until he retires.
bigstuff
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 299
do you think he would pass it if you had not said it was to be sold
Frank O' Phile
Active Member
No, he would would have passed it if it was fit to be passed.
It still had a few days left to run on the old cert and I still sold it (at a reduced price) and I believe the car is now in nigeria.
When I took in my LHD foreign plated 740 estate that came out of a field
he said he had tried his best but couldn't find anything to fail it on.Finding a good honest garage is like finding a painless dentist.
