MOT Failure

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Jellinek

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
34
Location
Staines-upon-Thames
Car
E280 CDi
My 2001 S Class 3.2 (petrol) recently failed the MOT as the both rear suspension arm bushes/pins & a front anti-roll bar joint were excessively worn. I was surprised, as I had recently had a major service (& a new fan belt) which cost me over £600. The MOT work cost me another £335 (this included the suspension repairs, a new tyre & indicator bulbs.
I contacted the garage that did the service & said that I was disappointed that they didn't identify the suspension problems. Their reply was that the new MOT is much more stringent, therefore their mechanic would not have noticed the issues! Between the service & the MOT, I had driven less than 100 miles.
Am I right to be disappointed or is it likely that the mechanic would not have noticed 3 different MOT failures?
 
I would use a different mechanic. Surely by their own statement, they are saying the staff at the MOT centre can find issues much better than their mechanics?
 
The MOT work cost me another £335 (this included the suspension repairs, a new tyre & indicator bulbs.
Not sure of the extent of the work but bearing in mind it seems to be a few hundred quid for one suspension part or another everytime my C Class gets MOT's, that sounds remarkably reasonable.

I suppose the issue is the MOT test it a matter of opinion. The mechanic doing the service may have done a quick visual, but not looked to the extent an MOT tester would. I think the MOT test is generally (maybe always?) done using shaker plates now so they may show issues which are not apparent normally.
 
It’s a tricky one, did the ’major’ service include suspension, steering and brakes checks, as in up in the air, remove wheels strip and clean brakes, lubricating and renewing components as necessary and checking, lubricating and renewing all suspension components as necessary? If so and you paid for it then yes it’s worth asking why it’s not been picked up. If it was just a oil and filter/fuel filter change, plugs and check/top up of the rest of the fluids then suspension, tyres and indicators won’t have necessarily been checked, but I’m sure if they’d have noticed they would have asked if you’d wanted them doing, for extra work if nothing else. For £600 on a 2001 S Class, I wouldn’t expect much more than fluids and filters etc. Also, everybody’s different so if the service outfit did check the suspension, they might have thought they had X% amount of wear left, the MOT place a hundred miles later might have thought they won’t last until the next MOT so flagged it up. You could take the same car to two different places within an hour of each other and it could fail on different things or pass with or without advisories.
You could say the servicing garage did you a favour by not replacing the parts at the time, meaning less cost, or at least a cost holiday until MOT time, for you and you got the last bit of wear out of them before renewing, if there was nothing adverse noticeable while driving the car that is. Sounds like the suspension components needed doing anyway, it’s just that if the servicing garage had replaced them, they’d have a hundred miles of wear on them by now and you’d have paid for it at service time.

For £600 major service and £335 for an MOT on a 20 year old S Class, with the knowledge now that it’s in good shape for another year, I’d be happy 👍
 
Service is more of a visual inspection, something has to be obviously broken to stand out and be detected, where as the MOT tester has to actually check suspension/steering components for play, if they have play they decide if it is excessive enough to fail.
So it is far more likely that getting a service will not show any defects.
 
I agree with others on here . The MOT test specifically checks the suspension and steering 'joints' using a 'wobble' plate looking for any play in the system . The mechanic who service your car was probably working off a 'script' and within time restrictions. Having said that if I were his boss I would chastise him (chastise..word of the day) for not picking up on the worn out stuff and charging you to get it repaired.

My own experience from years ago. Girlfriends Vauxhall Nova failed MOT in a spectacular fashion when the cross member behind the bumper was shown to being held together by the holes in it , it was just a flaky mess. It was clear that this rot had been going on for years and not been picked up during main dealer servicing or MOT (she drove it from almost new for ten years) Then one day an MOT test guy spotted it.

She liked the car so much that we got it fixed . All was well until the Nova was stolen and found burnt out in the middle of a kids playground. That's why almost 30 years later (yes she married me) she drives a Zafira.. no one would bother stealing that....
 
The Service B checklist is long and overlaps with quite a few of the MOT checks. In a Service A, in comparison, little is being checked.

Some people don't differentiate between an oil service or an interim service, and a full service. Also, some people regard as a 'major' service any service where many items have been replaced - oil, filters, spark plugs, brake fluid, ATF, etc - but that does not necessarily mean that the garage actually checked anything else other than replacing the service items.
 
To find suspension problems such as experienced requires 'digging in' and is a task on its own beyond servicing.
Suspension problems such as experienced are as likely to be identified by the driver either by noise or untoward driving characteristics.....
 
Unfortunately, as others have said, what's covered in 'servicing' these days is quite different to what many expect; very much driven by tick-boxes. For many a 'full service' is simply oil/filter, air, pollen and fuel filters.

I know of many cars that have failed an MOT immediately after a service, many with full main dealer service histories, all without any advice on further work required. Personally, I find it unacceptable that a garage can 'fully service' a car and it be effectively be 'unroadworthy' afterwards. However, some garages don't share my (perhaps old-fashioned) view.
 
Not directly related, but... I wonder, why are new cars exempt from MOT for the first three years?

I can understand that suspension components deteriorate over time etc. But that's a very outdated view about car technology.

These days, a considerable part of the MOT test is equally applicable to both new and old cars.

Firstly, there's various regulatory requirements - things like license plates, windows tint, cat and DPF removal, etc - these are just as likely to be found on a car before or after it reaches the 3-years-old MOT 'watershed'.

Then, there are service items - worn windscreen washers, blown bulbs, worn brakes, worn tyres - all of the above can happen well before the first 3 years are up.

