BEWARE Test Centre, Newark

arcon5

Anybody in this area of the country, be very wary of an MOT performed by this garage. They recently issued an MOT as passed with one advisory despite the vehicle suffering from:

- non working main beam lights
- non working front DS indicator
- battery not secured to anything, thus loose under the bonet
- missing suspension arm
- tire below legal limit

System

Can you prove that this was all wrong at the time of the test?

mattyprice4004

Given that it's his car, I'd think he'd be aware of what did and didn't work.

As far as I'm aware another garage made the diagnosis of the faulty and missing items.

System

On another thread he said he bought the car after the MOT.

arcon5

goater78 wrote: »

Can you prove that this was all wrong at the time of the test?

Depends how you define 'prove'. I have a report from a reputable garage confirming several aspects produced within 48 hours of the MOT. The car was collected less than 24hours after the MOT certificate was issued.

System

Fair enough. It does sound suspicious. However there is always room for doubt in a 24 hour period, you've named the company and they will probably be able to find out which car you are referencing and get your details. I always think its a bit dangerous to post things like this without 100% certainty.

arcon5

goater78 wrote: »

Fair enough. It does sound suspicious. However there is always room for doubt in a 24 hour period, you've named the company and they will probably be able to find out which car you are referencing and get your details. I always think its a bit dangerous to post things like this without 100% certainty.

I agree the '24 hour period' could be room for doubt - but due to the nature of the issues, I think it's more than likely these existed at the time of being MOTed.

arcon5

goater78 wrote: »

Can you prove that this was all wrong at the time of the test?

I've actually just done another search on the MOT certificate history and on the date the certificate was issued, it was also refused, the refusal listed 3 faults (corresponding with #1).. same day the certificate was issued..
On both the failed certificate and the pass certificate the mileague is exactly the same.

I would say this is VERY incriminating

ffacoffipawb

arcon5 wrote: »

Anybody in this area of the country, be very wary of an MOT performed by this garage. They recently issued an MOT as passed with one advisory despite the vehicle suffering from:

- non working main beam lights
- non working front DS indicator
- battery not secured to anything, thus loose under the bonet
- missing suspension arm
- tire below legal limit

Ah yes, Newark. The only place in the UK that is an anagram of Wa**er.

Mindless_Clone

arcon5 wrote: »

I've actually just done another search on the MOT certificate history and on the date the certificate was issued, it was also refused, the refusal listed 3 faults (corresponding with #1).. same day the certificate was issued..
On both the failed certificate and the pass certificate the mileague is exactly the same.

I would say this is VERY incriminating

With evidence like that, you probably ought to be reporting this to the VOSA: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_4022113

I would imagine they would be very interested in this.

kermitfrog

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Ah yes, Newark. The only place in the UK that is an anagram of Wa**er.

Wakner???!!