Would you be put off by this MOT history?

forgotmyname

Headlamp not working on dipped. Thats got to be obvious.
Broken rear light also.

Herzlos

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

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.

You'd expect any work being done whilst it's in to be done before the MOT, especially if it was a fail. Much more likely the owner didn't know or care.

You'd hope all but the most inattentive owners would notice some of that stuff.

Apodemus

Herzlos wrote: »

You'd expect any work being done whilst it's in to be done before the MOT...

Again, this is not the way I've had it for many years, in both large and small garages. They've all used the test bay to flag up things, then sort everything in the service bay before putting it back for a re-test. So, even when I have put it in with items that I want fixed, it shows as an initial test fail, followed by a successful retest.

Consensus on here is that this approach is not common and that my experience is unusual, fair enough, but it certainly does happen.

Joe_Horner

Herzlos wrote: »

You'd expect any work being done whilst it's in to be done before the MOT, especially if it was a fail. Much more likely the owner didn't know or care.

You'd hope all but the most inattentive owners would notice some of that stuff.

The DVSA recommended approach for testing stations is MOT first, service / repairs second.. Most garages in my experience follow that recommendation.

Joe_Horner

forgotmyname wrote: »

Headlamp not working on dipped. Thats got to be obvious.
Broken rear light also.

Both could easily be recent, booked in to do with the test, and the garage is just following the DVSA recommended sequence.

Herzlos

Why let it fail on a known fault and then fix it, instead of fixing it first?

forgotmyname wrote: »

Headlamp not working on dipped. Thats got to be obvious.
Broken rear light also.

It's possible that it's never been driven in the dark.

Soot2006

Why let it fail on a known fault and then fix it, instead of fixing it first?

If the car is so low value that the owner doesn't care any more ...

I had an old banger and I always let it fail first and then decided if it was worth my while keeping it on the road or not after getting quotes to see what it would cost to keep going. When the car value is in the low 100s I think it makes economical sense to weigh up your options. Not sure how much a 14 yo car is worth but I know a few years ago I sold a 16 yo car (with a failed MOT) for £150 just to see the back of it.

Joe_Horner

Herzlos wrote: »

Why let it fail on a known fault and then fix it, instead of fixing it first?

Because that's the recommended sequence.

Some of the logic behind it is:

(1) There's a fair amount of duplicated work between an MOT and service. If the service is done first then that work must be repeated during the test. A check of (say) tyres done an hour earlier in the service bay, possibly by a different mechanic who may not be an NT, can't be used to skip the tyre checks during an MOT. Doing it the other way (skipping tyre check during service because they've just been done in the MOT bay) is fine and saves time & labour charges.

(2) Some things that will be found on MOT may not be found on a service - things like braking efficiency aren't part of standard servicing. So service then MOT can end up as: Service, MOT, repair, retest. That doesn't happen the other way round.

(3) Some MOT fails can make even a fairly new car uneconomic to repair for some owners. They won't thank you for doing the service first on a car they decide to dispose of!


eta: bear in mind, the MOT scheme was never designed as something that people would get all hung up about the history of. It - rightly - takes the view that it's the current condition that matters, not what needed doing a year or more ago.