MOT Complaint

Moody_Mare

Hi guys wondering if anyone can help with advice please? My husbands car has just failed it's MOT at the age of the car we never expect it to pass but this fail is rather large and suspiscious. It is a 91 H Reg Toyota Celica (Not import) who has been well maintained over the years, owned from nearly new and only does a few hundred miles per year.

Failure report states excessive corrosion on 2 year old sills and suspension and seatbelt mounting points. (seat belt mounting points not visable as under carpets and not lifted by tester?)

Also the tester has put break valve (rear load adjusting) corroded and excessivly weakend. It has been in this state for 8 years yet no other tester has remarked on it. (OK it looks rusty but appears to work fine)

Fuel tank has leak, this was brand new last year (tester saw signs of fuel leakage but not during test??)

The thing with this test was the way it was carried out, there was excessive banging with his toffee hammer? even though the metal had a good solid sound not echoey or that hidden filler sound. Also he has wrecked the underseal by picking it off by the sharp end of the toffee hammer and made comments on parts of the vehichle like the seatbelt mountings that he could not see unless he lifted the carpets which he did not as my husband was watching the whole test. Lastly and this confuses me, he states the exhaust has major leak of gas yet he tested the cars immissions which it passed excellently.

Can anyone offer advice to this situation? can we take it for another MOT elsewhere to see if the same faults are found before phoning VOSA to make a compalint. All help greatly appreciated.

colino

If the car went through a full MOT and failed, you will have the details on the form on how to appeal. You should know that on older cars, MOT testers are rightly hot on corrosion as it is the only thing that they can be pulled up on three months after the test if they pass or pass and advise. There is no need to lift the carpets as major corrosion on essential components (like the seat belt mounting) includes 300mm around the point and this can easily be seen from under the car. The other points, potential brake failure, fuel leak and gas leak really are secondary to a car that needs new inner sills.

Moody_Mare

Thanks for the input Colino, we do realize they are very hot on corrosion with older cars. With regards to the seatbelt mountings and inner sills they were replaced at the time the outer sills were replaced all with double thickness of the oringinal metal as this appeared to be a logical thing to do.


The tester picked up a lot on the welding repairs saying they were not very good, strangley no other tester ever complained about these repairs for 2 years.

I also maybe wrongly thought testers were not allowed to damage underseal while carring out a test?

somech

well i've read and reread the ops post and i dont see anything there that warrants a complaint its not that bad for a 1991 car,

wealdroam

Moody_Mare wrote: »

...can we take it for another MOT elsewhere to see if the same faults are found before phoning VOSA to make a compalint.

Of course you can.

Take it for as many tests as you like.

You will have to pay another fee though.

Moody_Mare

Ok can anyone tell me the difference please between surface rust and excessive corrosion then? As most cars have surface rust and in this case this appears to be the problem. The car does have surface rust, not bad for its age but because of its age the tester appears to think it is a rust bucket. Not a well maintained car that does very few miles per year.

What I am trying to say in laymans terms is when you are battering a car with a toffee hammer and it has severe corrosion it normaly has at least dents in it if not actually causing holes. The car stood up to all this.

somech

surface rust is just that its on the surface
excess rust/corrosion is where the metal is weakend to the point where you can prod it to make a hole or as is the case with the rear brake valve its strutural properties are weakend to a point where a small force could make it leak (ie under heavy braking) thus leaving you with no brakes

skiddlydiddly

You seem to be taking it personally.The stuff they are pointing out isn't the usual stuff you'd expect if they were trying to make a fast buck.All those things will make your car a safer one, so has to be a good thing.The emissions wouldn't drop if there was a hole in the exhaust as its measuring a %.
You can always go somewhere else but I can't see how you could complain about them being more thorough than your last few tests.

Strider590

The place you took it to, did he have lots of cars/jobs parked up and waiting to be looked at??

Moody_Mare

I agree Somech but with regards to the break valve it is surface rust as already noted by a mechanic, there is no pitting. This is my point when bashing away there should have been damage/holes not an intact vehicle.

I will go down the road of another MOT as the cost is not an issue, we do not mind paying for the car to be fixed for safety issues but not when a tester appears to have a bee in his bonnet with older cars. The tester is very young and maybe not experienced with older classic cars but we would rather know for sure what is needing done as his failure points to scrapping the car.

neilmcl

Moody_Mare wrote: »

Can anyone offer advice to this situation? can we take it for another MOT elsewhere to see if the same faults are found before phoning VOSA to make a compalint. All help greatly appreciated.

If you are thinking of taking it for a second MOT then you should try your local council MOT station. There's no incentive for them for failing cars as they don't offer repairs, they just do MOTs.