We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Car damaged during MOT
Comments
-
If what was said was correct (pipe on it's last legs) then I would agree repair is down to OP.
If they damaged the pipes through a lack of care and then made up a story then repair is on them.
I would assume there's not much poking about that would result in accidental damage of this manner so the first is most likely but I don't know much about cars.In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces1 -
What a coincidence. You did take it to an MOT station that doesn't do repairs I hope.
0 -
You had a lucky escape, fix your dodgy brakes and move on2
-
The only aspect of the MOT station's reaction I would question is saying the the car owner can't see the failed part. That should have been retained so they could show the car owner the problem.
2 -
would they know that it came from their car?
1 -
This was the line from the OP "I asked to see the pipe but he said that it could not be seen by either of us."
It's unusual phrasing (not 'had been disposed of), but I read this to mean the broken part is still in situ (and would remain so until the OP arranged repair) and the damage might not be visible to the naked eye? Understandably they wouldn't like the idea of the OP driving it around the yard to see the brake is non-functional...I'm not an early bird or a night owl; I’m some form of permanently exhausted pigeon.2 -
Exactly. The examiner stated that the pipe was rusty, but said that it could not be seen. He said brake fluid was leaking everywhere but when I looked it wasn't. So I asked what the evidence was that it was a rust brake pipe that caused the brakes to break, and he said "because the brakes don't work."TELLIT01 said:The only aspect of the MOT station's reaction I would question is saying the the car owner can't see the failed part. That should have been retained so they could show the car owner the problem.
So there is no evidence that a rusty or old part caused the issue.0 -
Yes. When I asked to see the broken pipe, the examiner said "You can't see it. You can't see it, I can't see it."ArbitraryRandom said:This was the line from the OP "I asked to see the pipe but he said that it could not be seen by either of us."
It's unusual phrasing (not 'had been disposed of), but I read this to mean the broken part is still in situ (and would remain so until the OP arranged repair) and the damage might not be visible to the naked eye? Understandably they wouldn't like the idea of the OP driving it around the yard to see the brake is non-functional...
When I said that I couldn't see the brake fluid leaking anywhere and asked what the evidence was that it was a broken brake pipe that caused the issue, he said "because the brakes don't work".
0 -
@Calios1 if the car has failed the MOT brake test for any reason then it's entirely up to you to get if fixed.
An examiner giving a necessary stomp on the pedal isn't going to break the system unless there is an inherent weakness in it.
You probably couldn't see the leak because the fluid had already been expelled from the line as it failed and all it would need is a pinhole to do so,1 -
Many brake pipes are protected by shields under the body of the car. So would require some stripping down to see. Not part of a MOT.Calios1 said:
Yes. When I asked to see the broken pipe, the examiner said "You can't see it. You can't see it, I can't see it."ArbitraryRandom said:This was the line from the OP "I asked to see the pipe but he said that it could not be seen by either of us."
It's unusual phrasing (not 'had been disposed of), but I read this to mean the broken part is still in situ (and would remain so until the OP arranged repair) and the damage might not be visible to the naked eye? Understandably they wouldn't like the idea of the OP driving it around the yard to see the brake is non-functional...
When I said that I couldn't see the brake fluid leaking anywhere and asked what the evidence was that it was a broken brake pipe that caused the issue, he said "because the brakes don't work".
Health & safety will have dictated that spill was cleaned up straight away & would be in area where testing would be done. So unless it was a while you wait MOT, there would be no evidence of it.
A quick check of brake fluid reservoir would have confirmed fluid level.Life in the slow lane1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
