Would you be put off by this MOT history?

JustAnotherSaver

Car is 14 years old, has FSH (apparently).

I thought i'd just check out the MOT history as it's a bit of a drive there, just to see if anything crops up as troublesome.

The most recent MOT doesn't show anything too alarming, just a few advisories.

2016 failed on brakes but then sorted without advisories.

2015 had a fail:

Advisory notice item(s)

• Rear registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
• Front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)
• Nearside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
• Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components
• Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay
• Items removed from driver's view prior to test
• Engine management light on
• N/S/F Fog light not working

• Offside rear brake binding (3.7.B.1)
• Nearside Front wheel bearing has excessive play (2.5.A.3c)
• Nearside Rear position lamp(s) has less than 50% of the light sources illuminating (1.1.A.3b)
• Offside Rear position lamp(s) has less than 50% of the light sources illuminating (1.1.A.3b)

2014 had a fail:

Reason(s) for failure

• Nearside Front suspension has excessive play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
• Offside Front coil spring broken (2.4.C.1a)
• Nearside Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)

Advisory notice item(s)

• Engine management light on,on dash

2013 had a fail:

Reason(s) for failure

• Nearside Front position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
• Nearside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
• Offside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
• Nearside Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged to the extent that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc (2.5.C.1a)

Advisory notice item(s)

• Nearside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
• Front registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (6.3.1d)

2010 fail:

Reason(s) for failure

• Offside Rear position lamp(s) excessively deteriorated so that it is not visible from a reasonable distance (1.1.A.3d)

2009 fail:

Reason(s) for failure

• Nearside Front Headlamp not working on dipped beam (1.7.5a)
• Nearside Rear Rear position lamp(s) excessively deteriorated so that it is not visible from a reasonable distance (1.1.A.3d)
• Offside Rear Rear position lamp(s) excessively damaged so that it is not visible from a reasonable distance (1.1.A.3d)

Now i'm not questioning the fact it failed. I know it's been a couple years but there seemed to be a pattern of issues with lighting.


Can anyone reading this make sense of it. Does it sound like something or nothing, especially since a couple years has passed without mention of lighting again, or does it sound like a niggly issue? Electrics?

From the pictures alone it looks tidy enough. High miles at 150k which should hopefully put other people off, but since my own car has done 165k and still performs fine i'm not fazed by the miles, especially if the FSH is correct.

bris

Failures mean nothing if the have all been fixed to pass so no problems there.


The biggest problem is the engine management light, has that been fixed or just disconnected? Bottom line is it's a 14 year old car with 150k miles, stay away unless it's dirt cheap as it a money pit waiting to happen.

Stoke

Nope. Looks reasonable

Joe_Horner

That all looks fine and the advisories have either been done between each test (a good thing) or were so borderline that the next tester didn't bother mentioning them.

As Bris says, the only real exception is the EML. Does it light up when you turn the ignition on and go out when you start the engine (in which case they've fixed the issue , or does it never light at all (in which case they've disconnected it)?

Strider590

My last car was 12 years old, you could could on one hand the number of advisories it had over those 12 years. It eventually died with 120k on the clock.

When a car has as many as that, it tells me the owner didn't do any maintenance between MOTs, was it actually serviced?

JustAnotherSaver

bris wrote: »

Failures mean nothing if the have all been fixed to pass so no problems there.


The biggest problem is the engine management light, has that been fixed or just disconnected? Bottom line is it's a 14 year old car with 150k miles, stay away unless it's dirt cheap as it a money pit waiting to happen.

You could apply that last comment to my car.

My car is 16 years old with over 160k miles, yet runs fine. I needed new brake pads & discs this last MOT but that's just general wear & tear.

My car is (at the moment) far from a money pit.

JustAnotherSaver

Joe_Horner wrote: »

As Bris says, the only real exception is the EML. Does it light up when you turn the ignition on and go out when you start the engine (in which case they've fixed the issue , or does it never light at all (in which case they've disconnected it)?

I've not actually been to see it yet.

I'm also probably not going to go either due to a change of events tonight about an hour after i created this thread.

But for the record, if the car we do go check out is a Volkswagen, i'll be taking my laptop & VCDS with me.

And if it's a Vauxhall then i'll be taking my laptop & OP-COM with me.

And if the seller doesn't want me to plug it in (they will be more than welcome to sit there and watch everything i do so they can see i'm not trying anything funny) then it'll be time to come home.

Strider590 wrote: »

My last car was 12 years old, you could could on one hand the number of advisories it had over those 12 years. It eventually died with 120k on the clock.

When a car has as many as that, it tells me the owner didn't do any maintenance between MOTs, was it actually serviced?

I did wonder.

A 14 year old car with full service history is certainly possible, but i'm raising my eyebrow when i read it. I'm sure i wouldn't be the first person who turned up to an ad only to find that the photos are of her prettier slimmer sister kind of thing.

Joe_Horner

Keep in mind that a lot of cars over the past 15 years or so have had 12 month service intervals which (because the first MOT is at 3 years) tend to fall naturally at MOT time. So not being looked at (other than basic fluids & tyres etc) between MOTs isn't the mortal sin it once was. At least, not for the average owner following the maker's schedule.

Most of those advisories are things you wouldn't expect an average driver to pick up on themselves. Things like lights deteriorated - to most owners they light or they don't even assuming they do check.

Apodemus

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Keep in mind that a lot of cars over the past 15 years or so have had 12 month service intervals which (because the first MOT is at 3 years) tend to fall naturally at MOT time. So not being looked at (other than basic fluids & tyres etc) between MOTs isn't the mortal sin it once was. At least, not for the average owner following the maker's schedule.

Most of those advisories are things you wouldn't expect an average driver to pick up on themselves. Things like lights deteriorated - to most owners they light or they don't even assuming they do check.

Also worth noting that the garage might put it through its MOT before servicing rather than after, then re-test once the work is done. This gives them an indication of additional items that might need attention before it moves to the service bay.

I've been criticised on here before for suggesting that garages often do it in this order, but it's the way all my recent garages (three dealerships and two small MOT/Mechanics over the last 15 years) have done it. The MOT histories of both my 15 year-old cars would show a number of minor failure points, but they have been well looked after and remain reliable work-horses.

Hoof_Hearted

I think it's good practice to get your own MoT away from the servicing garage. This avoids any claims of additional work for the MoT.

Herzlos

It all sounds like it's not been well looked after; stuff is only getting fixed after it fails.

Like the tatty plates, failing lights, management light, broken suspension and so on.

Unless it's looking mint now and mega cheap I'd look for one the owner cared about.