MOT Question

[Sideways]

Hi

Let's imagine.....

You take your car for its MOT and it fails, nothing major, a little rust for example. You disagree with the MOT centre, you think they are exaggerating just to get some work out of you.

So you take your car to a different MOT centre and don't mention what happened at the first garage.

Are all cars registered on a central database? If I take my car to a second garage can they simple enter the Registration number into a computer and read the report from the first garage? about the failure and why it failed?

Or is there a good chance the second garage could simply pass the MOT and not notice any 'rust'?

Just curious...

[Quentin]

There is an appeals procedure if you think your car should have passed. But you need to act quickly - the appeal must be made within 14 working days of the test.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022113

[MX5huggy]

Did the 1st garage use the yellow crayon of doom to mark the rust area? you need to get all that off before trying again.

I would just take the car to another garage for a second opinion and get the work done there.

[Sideways]

Did the 1st garage use the yellow crayon of doom to mark the rust area? you need to get all that off before trying again.

I would just take the car to another garage for a second opinion and get the work done there.

I havent had the MOT done yet, its this Sat.

Im antisipating a failure and wondering what my next move could be. I plan to scrap the car in Spring and buy a new one, I didnt want to spend loads just to get it through a MOT only to get rid of it a few months later.

[Keith]

Little bit of rust might be easily solved with Mr Welder so shouldn't be too difficult.

I had my car remoted yesterday after a fail and it was done from a blank sheet the tester only knew what it had failed on before as I told him :)

[anewman]

The one's trying to con you will generally not issue a fail cert so it won't be on the MOT system. That way they can't be done for failing a car unnecessarily, but can get money out of you for the work.

[sturll]

In future you could save your self the hassle and make sure you go somewhere that only do MOT's. They have no reason to con you. In fact its better if they dont since they have to retest for free within 10 days (on most faults)

[Keith]

I wouldn't go to an MOT only place especially the council run ones, as I expect they follow the book to the letter.

I'd rather find somewhere, where the tester will get a spanner and fix the issue rather than fail the car

[moonrakerz]

You take your car for its MOT and it fails, nothing major, a little rust for example.

A car won't fail an MoT on a "little" rust !

[oldagetraveller]

I wouldn't go to an MOT only place especially the council run ones, as I expect they follow the book to the letter.



Shouldn't they all?:confused: Otherwise what's the point? The test standard should be universally the same. Any establishment not carrying out the inspection properly and thoroughly don't deserve the business and need reporting.

[Conor]

Hi

Let's imagine.....

You take your car for its MOT and it fails, nothing major, a little rust for example. You disagree with the MOT centre, you think they are exaggerating just to get some work out of you.

So you take your car to a different MOT centre and don't mention what happened at the first garage.

Are all cars registered on a central database? If I take my car to a second garage can they simple enter the Registration number into a computer and read the report from the first garage? about the failure and why it failed?

Or is there a good chance the second garage could simply pass the MOT and not notice any 'rust'?

Just curious...

Well the MOT fail would be registered on the database. BUT, what do you do if the second place fails it? They might not even fail it on the same things as the first one. You've now forked out £90 in test fees when the original repair might've only been £30 or so and if the second station fail it on a list of new stuff, then you're in a real quandry.

Rust holes are only a fail if they're within 30cm of a structural or suspension component and/or lead to sharp edges on the exterior bodywork. You could have a hole in the floor but as long as it's at least 30cm away from the seatbelt mounts and the suspension mountings, it'd pass.

[MX5huggy]

I havent had the MOT done yet, its this Sat.

Im antisipating a failure and wondering what my next move could be. I plan to scrap the car in Spring and buy a new one, I didnt want to spend loads just to get it through a MOT only to get rid of it a few months later.

Stop thinking about how to get a cert for a car that is not up to standard, take the car to another garage and ask them their opinon on the rust. If it needs doing it should not cost much if you are happy to have a quick and rough patch welded on.

Or just wait till Sat and maybe it will pass, or it fails spectaulary breaks suspesion stearing all shot so you scrap it now.

[jeannieblue]

If its a tiny bit - then Mr Welder (as suggested before) will sort it and you have passed, well the car has.

