Bought a car with a false MOT?!

J_Novacaine

Nice to see that this site is full of a mixture of helpful and those that wish to just be offensive for no reason.

Yes, I was only told verbally that their MOT would have failed had they not changed the rear pads. So to me if it would have failed and they did not change the pads, they must have falsified their MOT, no?

Also, not a Yaris

Nodding_Donkey

Richard53 wrote: »

Isn't this what the brake proportioning valve does? If it stops the rears locking up under a light load, doesn't it work the opposite way too, and increase brake pressure when the rear of the car is loaded down?

Yes it does. Unfortunately some posters on here don't know as much as they think do.

roddydogs

As you cant always see the pad width without taking the wheels off, how can pad width fail a car?.

Iceweasel

J_Novacaine wrote: »

Nice to see that this site is full of a mixture of helpful and those that wish to just be offensive for no reason.

Yes, I was only told verbally that their MOT would have failed had they not changed the rear pads. So to me if it would have failed and they did not change the pads, they must have falsified their MOT, no?

Also, not a Yaris

An even bigger lie would have been to just tell you they had replaced the brake pads, when in fact they were OK to pass.

Low pad depth/thickness is NOT a fail item - pads that have only a tiny, tiny fraction of friction material left will pass.

And for those who think that rear brakes don't do very much they need to think of loaded situations such as a heavy bootload or full load of passengers - all of which will increase the braking effort on the rear axle decided by the proportion valve.

Caravans, trailers and cruise control can all put an extra load on the rear brakes.

However I think that there is a high chance that in this case it was the garage charging for work they didn't do - the car probably did pass that previous MOT.

Of course there is also the chance that this 2nd garage are not telling the truth - why are they saying that the car will now fail with 1.5mm pad depth?

Having 1.5mm of pad left is NOT an MOT fail.

Only inefficient brake effort is a reason for failing.

So which garage is trying it on?

facade

Iceweasel wrote: »

Low pad depth/thickness is NOT a fail item - pads that have only a tiny, tiny fraction of friction material left will pass.


Of course there is also the chance that this 2nd garage are not telling the truth - why are they saying that the car will now fail with 1.5mm pad depth?

Having 1.5mm of pad left is NOT an MOT fail.

If the thickness is visibly below 1.5mm (1mm for sintered pads on a motorcycle) it is a reason for fail. If the tester can't see the thickness (they are not allowed to take wheels off or dismantle anything) then they obviously can't fail it.

Tester's manual section 3.5

g. a brake lining or pad insecure or less than 1.5 mm thick at any point

However, as we are going round in circles I think we can probably conclude that the most likely explanation is that the first garage serviced* the rear brakes to get them working enough to pass MOT as it says in the OPs service book, and the salesman read that as "replaced".
Now 6000 miles later the pads are down to 1.5mm and need replacing.

* clean up rusty disc with a sander/grinder, free off any slide pins, clean out pad location, blow pistons outwards, wipe with fluid and push back in, replace pads with smear of anti-seize on sliding surfaces, free up & adjust handbrake mechanism as required.

bigjl

z1a wrote: »

I know it doesn't, I was hoping poster who stated it would try to explain.

I was trying to agree with you😃