Car damaged during MOT

ArbitraryRandom

Calios1 said:

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... 

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." 

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". 

I'm going to assume that the brakes were working when they brought the car into the bay for testing, but when they applied the full force required to test them in a simulated emergency situation there was some reduction, then the pedal just went down with no resistance - suggesting a catastrophic failure (as opposed to a slow leak/low fluid levels). 

Either way, you now have a car with no brakes - so I would suggest asking them to make the repairs but keep the part, then if you doubt there's an issue you can always ask someone else to look at it... 

Calios1

Ayr_Rage said:

@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,

This isn't the case. If damage occurs during the test the liability is with the examiner:

"The extent of an authorised examiner’s (AE) liability for damage is set out in regulation 14(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No 1694) as amended but is repeated here for information.

14 (1) Where a motor vehicle has been submitted for an examination to be carried out by a person other than a section 66A examiner, the authorised examiner or designated council (as the case may be ) shall have the same responsibility for:

a. loss of or damage to the vehicle or its equipment or accessories occurring in connection with the carrying out of the examination during any period while the vehicle is, in connection with the carrying out of the examination, in the custody of the authorised examiner or designated council (as the case may be)"

As the brakes worked before the test, and broke during the test, then damage (ie a loss of functionality) has occurred and liability adheres to the test station.

ArbitraryRandom

That has already been discussed on the thread, and the supporting examples given are of damaged caused to the car during the testing period not as a result of the testing (i.e. a smashed tail light). 

I don't think many people here are going to agree with you that a part that failed during testing is covered under the broad meaning of 'damage' in those regulations - as the purpose of the test is to simulate conditions under-which a faulty part would fail. 

But, ultimately, what matters is the garage and, if it gets that far, the judge in the small claims courts. 

I hope you keep us updated. 

IvanOpinion

Not the examiners fault.
How do they know that you did not knowingly apply a temporary fix in the hope of claiming damage from the tester? 

It is the same as something on the car failing immediately after the test, it is still the owners problem. 
All a test does is determine if, at the time of the test, the car is roadworthy. In your case the car was deemed to not be roadworthy.

If you feel particularly strongly about it, and you purchased legal protection as part of your motor insurance, then you could try using that to get legal help. I would be surprised if they did not tell you exactly what others on this thread have already told you.

Ayr_Rage

@Calios1 it is NOT damage, it is the failure of a critical system during normal testing UNLESS you can prove they accidentally damaged the pipe by other means.

You aren't going to win the argument here, at the test station or in a court of law.

littleboo

If the examiners account is correct, its absolutely not damage, its a failure of your vehicle ( which you probably shouldn't have been driving on the road in the first place) Damage would be, the paintwork was scratched etc. 

MattMattMattUK

It is not damage, it is a failure, you were lucky it did not fail whilst driving. If you are so sure of your position then take them to court and let a magistrate decide, but I, and it seems everyone else thinks you are wrong.

Calios1

ArbitraryRandom said:

Calios1 said:

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... 

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." 

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". 

I'm going to assume that the brakes were working when they brought the car into the bay for testing, but when they applied the full force required to test them in a simulated emergency situation there was some reduction, then the pedal just went down with no resistance - suggesting a catastrophic failure (as opposed to a slow leak/low fluid levels). 

Either way, you now have a car with no brakes - so I would suggest asking them to make the repairs but keep the part, then if you doubt there's an issue you can always ask someone else to look at it... 

Of course, I could have accepted that a rusty brake pipe contributed to the brakes failing if I'd have been able to see any evidence. But the examiner could provide none. 

A customer should not imo have to accept by default a position that a) cannot be proved, b) costs them money and c) benefits the garage.

This inspired me to actually check what the policy is regarding testing brakes.

Is the examiner actually (as many here seem to believe) trying to simulate an emergency situation when testing the brakes?

On the government's MOT testing guide it states in reference to roller brake testers that the examiner must follow the instructions laid out in the roller brake tester manual, which I found.

It says in relation to a SAXON Roller Brake Tester UK version:

4.1 Normal Test Process
(summary of sections 1-7 set the machine up and drive the car onto it, and then...)

Section 8: Brake slowly until blocking.

Make some checks and save the value.

Nothing is mentioned whatsoever about having to apply more force than is used during normal driving, nothing about an emergency stop situation, just: Brake slowly.

So the examiner's statement that he had to hit the brakes unusually hard is not in accordance with a roller brake tester manual of operations, and that seemed to contribute to the brake breaking.

molerat

Your only option then is to get the vehicle trailered away to an independent garage and get them to examine the vehicle and prepare a report to take back to the testing station.

There cannot really be anything a tester could do, by applying the brakes either gently or severely, to damage the brake system that could not have occurred under day to day driving conditions.

It is not up to the testing station to investigate what and where the failure actually is, their responsibility is simply to report the facts - the brakes have failed the test.

Calios1

molerat said:

Your only option then is to get the vehicle trailered away to an independent garage and get them to examine the vehicle and prepare a report to take back to the testing station.

There cannot really be anything a tester could do to damage the brake system, by applying the brakes either gently or severely, that could not have occurred under day to day driving conditions.

It is not up to the testing station to investigate what and where the failure actually is, their responsibility is simply to report the facts - the brakes have failed the test.

Day to day driving the brakes were fine. I know that because I'd been driving it day to day for thousands of miles.

Using a roller tester against manufacturer's instructions could damage the break system, otherwise they wouldn't have those specific instructions.