Mot fail and advisories

somech

suprised they passed it on the exhaust could fail that on excessive corrosion or major leak also could affect emissions.

oil leaks can fail an mot but have to be bad

tyres close to limit are advised when on about 3mm

£88 for front springs is very cheap would have thought £88 each is reasonable.

if pinging noise persists take it back for a check they may have fitted the springs incorrectly (not dangerous)

mollycat

artbaron wrote: »

Unneccessay like having a legal exhaust? Or legal tyres? Or tyres without nails in? Or functioning suspension? Or an engine with oil in?

You sound like someone I used to know, a real know-it-all. He once had an oil leak identified on an MOT - I had a look and told him he needed to get it fixed, as it was spraying near his cam belt. Nah, it's only an advisory, he said. Yeah, one which cost him £2.5K the very next week when the belt slipped.

She HAS a legal car...it's just passed it's MOT.

Your ill-informed opinion of me does nothing to detract from the fact you are plain wrong, (and a wee bit pompous too, if you dont mind me saying :rotfl:).

I think you're the real "know it all"; advocating someone NEEDS to go and act on the say so of some Kwick Fit technicians! :rotfl:

OP...glad you've had a bit more positivity on the board; that's the way it should be here. :)

trubble

No, sorry, she does NOT have a legal car because it's MOT'd.
The MOT is valid the day it's done. The day after, your car could fail a roadside police check, take out a bus queue due to a nail in a tyre giving way etc etc.
If you were to mow down a bus queue after a holed near-bald tyre blows out, and the insurance assessor finds the cause, the MOT is irrelevant.
Here, from what he OP says, it probably is legal, just.

december

I'm glad that some people have give you helpful advice With regards to checking the tyre pressure, I found this on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Rnoay5X_A

it's a bit patronising but might help.

Do you have a local garage which you can trust? If so I'd be tempted to take the car to them to get it checked over just to make sure as Kwik Fit does have a reputation sometimes for saying that things need done when they don't. If you're in Staffs, send me a PM and I can recommend a good garage who I took my recent purchase to and who checked over the MOT advisories that it had for nothing and advised me that it was OK for the time being and for the near future, he didn't charge me anything.

I would keep checking though to make sure that the tread on your tyres are legal but the rest of the advisories, I couldn't advise you on.

I think it's a bit much tbh to say that the OP has been an irresponsible or negligent car owner which is what some of the posts seem to imply. Certain parts of the car will need replacing at times regardless of how well maintained the car is, due to simple wear and tear. It has nothing to do with negligence.

artbaron

mollycat wrote: »

She HAS a legal car...it's just passed it's MOT.

It's been clearly stated that she has a number of items identified as borderline illegal and she cannot afford to get them all fixed at once. Therefore these items will fail to be legal in the near future unless she does something about it now. How is that unclear?

And I'm sure even the muppets and Kwik Fit (note I spell it correctly) can identify a bald tyre.

My point, already clearly made, is that taking the time and making repairs in a timely fashion saves a lot of money and a lot of hassle when dealing with cars. Clearly you don't agree and this indicates you don't know a car from a hole in the ground.

december wrote: »

I think it's a bit much tbh to say that the OP has been an irresponsible or negligent car owner which is what some of the posts seem to imply. Certain parts of the car will need replacing at times regardless of how well maintained the car is, due to simple wear and tear. It has nothing to do with negligence.

I disagree. To have that many issues coming as a surprise in an MOT suggests that the OP has not taken care of that car. It's impossible to maintain a car properly and only realise it's in that state when the MOT fails and advisories crop up. That is the reason for the OP's current dilemma, nothing else.

december

artbaron wrote: »

You need to get them all done. Advisories aren't things that are just nice to have, they are advance notice of problems that need fixing but aren't yet serious enough to fail the MOT. Any one of those issues could be a seriously big problem if left long enough.

And I know I sound like a parrot, but if you'd maintained the car properly you would be coming out of this hundreds, probably thousands, of pounds better off than you are now. Now, it's a case of juggling priorities just to keep it legal. If you can't afford to get all these done then I suggest you sell the car now, pay the finance and take the loss, before you throw even more money away.