Last, we know that modern car tech is riddled with various issues that can just as easily affect new cars - EPS and ABS faults, Adblue and emissions issues, or any other issue that brings up EML (which is an MOT failure). And, while these are not service items and so you could argue that owners will get them sorted under warranty, we all know how ineffective dealers can be with sorting intermittent EML issues.

So in short.... is there an elitist assumption here that people who can afford to buy new cars will be more responsible in taking care of them than those who drive old bangers and are likely to be up to no good....? Discuss :D
 
So in short.... is there an elitist assumption here that people who can afford to buy new cars will be more responsible in taking care of them than those who drive old bangers and are likely to be up to no good....? Discuss :D

I think that really was the thought years ago when I was a teenager working weekends and holidays at a local garage in the mid-late 90’s. However, time after time the absolute opposite was true, countless amounts of three year old cars that turned up which had already clocked up 70k+, usually reps or taxis, with bald tyres, some with showing cord, chipped or cracked windscreens, wobbly and sagging suspension components, brakes down to the metal, steering misaligned and so on. Lucky if they’d even had a wash never mind annual maintenance! I even remember a taxi coming in and they’d wedged some wood blocks into the rear springs because they were sagging so much with fares in 😆. Must be more strict now.
It was a while ago now, but I would find the best kept cars were rarely new ones, except maybe the expensive new personal cars, but good nick premium models of a few years old that could now be afforded and cherished by enthusiasts.
Most new cars just seemed to be the ‘use and abuse’ rep hacks.
 
Not directly related, but... I wonder, why are new cars exempt from MOT for the first three years?

I can understand that suspension components deteriorate over time etc. But that's a very outdated view about car technology.

These days, a considerable part of the MOT test is equally applicable to both new and old cars.

Firstly, there's various regulatory requirements - things like license plates, windows tint, cat and DPF removal, etc - these are just as likely to be found on a car before or after it reaches the 3-years-old MOT 'watershed'.

Then, there are service items - worn windscreen washers, blown bulbs, worn brakes, worn tyres - all of the above can happen well before the first 3 years are up.

Last, we know that modern car tech is riddled with various issues that can just as easily affect new cars - EPS and ABS faults, Adblue and emissions issues, or any other issue that brings up EML (which is an MOT failure). And, while these are not service items and so you could argue that owners will get them sorted under warranty, we all know how ineffective dealers can be with sorting intermittent EML issues.

So in short.... is there an elitist assumption here that people who can afford to buy new cars will be more responsible in taking care of them than those who drive old bangers and are likely to be up to no good....? Discuss :D
It's my feeling that the 3-year exemption is mostly political, as it's seen as a significant benefit to buying a new car - for both personal and fleet buyers. There must be loads of people who never need to put their car through an MOT and a rule change would not go down well.
 
Hi , my local Audi specialist has serviced my Pajero truck for years.

The garage always MOT the car prior to service.( As they do all cars in for MOT / Service.)

Two reasons , obtains parts for a a service and the owner of the garage has said to me how can you service a car and fail it's MOT.

If the card fails the MOT they give you a quote to bring the car up to the MOT standard.

I don't get any favours from the garage but all I want to know that the car is roadworthy and what work will be required in the future.

This garage relies on repeat business and the have an excellent local reputation.
 
Not directly related, but... I wonder, why are new cars exempt from MOT for the first three years?



So in short.... is there an elitist assumption here that people who can afford to buy new cars will be more responsible in taking care of them than those who drive old bangers and are likely to be up to no good....? Discuss :D
Part of the thinking will be to encourage people to buy new cars (generate tax revenues) with the incentive that they don't have to bother with an MOT.....?
 
Not directly related, but... I wonder, why are new cars exempt from MOT for the first three years?


I think the reason shines a light on the original purpose of the MOT which was to ensure there are no major structural or mechanical safety faults. New cars didn't wear out or corrode structurally in the first 3 years. You could argue that for modern cars the 3 years might be extended to 5 years for this very basic requirement.

The MOT has long since progressed from that simple purpose to include every major or minor thing they can think of with much more focus on emissions which means even newer cars could now fail on a technicality. There is something wrong if a new car can't be manufactured to be safe and clean for the first 3 years so I wouldn't support the MOT being extended to new cars. It's arguably for the manufacturer to correct anything needed to keep a car safe while it's under warranty and main dealer service in those 3 years.

My 42 year old motorcycle is exempt from the MOT inspection so it's now firmly my responsibility to keep it safe and roadworthy as the law requires. I can tell you it's considerably less stressful even though the Motorcycle MOT was always a good deal simpler than for a car.
 
Last edited:
Hi , my local Audi specialist has serviced my Pajero truck for years.

The garage always MOT the car prior to service.( As they do all cars in for MOT / Service.)

Two reasons , obtains parts for a a service and the owner of the garage has said to me how can you service a car and fail it's MOT.

If the card fails the MOT they give you a quote to bring the car up to the MOT standard.

I don't get any favours from the garage but all I want to know that the car is roadworthy and what work will be required in the future.

This garage relies on repeat business and the have an excellent local reputation.
Hi , business has now changed hands and prices have dramatically increased.

The owner has left the business and the service receptionist has followed him down the road.

They refuse to do a pre MOT test , reason is that the tester may find a fault that he missed on the pre mot test.
 
Another point to note is the MOT is done on a 4 post ramp and the service done on a 2 post ramp, so suspension hanging. Sometimes play doesn’t show in this position.
Still testers discretion to decide if it’s excessive or not, although there is a guide to follow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom