MOT Failure

[DSM10000]

Two year tests are fine by me.

Personal responsibility needs to be encouraged. Those who wish to be nannied or need reassurance can of course have a test at more frequent intervals.

Those who live in the salty wastelands of Northern Scotland must be required to submit to a monthly inspection with a full mot at quarterly intervals.

The last part, is that the vehicle or the driver?

 

[BTB 500]

Of course the oldest vehicles on our roads (pre October '81) don't get MOT'd at all ...

 

[DSM10000]

Of course the oldest vehicles on our roads (pre October '81) don't get MOT'd at all ...

Indeed.

I can support the free RFL but not inspecting vehicles of that age seems counter intuitive.

 

[geoffus]

Indeed.

I can support the free RFL but not inspecting vehicles of that age seems counter intuitive.

How many of those older "classics" are still maintained by enthusiastic owners ?
I would imagine nearly everyone of them, they most likely do max 1000 miles a year, never see a motorway, have their wheels removed and cleaned weekly and suspension greased with Castrol LM twice a year.

My wifes old next door neighbor always had his MGC GT jacked up every sunday when we called for dinner at her parents, I was intrigued as he used to remove the wire wheels with a copper mallet.

 

[BTB 500]

How many of those older "classics" are still maintained by enthusiastic owners ?
I would imagine nearly everyone of them, they most likely do max 1000 miles a year, never see a motorway, have their wheels removed and cleaned weekly and suspension greased with Castrol LM twice a year.

My wifes old next door neighbor always had his MGC GT jacked up every sunday when we called for dinner at her parents, I was intrigued as he used to remove the wire wheels with a copper mallet.

There are certainly cars in that category, but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of old sheds (including vans etc.) that aren't.

 

[DSM10000]

How many of those older "classics" are still maintained by enthusiastic owners ?
I would imagine nearly everyone of them, they most likely do max 1000 miles a year, never see a motorway, have their wheels removed and cleaned weekly and suspension greased with Castrol LM twice a year.

My wifes old next door neighbor always had his MGC GT jacked up every sunday when we called for dinner at her parents, I was intrigued as he used to remove the wire wheels with a copper mallet.

As the cars age so do the "enthusiastic" and owners though.

 

[190]

Of course the oldest vehicles on our roads (pre October '81) don't get MOT'd at all ...

My 79 BMW motorcycle has been MOT exempt for several years but the risks of riding an unsafe motorcycle is sufficient incentive to make sure I keep on top of things. I watched what the tester did close up for many years and it wasn't much. If only car MOT's were so simple. The only thing I can't replicate myself is the roller brake test although the pass thresholds are so low I'm not missing much.

For me The car MOT has long since ceased to be a basic safety check that could be linked to actual road safety. It's now an increasingly endless list of nit picking which I believe the testers hate as much as the owners. I wouldn't support a 2 year MOT but I would support a vastly simpler inspection that put the focus back on core safety features that are proven to cause accidents on the road.

 

[Nicebutdim]

The last part, is that the vehicle or the driver?

in the case of certain members of this forum…..both.

 

[BTB 500]

For me The car MOT has long since ceased to be a basic safety check that could be linked to actual road safety.

Of course a fair bit of it is about emissions etc. now.

 

[pmcgsmurf]

Of course the oldest vehicles on our roads (pre October '81) don't get MOT'd at all ...

They don't require an MOT by law, does not mean you cannot still MOT them, we do with all ours.
Keeps an excellent record for future reference.

 

[John]

A couple of times I've been miffed when I've had cars that have failed, or been given advisories, on things that would have been rectified at service. Service Managers insisted that VOSA implores garages to test cars before working on them, so they get a true picture of the state of cars on the road - they twisted this to say VOSA says they must test "as presented". That's true, but it's as presented for the test, not as presented to the garage!

Yeah exactly. Taking a car to a dealer to be serviced knowing the service would resolve outstanding issues doesn't mean you would have presented your car for MOT as a failure.

Jobsworths.

I had something similar at Kwik Fit folkestone a few years ago with the 968 cab. As he drove the car into the test bay I noticed that one brake light was not working. told the guy, and said I had a spare bulb and could change it in 5 minutes - but he insisted on doing the test and failing her. 5 minutes later, in their car park, I'd changed the bulb abd checked it worked, called him out to see it - he checked the other lights as well, then told me that as he was "in the system" with another vehicle he could not issue the pass cert for another hour, so I went home and had them post it to me!

I booked Mrs John's Juke in for a service and MOT one year with Nissan.

Discovered a brake light whilst checking the obvious.

Told Nissan a brake light had failed and could they replace it given the pending MOT.

They MOT'd it, failed it, replaced the brake light and then surprise surprise passed it.

I guess this would tie in with the stupidity Rory mentions above.

Not that I care about the MOT history one iota - what's more annoying is the sheer stupidity of the situation.

 

[Nicebutdim]

In the words of Blackadder…

”I would rather place my john thomas in the hands of a mindless lunatic with a pair of scissors than hand over my classic motor vehicles to some hamfisted MOT tester”

Seriously, why would i needlessly hand over my pride and joy to some commercially motivated individual? What if he scratches it, drops it, or damages it in some way? I pride myself on the appearance and mechanical integrity of my classics.

 

[Wolfie1]

In the words of Blackadder…

”I would rather place my john thomas in the hands of a mindless lunatic with a pair of scissors than hand over my classic motor vehicles to some hamfisted MOT tester”

Seriously, why would i needlessly hand over my pride and joy to some commercially motivated individual? What if he scratches it, drops it, or damages it in some way? I pride myself on the appearance and mechanical integrity of my classics.

The same can be said about a lot of things! Why should i have to pay my hard earned money to a bean counting pen pushers every months for various things every month where they could lose, steal or scam me out of my money. Just saying!

 

[BlackC55]

MOT tests are a minimal standard. What I would say is very worn can be an advisory at MOT. Any play in a ball joint IMO (and MB standard) then it needs to be replaced. MOT standard allows an unbelievable amount of leeway.

 

[Rob77]

A garage I used years ago had a virtually 100% pass rate. That was because he would offer a pre MOT inspection, and advise the owner what would need to be done, if anything . He didn't do repairs so no way of making money. He was hounded by the authorities, but kept meticulous records so there was nothing they could argue with. There was even a "secret shopper" type attempt who brought in a total shed. Soon sussed them and sent them on their way.
I agree it's nonsense to fail on low washer fluid and similar, just to make up the numbers. At the opposite end of the scale in my neck of the woods there are apparently 1 or 2 dodgy places where an MOT can be obtained in "special" circumstances. Stupid thing to do.

What's to stop us from doing that now? I'd happily pay to get my car pre-MOTed, plus any necessary repairs, prior to the MOT itself - why would that be a problem?

 

[Deleted member 159894]

What's to stop us from doing that now? I'd happily pay to get my car pre-MOTed, plus any necessary repairs, prior to the MOT itself - why would that be a problem?

Nothing, it’s exactly what I do with my dog car. Never had an advisory even.

 

[neilrr]

If you watch any video on youtube with the words " customer states" in the title it immediately becomes clear that while MOTs may be a PITA they are absolutely necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=customer+states

 

[Rob77]

If you watch any video on youtube with the words " customer states" in the title it immediately becomes clear that while MOTs may be a PITA they are absolutely necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=customer+states

I totally accept they are necessary, I'm just finding the recent pedantry very annoying. To fail on things like a blown bulb and a worn wiper blade is just ridiculous when they could have been easily fixed as part of the process, which is what used to happen. And the "advisories" are even worse. If they'll tell me what it needs, I'll do it.

 

[pmcgsmurf]

I totally accept they are necessary, I'm just finding the recent pedantry very annoying. To fail on things like a blown bulb and a worn wiper blade is just ridiculous when they could have been easily fixed as part of the process, which is what used to happen. And the "advisories" are even worse. If they'll tell me what it needs, I'll do it.

I don't get that.
The MOT tester tests the car to a pre defined set of standards, if a required bulb is out it is fail, that much is simple.

If it should not fail on these items becuase they should have been caught in the service that is another matter and not one for the MOT tester.

My 212 is due for an MOT, will be well checked then pre mot for £50 before the MOT for snother £50.
If first £50 is a ok then I'll only pay the £50.

 

[Rob77]

I don't get that.
The MOT tester tests the car to a pre defined set of standards, if a required bulb is out it is fail, that much is simple.

If it should not fail on these items becuase they should have been caught in the service that is another matter and not one for the MOT tester.

My 212 is due for an MOT, will be well checked then pre mot for £50 before the MOT for snother £50.
If first £50 is a ok then I'll only pay the £50.

In the case of the bulb, it was working when I dropped it off. It must've failed while it was in the garage. I'm not complaining about that, bulbs fail. But now I have a permanent record of a fail, when I would've been happy to pay to sort it first.

A fail also means I have an unroadworthy car for 2 weeks, until I can get it booked back in again.