They has maintained the vehicle to a certain extent as has had it serviced reguarly. In addition, damage can be caused by wear and tear. In its current state the car is legal, whether or not it will be roadworthy in a few month's/week's time is a different matter but it is legal however I agree with your first point that the advisories are an indication of work that will be need to be done in the future.

I would disagree actually with this comment as the OP has asked which of the faults it is more vital to get done first, it may be possible for them to rectify the most urgent faults first and then in a month or so's time, get the other work done. I don't see how paying for the faults to be fixed can be seen as throwing money away?

blue_haddock

there is nothing there that is really anything other than general wear and tear so if you cant afford to run the car then sell it and get the bus.

If the punto is a 1.2 i would hazard a guess at the oil leak being the sump which are very prone to rusting through on these.

december

artbaron wrote: »

It's been clearly stated that she has a number of items identified as borderline illegal and she cannot afford to get them all fixed at once. Therefore these items will fail to be legal in the near future unless she does something about it now. How is that unclear?

And I'm sure even the muppets and Kwik Fit (note I spell it correctly) can identify a bald tyre.

My point, already clearly made, is that taking the time and making repairs in a timely fashion saves a lot of money and a lot of hassle when dealing with cars. Clearly you don't agree and this indicates you don't know a car from a hole in the ground.



I disagree. To have that many issues coming as a surprise in an MOT suggests that the OP has not taken care of that car. It's impossible to maintain a car properly and only realise it's in that state when the MOT fails and advisories crop up. That is the reason for the OP's current dilemma, nothing else.

Advisories are indicators that the vehicle will need that work completing in the future. They do not indicate necessarily that the vehicle is borderline illegal. My car has advisories on the exhaust and also on the brake disc however I have taken it to a garage and had them checked over. The garage has advised that the car will probably pass its next MOT with the same advisories, advisories just mean that the work will need doing some time in the future. It may be sooner rather than later but they don't make the car illegal.

OK I agree that the OP should have checked the tyres but they were still legal anyway which is a point that you seem to be missing. Not all of us are mechanics though and car parts do become damaged over time due to wear and tear. I totally disagree with your last comment though.

artbaron

december wrote: »

OK I agree that the OP should have checked the tyres but they were still legal anyway which is a point that you seem to be missing.

I think this is being done to death, but I am not missing this point. If tyres are marked as advisory - one with a nail in - and she is using the car reguarly, and she cannot afford to get the tyres replaced, they will become illegal. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. I never once said her car was illegal now, I said that it will be if she does not fix the faults, and this she states she cannot do due to lack of funds.

december wrote: »

I totally disagree with your last comment though.

Then we'll agree to disagree. All I can say is I've driven 1.5m miles and never missed an MOT and in that time have had no fails and only one advisory. That's not some kind of weird boast, that's saying that proper maintenance of a car means that I don't suddenly find myself unexpectedly having to fork out money I don't have.

mollycat

artbaron wrote: »

And I'm sure even the muppets and Kwik Fit (note I spell it correctly) can identify a bald tyre.

My point, already clearly made, is that taking the time and making repairs in a timely fashion saves a lot of money and a lot of hassle when dealing with cars. Clearly you don't agree and this indicates you don't know a car from a hole in the ground.



I disagree. To have that many issues coming as a surprise in an MOT suggests that the OP has not taken care of that car. It's impossible to maintain a car properly and only realise it's in that state when the MOT fails and advisories crop up. That is the reason for the OP's current dilemma, nothing else.

Congratulations on your spelling

What appalling self esteem you have that you need to point it out though.:rotfl::rotfl:.

No one has said regular servicing to keep a car in good running order and therefore save money in the long term is a bad thing; that is a deliberate misrepresentation of previous posts to support your arguement...poor show .

Your arguement is that it is necessarry for the OP to address MOT advisories identified by a fast fit outlet immediately, even making up nonsense jargon like "borderline illegal" to add merit to your point.

I disagree with this.

You also suggest the OP is deficient in the servicing of her vehicle; there is no evidence of this.

That is insulting to OP, whom you do not know.

The content of your posts suggest you should not be apportioning a lack of knowledge of motor vehicles to others, not by any means. :rotfl: