Mot Advisories on a car i'm thinking of buying

Richard53

patman99 wrote: »

Some MOT testers put-down some really silly advisories.
For instance, when I looked at the car I now have, the maindealer MOT tester had put the following advisories down -

Unable to check rear N/S seatbelt due to childseat fitted.
Unable to check upper engine due to cover fitted.
Unable to check underside of engine due to cover fitted.

The place I have had the last 2 MOTs done encountered the last 2 issues, but used their loaf and didn't even mention them as advisories.

Not so silly - as I understand it, there are things which are testable items, but the tester is not expected to dismantle anything to inspect them, so a note is made that the items were not tested 'due to cover fitted' etc. It's becoming more common as more and more vehicles have undertrays beneath engine, gearbox etc.


My car always gets an advisory "tow bar not tested as not fitted to vehicle" - it's detachable and lives in the boot when not in use. Although the tester knows it's there and could easily fit it in a few seconds, he doesn't because he is not required to, but he has to mention it.

AdrianC

patman99 wrote: »

Some MOT testers put-down some really silly advisories.
For instance, when I looked at the car I now have, the maindealer MOT tester had put the following advisories down -

Unable to check rear N/S seatbelt due to childseat fitted.
Unable to check upper engine due to cover fitted.
Unable to check underside of engine due to cover fitted.

They aren't "silly". They're eminently sensible.

The tester isn't allowed to move the childseat, so cannot test the seatbelt. If there's a collision in a week's time, and it turns out the childseat was badly fitted and has chafed through the seatbelt, which has failed, launching childseat plus occupant out the windscreen - then there's a very serious lawsuit coming along.

Testers attention has also been drawn in official publications to cases where undertrays have hidden very serious subframe rust.

salubrious

I mot'd an 08 plate Mazda 3 yesterday. It was red rusty underneath and it looked terrible. I can understand why some testers would advise on them, but for the most part they may look bad but are still solid.

I've yet to fail one for excessive corrosion.

As for advising on seat belts/child seats and covers etc - That in my opinion is the sign of a good tester, not a bad one

Joe_Horner

InsideInsurance wrote: »

To go off topic slightly, how well supervised are MOT testing places?

With my last car it never failed an MOT (other than once for having an empty screenwash bottle) but for two years in a row I had an advisory of tyres being worn and near limit. Just before its third test I decided to get them replaced as they'd have done 10-15,000 miles since the first advisory (front wheels on a FWD car) and the fitter that replaced them said there was still plenty of tread left and am I sure I wanted the new ones fitted.

Made me think that the VW garage was possibly trying to drum up more business but I dont know if the pass/ fail is monitored or if it goes as far as advisories etc.

They're pretty well monitored for failure items but advisories are just "useful reminders" and can be abused like this. Provided the tester can justify it in some way (so, for example, advising a brand new tyre would be pushing it) there's really not muc anyone can do.

Tyres are a good one for that because of the fear creep factor. They're not going to fail until down to 1.6mm (which, incidentally, doesn't even include those scrubbed bald shoulders on most modern treads!) but around 2mm is fair for an advisory.

But the common recommendation is to change by 3mm. So, if you want to sell a tyre, you could easily justify advising at 4mm as "nearly where the experts say you should change". That gives you an extra 2.4mm of tread (nearly half of the effective wear life) to use legally if you ignore the advisory, but many people will just accept the "safety innit" message and have them done.

There's even been a recent comment on here from an otherwise sane poster suggesting that you don't really want to wear them below 5mm - that would justify "advising" tyres only 1/3 of the way through their life!!!

Great for profits, not so good for motorist's pockets or the environment!

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Tyres are a good one for that because of the fear creep factor. They're not going to fail until down to 1.6mm (which, incidentally, doesn't even include those scrubbed bald shoulders on most modern treads!)

It's worth remembering that the MOT fail limit is exactly the same as the legal limit - 1.6mm across the central 3/4 of the tread width.

If Mr MOT fails your tyres, thank him - because Mr Plod would have given you a fine and three points to tell you the same thing.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s04000107.htm

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

It's worth remembering that the MOT fail limit is exactly the same as the legal limit - 1.6mm across the central 3/4 of the tread width.

If Mr MOT fails your tyres, thank him - because Mr Plod would have given you a fine and three points to tell you the same thing.

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s04000107.htm

Absolutely agree, which is why around 2 (maybe 2.5)mm is a perfectly reasonable advisory.

My point was more that a less than scrupulous garage could be "legitimately advising" with over 1/3 of the tyre's useful life left, which would explain what happened to InsideInsurance and certainly isn't something they should be thanked for!

arcon5

Joe_Horner wrote: »

They're pretty well monitored for failure items but advisories are just "useful reminders" and can be abused like this. Provided the tester can justify it in some way (so, for example, advising a brand new tyre would be pushing it) there's really not muc anyone can do.

Tyres are a good one for that because of the fear creep factor. They're not going to fail until down to 1.6mm (which, incidentally, doesn't even include those scrubbed bald shoulders on most modern treads!) but around 2mm is fair for an advisory.

But the common recommendation is to change by 3mm. So, if you want to sell a tyre, you could easily justify advising at 4mm as "nearly where the experts say you should change". That gives you an extra 2.4mm of tread (nearly half of the effective wear life) to use legally if you ignore the advisory, but many people will just accept the "safety innit" message and have them done.

There's even been a recent comment on here from an otherwise sane poster suggesting that you don't really want to wear them below 5mm - that would justify "advising" tyres only 1/3 of the way through their life!!!

Great for profits, not so good for motorist's pockets or the environment!

Ha, ye! The change at 5mm comment, that was brilliant

Great though for the part-worn market. I recently bought a 7mm tyre for £19, rather than £50 for new... probably the above mentioned guys tyre, he got it changed before it got too close to his 5mm limit :rotfl: