Please Help Failed MOT

SCSNW

If actually read post the car wasnt and hasnt been touched since yet goes into Halfords and so far half the things are false and untrue......maybe read instead of accuse and assume :mad:

cajef

SCSNW wrote: »

If actually read post the car wasnt and hasnt been touched since yet goes into Halfords and so far half the things are false and untrue......maybe read instead of accuse and assume :mad:

I have read it and as others have stated the car has been poorly maintained which does not surprise me as you have had it serviced at Halfords, if you are accusing the MOT tester of fraud you had better have some proof, just because you have spent money means nothing as on the day it failed miserably which whether you like it or not points to poor maintenance, the advisory last year points to CV and brake pipe problems yet you have done nothing about them.

Inner_Zone

SCSNW wrote: »

I have had a recent MOT done for Peugoet 206cc however believe the garage has been up to something. This is the MOT reasons I was given and if can help with prices etc it would be great as now scarred as well as dumb lol x

Reason(s) for failure
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Windscreen has a sticker or other obstruction encroaching into the swept area by more than 40mm outside zone 'A' (8.3.1e)
Supplementary Restraint System warning lamp indicates a fault (5.4.2)
nearside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
offside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
nearside Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)
nearside Front position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
offside Front position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
offside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (1.7.5a)
nearside front outer Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged to the extent that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc (2.5.C.1a)
nearside front inner Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged to the extent that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc (2.5.C.1a)
nearside front Front suspension has excessive play in a lower suspension ball joint poss hub (2.5.B.1a)
offside Front suspension has excessive play in a lower suspension ball joint poss hub (2.5.B.1a)
nearside rear Trailing arm has excessive play in a pin/bush (2.4.G.2)
offside rear Trailing arm has excessive play in a pin/bush (2.4.G.2)
nearside front Brake pipe excessively corroded to offside rear (3.6.B.2c)
rear Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)


This was last year......

Advisory notice item(s)
Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Nearside Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.5.C.1a)

:money:

So lets just clarify your car did not have all these faults when you took it for an MOT and the MOT station put them all on the car and failed it? :rotfl:

SCSNW

And you know everything since when?? :rotfl:

jbainbridge

Any reason why you didn't use Halfords for the mot? I use one near my work for servicing and mot.

marlot

SCSNW wrote: »

MOT is not alternative and with proof of over £1200 in few months as recent as week previous to MOT being undergone and have receipts to prove.,

So what exactly was done the week before the mot?

Nobbie1967

You seem to be saying that the garage have replaced good parts with worn parts, presumably in the hope of doing more work on it?

However, items like gaiters and ball joints are a pain to swap over, so hardly worth their while. Isn't it more likely that Halfords just haven't check the relevant items during a service?

Take the car to another test centre and see what they say and ask if it looks like any parts have been recently tampered with.

What age and mileage is the car? If it is an 04 as suggested earlier, then it may well be at the end of it's economic lifespan.

lee678

SCSNW wrote: »

I am placing a claim with Small Claims Court for Negligence amounst other reasons x

and what is the value of this negligence ? £35 for your mot ? what proof do you have of negligence, some spotted oink at halfords is willing to be your witness ? based on what ? only thing you could base it on is another fresh mot, from another garage, but it would fail because you say the car hasnt been touched since its been motd at the first garage that failed it, so you present to the judge another mot failure and accuse the first mot garage of negligence ? judge would just throw it out and youve lost your claim and paid the garages exspenses which they are quite entitled to claim, they may even counterclaim .
when will people realize a mot is not a service, and a service is not a mot .

lee678

marlot wrote: »

So what exactly was done the week before the mot?

probably clutch :rotfl:

Inner_Zone

SCSNW wrote: »

And you know everything since when?? :rotfl:

Why avoid the question? Is it because you are wrong or trolling?

Asked a question never claimed I know everything.