MOT Inconsistency

mmcmahon

I had my car in for an MOT last month, it failed. The garage told my their repairs would only be £60 but my exhaust needed a repair they couldn't do so they recommended a specialist garage for that repair. I took it to the other garage and they quoted me £500, I asked them to do the work.

The car was in for around three weeks (they closed down for a holiday during that time) but the car was kept inside and eventually the repair was carried out. I then took the car back to the original garage, they did the repairs originally quoted for but are now saying it has failed again on -

Nearside Front Coil spring mounting corroded and seriously weakened

I haven't used the car since the first test last month and at that point this was not even an advisory.

When I looked at both tests online there is a hge difference in advisory items too even though the car hasn't been used since the last test.

Is there anything I can do about this? I obviously based my decision on getting the £500 repair done on their original quote.

forgotmyname

Fix the failures or sell/scrap the car.

Rust continues to eat the metal whether you use it or not.

Jackmydad

It's a good job they spotted it.
You don't want your suspension suddenly giving way.
As already said. Fix it or scrap the motor.

mmcmahon

My problem is that if my decision was to scrap then it would have been before spending £600 on worthless repairs! Surely there has to be some consistency with the tests, the test was only three weeks ago, Is it likely that this issue which wasn't even on the advisory list three weeks ago all of a sudden became a major defect in three weeks?

At the time of the first test I told the garage I was considering scrapping if the repairs were too expensive, they said 'Well out part is only £110 (repair and MOT) so add that to the other cost' if I had the other info at the time I wouldn't have spent another £500 on it!

Joe_Horner

Tricky one.

Yes, cars do continue to rust whether your'e using them or not, but you wouldn't expect something to corrode from "not an advisory" to "fail" in under a month. in fact, you wouldn't really expect it to go from "advisory" to fail in that time. That's why the MOT scheme allows 3 months for appeals against corrosion.

It sounds as if either they missed the corrosion on the first test - which has led you to have repairs done that you might not have - or are over-stating the level of corrosion this time.

Either way, it appears the standard of at least one of the tests isn't up to what should be expected.

The simple answer to that is to have a word with DVSA, see what options they can suggest. A straight appeal against the fail may not be advisable if the corrosion is really an issue, but you don't have a "pass" to appeal against from the first test because of the other faults. So give their MOT line a call, explain what's happened, and see what they suggest.

Note that they'll ONLY be able to advise about how the testing standards might be checked (by appeal test etc), NOT what you could do about the work done or money you've spent.

Once you know what they can do to check the testing quality, thats the time to go back to the garage and see what THEY can do to get you back on the road.

If it's something that was missed on the first test and a fairly straightforward repair it may well be worth their while doing it for goodwill rather than having DVSA breathing down their necks or asking hard questions.

mmcmahon

Thanks Joe, a really helpful answer.

AdrianC

Very few parts of the MOT are absolutely black and white, but the test is very rigidly defined.

This is how the spring mount is tested, and the standard expected of it:https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/class3457/Section-5-Axles-Wheels-Tyres-and-Suspension.html#section_5.3


The tester's experience forms a large part of determining whether that mount is a pass or a fail, whether it's "seriously weakened". Different testers, different opinions. Perhaps it was wet when one saw it, dry when the other.


If you think a test result is unjustified - one way or the other - you have 14 days to appeal it, and no work should be done on the car in the interim.
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/problems-with-your-test-result

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

If you think a test result is unjustified - one way or the other - you have 14 days to appeal it, and no work should be done on the car in the interim.
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/problems-with-your-test-result

Or 3 months for corrosion related issues.

mmcmahon

AdrianC wrote: »

The tester's experience forms a large part of determining whether that mount is a pass or a fail, whether it's "seriously weakened". Different testers, different opinions. Perhaps it was wet when one saw it, dry when the other.

I was told the two tests were carried out by the same person.

natlol

Out of interest what car is it? On my 16 year old Fiesta the spring sits in the cup at the bottom of the damper so it would be really easy to see severe corrosion by removing the wheel. They must have missed it the first time round. I’d be a bit miffed too.

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Or 3 months for corrosion related issues.

That's for a pass that you don't think is warranted. The OP's failed both tests.