Car passed m.o.t - the receptionist told me the car is illegal to drive!

Tucker

scotsman4th wrote: »

They sure are, but what cowboy changed your brake light bulbs.

Me!

The bulb looked a like for like swap. But the connectors on the bottom were slightly different, so it was making a permanent connection! Ooops.

DCFC79

Surely a car either passes and mot or fails, theres no "technically it should have been a fail but they'd been lenient' but it 'should have failed due to one of the tyres being below the minimum legal requirement", its 1 or the other, sounds like the person you spoke to didnt know what he was on about or maybe he misunderstood what he should have said

cyclonebri1

DCFC79 wrote: »

Surely a car either passes and mot or fails, theres no "technically it should have been a fail but they'd been lenient' but it 'should have failed due to one of the tyres being below the minimum legal requirement", its 1 or the other, sounds like the person you spoke to didnt know what he was on about or maybe he misunderstood what he should have said

Or maybe she did???

angelicmary85

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Or maybe she did???

Like I said before, the receptionist took me away to a seperate area to tell me that it should have been failed.

risingsun wrote: »

I can't see the problem. If the OP wants a failure certificate, then why doesn't she just take it to a garage, pay them £35 and tell them to fail it.

I think maybe you've missed the point of my original post. I was asking for opinions on, what I classed, as a strange m.o.t

DCFC79

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Or maybe she did???

wel the OP said she didnt misunderstand the conversation

DCFC79

angelicmary85 wrote: »

Like I said before, the receptionist took me away to a seperate area to tell me that it should have been failed.



I think maybe you've missed the point of my original post. I was asking for opinions on, what I classed, as a strange m.o.t

what i think has happened is the staff member was telling you the advisories and they misunderstood it, was the place part of a country wide network or part of a dealership

mollycat

angelicmary85 wrote: »

I think maybe you've missed the point of my original post. I was asking for opinions on, what I classed, as a strange m.o.t

Yes, but WHY?

Thats the bit i dont get. You've got what every person who puts a car in for a MOT wants ...a Pass!!

If it SHOULD have failed, they WOULD have failed it.

Dont over analyse it.

Just go drive your car! :)

ktuludays

report the garage. if your car is not road legal they shouldn't have issued an mot certificate.

they sound well dodgy

cyclonebri1

angelicmary85 wrote: »

Like I said before, the receptionist took me away to a seperate area to tell me that it should have been failed.

Not what I meant. The previous poster dcfc79, referred to the receptionist as "he". I was making the point that maybe it was a non-technical "she" type receptionist who had it wrong? . No offence girls.

angelicmary85

DCFC79 wrote: »

what i think has happened is the staff member was telling you the advisories and they misunderstood it, was the place part of a country wide network or part of a dealership

It was Arnold Clark.

mollycat wrote: »

Yes, but WHY?

Thats the bit i dont get. You've got what every person who puts a car in for a MOT wants ...a Pass!!

Yes, everyone does want a pass but what I came here for was for other people's opinions on what I'd been told.

It's all well and good people saying och, it's o.k just forget it but that car is going on a 8-hour journey on Friday and to be perfectly frank, I'd like to make sure that my 2.5year old and my 1year old are in a safe car - especially as they said the brake shoe is dodgy.

Can't any of you understand why I'd ask for other people's opinions? As far as I'm concerned, it's not just about getting a pass, it's about the car being safe/legal to drive.