Its not a huge problem...

But I think that your question is not about rust in particular, its about whether a fail is registered on the VOSA system and whether another garage will have access to it. I don't think so, but I don't know so. Either way, if the testers are honest and do their job properly, it will fail both times for the same fault - or more, if anything else develops in the mean time.

Bite the bullet and get it tested.

[Keith]

Shouldn't they all?:confused: Otherwise what's the point? The test standard should be universally the same. Any establishment not carrying out the inspection properly and thoroughly don't deserve the business and need reporting.

No, as the test is subjective and down to the opinion of the tester.

The test is full of words like "excessively worn" to one tester excessive wear can be on the limit to another it's got a fair bit of life in it.

The only part of the test which is measured irc is the brake and emissions test.

[jeannieblue]

No, as the test is subjective and down to the opinion of the tester.

The test is full of words like "excessively worn" to one tester excessive wear can be on the limit to another it's got a fair bit of life in it.

The only part of the test which is measured irc is the brake and emissions test.
I know that it can vary with the testers Keith, but it is not as lax as you make it sound, the testers do have to meet the standards, regardless - and as it is their livelihood, its not worth their while to be lackadaisical.

I know that one of our guys is stricter on brake pipes than the others, but they still all test to the standards of VOSA. They have to.

[molerat]

I know that one of our guys is stricter on brake pipes than the others, but they still all test to the standards of VOSA. Isn't that exactly what keith said, much of the test is subjective. How can he be stricter if there is a "standard". :confused:

[Keith]

Isn't that exactly what keith said, much of the test is subjective. How can he be stricter if there is a "standard". :confused:

Exactly

visible metal or flexible brake pipes will be checked for corrosion, condition, fouling or leaks

flexible brake pipes and any other metal brake pipes visible beneath the car are checked

So the tester as Jeannie said is looking for corrosion and condition of the brake pipes, his opinion that they are excessively worn may not agree with his colleague who would pass the same car.

The motorcycle test is even sillier "are the indicators, handlebars and foot rests secure". One Tester may agree that the indicators are secure by use of sellotape to fasten them to the bike!

[cyclonebri1]

The common sense approach has been mentioned already.

If you are unsure about a simple, obvious fault, ie, a rust hole, take it to a trusted garage/mot station and ask them if it will pass. If they don't give a yes or no answer go elsewhere.

A non structural hole can be taped or filled over to render it "safe" for little no cost.:money:

[Keith]

If you are unsure about a simple, obvious fault, ie, a rust hole, take it to a trusted garage/mot station and ask them if it will pass. If they don't give a yes or no answer go elsewhere.

This is what I did last weekend, as I posted before I had quite a terrible fail. One item was the windscreen.

I took the car to another test place to see if they would fail it for the same chip and the guy said he wouldn't.

Took 2 seconds "Would this pass the MOT?" "Yes" "Thanks, can I book a test please"

[Conor]

I took the car to another test place to see if they would fail it for the same chip and the guy said he wouldn't.

Took 2 seconds "Would this pass the MOT?" "Yes" "Thanks, can I book a test please"

WTF don't people just fix the faults on their cars? It's no wonder there's so many death traps on the road.

[Keith]

Why? A chip on a windscreen which isn't a fail according to the MOT testers handbook shouldn't cause an MOT fail.

If you didn't agree with the diagnosis of a fault would you proceed with the first suggested repair?

[Conor]

Why? A chip on a windscreen which isn't a fail according to the MOT testers handbook shouldn't cause an MOT fail.

Because it can lead to a cracked windscreen which costs far more. Lots of faults aren't testable. For example, the oil level isn't tested and neither is the water level. Does that mean it's a good idea to drive around with next to no oil or water in the engine?


If you didn't agree with the diagnosis of a fault would you proceed with the first suggested repair?
No but then again, I'm a qualified mechanic with main dealership experience, not someone who is just unhappy at being told they might have to spend some money.

[Keith]

Because it can lead to a cracked windscreen which costs far more.

Never mind main dealer experience, you could be an MOT tester with posts like that.

It's survived for over a year with the same chip, so I'll risk another year.

As for:-

not someone who is just unhappy at being told they might have to spend some money.

Damn right I'm not happy, when an MOT tester gets a test so wrong that not one, not two not three but four fail items are missed, whilst another 3 items which should of passed the test are failed I've got good reason to not be happy and question his opinion.

[Conor]

How do you know they were actually testable items in the first place or that they were sufficiently bad to fail?

Did you follow the complaints procedurte, taking the car to VOSA when it failed and you disagreed with the testers opinion?

No, thought not.

[Keith]

No because the complaint procedure has to be completed within 14 days of the fail, and the worst of the missed items the steering rack being loose wasn't brought to my attention until a further MOT test 2 months later.

Unless of course in the space of 3 miles, both bolts worked their way loose.

The other items unfortunately are down to opinion and not worth appealing, yet if the vehicle had passed the test, it could of been on the road for 13 months with the steering rack barely held in.

And no it wasn't a tester looking for work as he happily fastened it up instead of failing the car.

[cyclonebri1]

Steady guys, both valid viewpoints but neither can be universal, Yeah?

You must admit there are some very minor MOT failure points and some very major ones. In simplistic terms the car fails the MOT either way.

But compare the car that fails the test on defective/corroded brakes:eek: , to the other that has an illegal number plate, cracked?:wall: :wall: :wall: , or 0.1mg defect on emissions.

Both views are valid.

[jeannieblue]

Isn't that exactly what keith said, much of the test is subjective. How can he be stricter if there is a "standard". :confused:
Ok, may be I fell into that one... :D

Its just that the guy in question, if he sees a vague sign of corrosion on the pipes then he will fail the vehicle immediately. The others may advise on it. More corrosion, then they would fail it. Its a tough one. But agreed when you have a tester that is paranoid re brakes :eek: its not easy - but better to be safe than sorry he says. I get his point.

[jeannieblue]

Why? A chip on a windscreen which isn't a fail according to the MOT testers handbook shouldn't cause an MOT fail.

If you didn't agree with the diagnosis of a fault would you proceed with the first suggested repair?
Not picking on you Keith honest, love you really..:smileyhea

Re the windscreen - this is clearer re MOT than anything.

The chip has to be of a certain size and in a certain zone (zone 'A' being in drivers vision) to be a fail. So if they failed it and it was under the size and in zone 'B' for example, then they should be pulled up on that.

If the windscreen is cracked, its a fail.

[Keith]

I'm not shy, see point 4

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3521/1000883fj6.jpg

The windscreen has a chip, its out of zone a. It has another to the left in the dirty area not swept by the wipers. The tester couldn't believe it.

The tester also laughed at points 2 & 3 as I didn't even touch the wipers. Fail, erm they seem to work well and the jets are wetting the screen.

Amazingly for a car which was in such "poor" condition, aced it's MOT this week :D I dread to think how much I'd of been charged by Garage A.

Ah well, live and learn. One garage has lost a client and another gained one.

[Wig]

Can the 2nd MOT tester see the previous fail points? I dunno for sure, but I think they can. I'd be interested to know the correct answer.

[Keith]

Can the 2nd MOT tester see the previous fail points? I dunno for sure, but I think they can. I'd be interested to know the correct answer.

Nope they can't.

They print a blank test sheet and then enter the pass on the PC. The PC locks whilst the test is in progress, I found an old skool garage and the guy was very good, took me round the car showing what he was testing for.

Instead of 30-40 minutes, it took nearly 90, which was cool as I learned so much from him.

I guess if they, have tested the car before or hold a fail sheet they can raise the fail points via the PC but I guess they are removed after the end of the retest dates.

[Conor]

I'm not shy, see point 4


Amazingly for a car which was in such "poor" condition, aced it's MOT this week :D

Means nothing. I can still get a car MOT'd that's sat under two more in a scrapyard without it ever moving if I so wished.

How did you get it past the emissions?

[SpoonyOh]

Isn't it one of VOSA's own comments that states an MOT isn't a sign of a vehicle's roadworthiness?
The OH knows a mechanic via another forum who had VOSA pitch up outside his garage and pick cars leaving their MOTs to double check the standard. They closed him down after failing a car he'd just passed.
I'm curious about the emissions test too. Was it the original engine?

[cyclonebri1]

Means nothing. I can still get a car MOT'd that's sat under two more in a scrapyard without it ever moving if I so wished.

How did you get it past the emissions?


Not aimed at you Keith, but there's a very well known dodge at certain mot stations.

The 15 year old Sierra fails it's emissions test, so the sensor gets shoved up the exhaust pipe of the 5 year old Fiesta parked next to it:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

It happens.

[Sideways]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

An earlier poster was correct, this wasnt a question about rust (my car doesnt have a problem with rust), it was a question about certain problems being logged on a central computer for all other test centres to view.

I do have a small hole in my exhaust, can anyone tell me if this is an MOT failure? My MOT is tomorrow morning btw.

[Wig]

I do have a small hole in my exhaust, can anyone tell me if this is an MOT failure? My MOT is tomorrow morning btw.

I believe a hole in exhaust, no matter how small is a fail. if it's on mid point on the pipe it will be an easy fix, if it is where the pipe joins a silencer box then your repair (if small hole) whilst easy to do will not last very long.

For mid pipe hole use an exhast bandage, sand down the pipe with emery cloth first, this may cause other holes to appear out of the rust. and then cover all holes with bandage - start the car immediately to seal the bandage.

For a pipe/box joint hole, rub down with emery cloth wipe clean with a damp cloth, press Holts Gun Gum onto the area, and allow to dry naturally for a few hours before starting the car.

[cyclonebri1]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

An earlier poster was correct, this wasnt a question about rust (my car doesnt have a problem with rust), it was a question about certain problems being logged on a central computer for all other test centres to view.

I do have a small hole in my exhaust, can anyone tell me if this is an MOT failure? My MOT is tomorrow morning btw.



You started the post and put rust in the equation:confused: :confused: That could be why it went that route:rolleyes:

[mrbadexample]

Nope they can't.



Correct. Second garage don't have access to the reasons why the first one failed it. :)

[jeannieblue]

You started the post and put rust in the equation:confused: :confused: That could be why it went that route:rolleyes:
But if you read back to the original post, you can see that it was a question that was posed hypothetically. (Not sure I've spelt that right...:o )

[anewman]

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3521/1000883fj6.jpg

Park brake efficiency 10%. Hope you not been parking on hills :D

[jeannieblue]

keith,

If any of that was untrue and proven, you should complain to VOSA. Otherwise, all the idiots won't get pulled up and make it rough on the rest of us that are doing a good and fair job.

[Keith]

keith,

If any of that was untrue and proven, you should complain to VOSA. Otherwise, all the idiots won't get pulled up and make it rough on the rest of us that are doing a good and fair job.

If I'd taken the advice when it first failed I should of appealed. But I considered the fact that some of the items on the fail could fail it, so saved my cash to repair it.

As it became obvious that the tester had taken the !!!!, it was simply too late to do anything.

When I had it tested again this week and the tester pointed out the loose steering rack it's made me so furious with the first place that I wish I could do something however, I'm time barred and can't.

How did you get it past the emissions?

The test center refused to supply the emissions results, as I didn't ask for them at the time of the fail. My own fault for not realising cars without cats get the little slip. So...

Without access to a gas analyser I had to go back to basics, renewing the igntion amp, a sender for the ECU which tells it the temp of the engine (I guess like a choke), new HT leads, replaced the afm with a spare and slightly retarded the timing.

The tester commented that it was fine, perhaps it could do with having the injectors cleaned but it was way under the limits.

Park brake efficiency 10%. Hope you not been parking on hills :D

It's way over the acceptable limit with 16%, I should of asked what the limit was, on the retest it failed that again. Turns out some !!!! forgot to reconnect the handbrake cable to one of the calipers! :eek:

Not dressed for car work, I asked if I could borrow some tools and removed the caliper and refitted the handbrake cable :D

Quickly returned for a free retest by driving back into the test center and I came out with my certificate.