Would you be put off by this MOT history?

Herzlos

Apodemus wrote: »

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.

Mine always services it first and sorts stuff before the test so I've only had 1 fail in 10 years, due to corroded sills

Marvel1

My last car was 12 years old and failed first mot for front headlight alignment, passed ever since, had one advisory about brakes, sorted. This car your looking at was not looked after.

The only reason I don't have it anymore is because someone wrote it off while parked outside my house last year.

arcon5

It's a banger
All that really matters is its current mot and inspection of vehicle in person
Fsh a massive bonus

Previous mots are irrelevant

Mobeer

I'd certainly be put off - every time it has a MOT there are a list of problems, so it would seem likely to have more problems in future.

forgotmyname

Looks like the type of owner that used the MOT instead or regular checks and servicing.

Why take an obvious MOT failure? Non working lights, tyres close to the limit a handbrake that doesn't work properly.

Sounds like the sort of person that posts on here there oil light is on or the brakes are making funny noises, but the MOT is in 4 months so they will get it checked then.

Was the current owner the person that took it for an MOT when it had those failures and advisories?

JustAnotherSaver

Some times it's easier to get the tyres done at MOT time.

If they're legal beforehand then they're legal. To book in with a garage may mean difficulty in getting to work so to book in twice will be 2x difficulty rather than getting it all done on the one day.

I've had certain jobs done at MOT time and i've had very few advisories over the 9 years i've owned my car. I do my servicing every 6 months myself.

Of course if my tyres were close and MOT day was 6 months away then i'd get them sorted. I'm talking about if MOT day is close.

Joe_Horner

Also, who were those MOTs done by? A "close to limit" tyre at certain national chains might have 3mm left on it.

Broken springs can easily go undetected for months - they often crack on the terminal coils which won't usually give any obvipus symptom.

Lights can blow at any time, and a light that has "less than 50% illuminated" may not be obvious to someone who only knows to check if they come on or not. Similarly, colour can be subjective, or coulld be the result of a lens being cracked a few days before it was booked in anyway.

arcon5

It's funny seeing people trying to guess how a car has been treated by previous owners.
Yet we're talking about a car more than likely fitting the disposable category. What matters is its CURRENT condition.

If you want a car to last more than a year or so or spending significant sums then you'd look at how it was treated historically.

To flip some of these comments on their head though... the history tells ya its had a new spring brakes fixed and new pipes in the last 12 months so ulikely to be an expense you have to bear.
the alternative being clean sheets so you have absolutely no idea what's been done.

Most of the stuff if those sheets though is pretty much discardable. Undersheilds for example no concern. Bulbs negligible

forgotmyname

Tyre on the limit as an advisory OK, but what about the brakes that were clearly defective and the list of bulbs. Did the owner not think to check their lights ever??

Or maybe the EML blinded them? Why did they fix that?

Joe_Horner

forgotmyname wrote: »

Tyre on the limit as an advisory OK, but what about the brakes that were clearly defective and the list of bulbs. Did the owner not think to check their lights ever??

Or maybe the EML blinded them? Why did they fix that?

We don't know what the brake failure for this year was - could have been pad wear & part of the annual service due at the same time. Or a slightly out of spec imbalance which you'd probably never notice if you drive moderately / don't drive on your brakes - especially on the rear wheels.

Brake binding in 2015 wouldn't necessarily be obvious to the driver, especially on a rear wheel, depending on the car and how bad the bind was.

Handbrake the year before, ditto. The MOT standard is effectively "holds on a 16% (1 in 6) hill". If it lives somewhere without proper hills you may never notice if it's slightly below par.

Lights with "50% of the sources not illuminated" suggests LED bulbs. If they're lighting up at all then the average (non-technical) owner doing weekly checks will see a lit light and think it's ok.