failed mot????

jblack_2

mummyevs wrote: »

A difference of opinion would be fine, however an unfair assumption that someone is commiting a motoring offence is not a difference of opinion...

It was my opinion, it was different to others I was corrected. I'd call that a difference of opinion.

It seems to me that you are one of those people who is always right and have posted on here to simply have your ego massaged (again this is my opinion). If you knew you were right then why post on here?

Run along now and play with the 'nice' people:D

mummyevs

mummyevs wrote: »

skiddlydiddly and quentin thankyou that is correct..

why would people assume id be driving it iligally,maybe the people who assume that shouldnt tar everyone with the same brush they use!!!
again some nice people on here!!!

And you will notice this was posted before you stood corrected?? so why then feel the need to come up with the comment about back-side kissing??
Im not an ego feeder,i just dont feel its very appropriate for people to come onto a site where someone has genuinly asked for some advice and get jumped on like i have, (note the posts at the beggining also) but i guess its all too easy to sit at a pc and shoot people down? maybe im wrong.. maybe im right.. but thats just my "opinion" on the matter??
And if you note from my first post i told my experience and asked for any replies to it. not for people to then start correcting my spelling?? i mean come onn.... it went from spelling correction to being a criminal???

Paradigm

mummyevs wrote: »

And you will notice this was posted before you stood corrected?? so why then feel the need to come up with the comment about back-side kissing??
Im not an ego feeder,i just dont feel its very appropriate for people to come onto a site where someone has genuinly asked for some advice and get jumped on like i have, (note the posts at the beggining also) but i guess its all too easy to sit at a pc and shoot people down? maybe im wrong.. maybe im right.. but thats just my "opinion" on the matter??
And if you note from my first post i told my experience and asked for any replies to it. not for people to then start correcting my spelling?? i mean come onn.... it went from spelling correction to being a criminal???

You'll get used to it after a while & soon recognise the real helpers from the halo wearing "I never do anything wrong" brigade

darich

jblack wrote: »

The fact still remains, the driver has been told the car is not roadworthy by an authorised body yet continues to drive it.

Have you ever discovered you've got a bulb out somewhere on the car?
or handbrake needed adjusting?
or some other minor work but would otherwise fail an MOT?
how did you fix it?

did you drive your unroadworthy car to the nearest autoshop for a replacement bulb/garage for the work to be done, or did you get the bus?

Would you have argued that your MOT was still valid if the police had pulled you in?

Are you always this unreasonable?

jblack_2

darich wrote: »

Have you ever discovered you've got a bulb out somewhere on the car?
or handbrake needed adjusting?
or some other minor work but would otherwise fail an MOT?
how did you fix it?

did you drive your unroadworthy car to the nearest autoshop for a replacement bulb/garage for the work to be done, or did you get the bus?

Would you have argued that your MOT was still valid if the police had pulled you in?

Are you always this unreasonable?

The brakes on a car are hardly the same as a bulb. The brakes WILL prevent an accident. A bulb is more a minor annoyance to other road users.

If I were to find a bulb had blown a month after my MOT I would not drive around for the next 11 months without replacing it because I still had an MOT.

If a cars tyres were all worn down to the cord is that the same as a blown bulb? If it is then why is it not an automatic 3 points and up to £2500 fine per bulb?

Would you have argued that your MOT was still valid if the police had pulled you in with bald tyres?

I fail to see how this discussion is a case of being reasonable or unreasonable? People post on forums to promote discussion or debate. Am I unreasonable for having different views to others?

KillerWatt

jblack wrote: »

Your car failed its MOT due to faulty brakes (rightly or wrongly). If you had an accident or were pulled over whilst driving around they'd through the book at you for knowingly driving an unroadworthy car.

Only if it can be proved that the accident was a result of the alleged defective parts.

As far as being pulled over goes, it is only traffic cops and those that have some formal qualification in motor vehicle engineering that are deemed qualified in law to say whether a car is defective or not (after they have conducted the relevant tests to prove of course).

darich

jblack wrote: »

The brakes on a car are hardly the same as a bulb. The brakes WILL prevent an accident. A bulb is more a minor annoyance to other road users.

If I were to find a bulb had blown a month after my MOT I would not drive around for the next 11 months without replacing it because I still had an MOT.

If a cars tyres were all worn down to the cord is that the same as a blown bulb? If it is then why is it not an automatic 3 points and up to £2500 fine per bulb?

Would you have argued that your MOT was still valid if the police had pulled you in with bald tyres?

I fail to see how this discussion is a case of being reasonable or unreasonable? People post on forums to promote discussion or debate. Am I unreasonable for having different views to others?

The OP has been told by several garages that the brakes are fine. So even if one garage wants to fail the MOT there are others that don't, meaning the brakes aren't unsafe.

Aside from that you had a go at the OP for driving an unroadworthy car but freely admit to doing the same, unless of course you do get the bus to the garage for a sidelight bulb?

Differing views are perfectly acceptable but it's unfair to state "The fact still remains, the driver has been told the car is not roadworthy by an authorised body yet continues to drive it." in an attack on the OP then admit to doing the exact same thing yourself.

jblack_2

darich wrote: »

Differing views are perfectly acceptable but it's unfair to state "The fact still remains, the driver has been told the car is not roadworthy by an authorised body yet continues to drive it." in an attack on the OP then admit to doing the exact same thing yourself.

What part of that is not true? I'd hardly call that an attack on the OP.

The OP is obviously well versed at attacking people. Check post 12 of this thread for a perfect example of how they react to posts they don't agree with.

mummyevs

jblack wrote: »

The OP is obviously well versed at attacking people. Check post 12 of this thread for a perfect example of how they react to posts they don't agree with.

Or maybe the fact i came on here and asked for advice then had some awkward person pick out every mistake id made, (maybe confusingly putting the garages etc,and my spelling) when quite clearly by reading my ongoing posts you could see what i was saying! prompted me to (as it would most people)
basically tell that person to grow up!! and either say something constructive in referance to what i asked or find someone elce to annoy!
I dont think that was an attack more an assumption of what that person is and does....
Again maybe im right...maybe im wrong... but as was said were all entitled to our opinions??;)

Mr_Oink

The only advice you need is this:
1. Your car requires an MOT to be driven legally on the road (any other opinion, argument etc is largely irrelevant)
2. If you are unhappy with an MOT and wish to appeal complete a form VT17 and appeal it.
3. KwikFit are (in this area) notorious for getting it wrong and making as much out of you as they can. Their own MOT testers contradict their staff. If you are happy with what KwikFit getting it right, let them MOT your car ;-)

I did note this regarding KwikFit; I don't have any issues with the Prison Community myself (a family member has served a sentence) but I'm sure some may be a little weary of this: http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/prisoninformation/locateaprison/prison.asp?id=3053,15,2,15,625,0 (see foot of page)