Please Help Failed MOT

marlot

SCSNW wrote: »

...Halfords ... believe parts have been removed, on purposely damaged and confused as some items at first glance is actually fine??

So you'd rather believe someone at Halfords than a trained MOT tester? Most MOT testers I know are very aware that they could be inspected, so do the job thoroughly and fairly. As people have said, if you think an MOT is corrupt then there is a process for having the car re-inspected.

SCSNW wrote: »

...has not been ran into the ground ...

But you think its fine to drive around with multiple non-working lights? Or are you claiming that they swapped the working bulbs for dud ones?

SCSNW wrote: »

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

Against Halfords, or against the MOT testing station? How's that going?

bigjl

Smedders11 wrote: »

Not even remotely what I was saying.

Was looking for legitimate advice, but hey, thanks for being an !!!.

Ask silly questions.

Quickly resort to abuse and insults.

I smell troll.

Smedders11

How exactly was that a silly question? I don't tend to care for petty attempts at snide, especially when they aren't warranted.

mrmot

s_b wrote: »

as a supposed mot tester i expected a rather more robust answer

Why?, having not seen the car, I am not in a position to make a judgment. I see it as:

Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) A measured value conducted using calibrated and approved equipment.

Windscreen has a sticker or other obstruction encroaching into the swept area by more than 40mm outside zone 'A' (8.3.1e) If it's affecting the drivers view of the road then it's a self inflicted fail.



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)
It shouldn't need a MOT to bring these to the drivers attention.

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) At least one of these was advised on a previous MOT, but there is some leeway, if the damage is minor an advisory can be made.

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) Slight movement in ball joints can be advised, though generally once a ball joint has started to wear then it quite quickly becomes unserviceable.

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) It's the design of the rear axle, quite often if you look at the rear wheels from behind the car, they'll be at a funny angle. There are guidelines in the testers manual which give bush sizes and allowable movement.

nearside front Brake pipe excessively corroded to offside rear (3.6.B.2c) Assessing brake pipe corrosion can be a bit tricky, due to their position and a lot of it comes down to experience.

The only people who can make a qualified judgement on the validity of the test result would be the DVSA vehicle examiners who oversee the testing stations and carry out the appeal tests.

Dippypud

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.,

Eh ? ........

SCSNW

I would advise anyone who thnks they are smart being cocky, go and type my reg into check-mot.service.gov] and view a new MOT by Halfords. First MOT failure was 17 failures and 2 advisories however Halfords only 2 failures and 3 advisories. Suggest keep cockyness to yourself as I have proven all along....Idiots!! NL51 SNN

SCSNW

And you all thought commenting bullying was great, who's laughing now bozo!!

salubrious

This is a prime example of what Martin Lewis has been breeding with his uneducated views.

Basing value of service on whoever fails a car on the least amount of things.

[Deleted User]

Some garages do try to claim extra work by making up MOT failures. I took a 206 to a garage I hadn't used before a few years ago and it failed on a huge list of items along with a huge list of advisories. In all the years I had owned the car it had always either passed the MOT or failed on 1 or 2 things.

I decided it wasn't worth spending £££ getting it through so I sold it on cheap (scrap value) and bought another run a round. The guy who bought it MOT'd it the next day according to the MOT checker site.

s_b

SCSNW wrote: »

I would advise anyone who thnks they are smart being cocky, go and type my reg into check-mot.service.gov] and view a new MOT by Halfords. First MOT failure was 17 failures and 2 advisories however Halfords only 2 failures and 3 advisories. Suggest keep cockyness to yourself as I have proven all along....Idiots!! NL51 SNN

i would suggest that as you first put the car as a 206cc instead of the diesel as listed on the .gov website then you got a dodgy mot on it
its insured as a 206cc petrol
its mot as a standard peugot 206 diesel
ive forwarded all relevant details to the dvsa
i see one of the local guys in the morning he will advise dvla if i push him too
have a nice night pal