Dangerous car

worried_jim

It is a total wind up- not even a funny one. Why the CAB has responded to this idiot...............

verityboo

Guardsman wrote: »

Failing the emission test happens for several reasons ranging from a lack of servicing to faulty sensors.
[/FONT]

UglyJoe wrote: »

Yes that was my thought also, hence why I think the previous garage should be brought to task over this.
Thanks for confirming.

Why should a lack of proper servicing of the car or the car now having a faulty sensor mean that the previous garage were at fault????

Jamie_Carter

UglyJoe wrote: »

Yes that was my thought also, hence why I think the previous garage should be brought to task over this.
Thanks for confirming.

But it was a year ago!!!!!

Things can change over a year.

Jamie_Carter

UglyJoe wrote: »

Well I'm no mechanic, but I suspect it could cause lack of control if the suspension mounts were to give way during cornering, or perhaps the whole car structure is weakened by the corrosion and is a death trap in the event of an accident?

Either way the car has failed the MOT and indications are that it is so bad it would not be economical, some suggest even possible, to repair.

And how is that the fault of the garage that tested it a year ago??

Jamie_Carter

UglyJoe wrote: »

I don't think there is any suggestion the previous garage has faked the previous MOT in any way in this regard.

But as Guardsman confirmed, a lack of proper servicing is a cause for failing the emissions test.

He was just listing possible causes.

Over a year sensors can fail, or become covered in contaminants that could prevent them from working properly.

Other things to take into account would be the age of the car (which I presume is quite old due to the corrosion), and the way the car has been driven.

Als was the car serviced according to the service scedule, or just done once per year when the MOT was due?

arcon5

Guardsman wrote: »

I gave that as one of the reasons a car could fail it's emission test it's not confirmation that's it's the actual cause.

Aye, better be careful - op may use your original post as evidence in court

paddedjohn

OP, just tell your second cousin once removed to take his car to his mates uncles, cousins, brothers, ex-wife's sisters dads scrappy and then visit his half sisters, mums, brothers, live in life partners adopted sons best mates, car showroom and get a new car. Then go home and listen to "Duelling Banjos"

ThumbRemote

pulliptears wrote: »

Anyone else as amazed as I am that the CAB have posted on this!?

Because it was placed on the CAB board originally and has been moved here.

worried_jim wrote: »

It is a total wind up- not even a funny one. Why the CAB has responded to this idiot...............

As above. Also, their only response was to say they can't help.

unholyangel

UglyJoe wrote: »

Yes that was my thought also, hence why I think the previous garage should be brought to task over this.
Thanks for confirming.

And what exactly are you going to bring them to "task" about?

You paid them for an MOT, they provided it. And MOT is only a piece of paper stating that on the date and at the time the mechanic inspected the vehicle, it passed the minimum legal limits. HOWEVER, the driver of the vehicle is supposed to ensure the safety of his vehicle before starting each journey. Certainly before any journey involving a great distance.

Has your friend got a full service history? Are you absolutely sure he has the car serviced? Or are you confusing MOTs/services?

Does your friend take any precautions to guard the car against the elements?


I have a feeling your friend is just looking for someone to blame as the bill has came as a shock. Anyone who has owned a car for 10+ years will have came across this though. My old car passed its first 4 MOT's requiring no work at all. On the law of averages/sods law.......I was expecting it to fail its next MOT and require work done......it did. My current car has passed its last 3 MOT's requiring no work. That doesnt mean I'm going to continue being lucky next year though!

pulliptears

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Because it was placed on the CAB board originally and has been moved here.



As above. Also, their only response was to say they can't help.

That would explain it. Still amazed that they offered the advice they did though!