No Advisory MOTs

Barkin

born_again said:

jimi_man said:

Why shouldn't they?

a "special arrangement" with the garage because they know he is a trader, where they ensure that they fix any issues to get it advisory free because they know he wants that and will pay for fixes.

Can you not see how open to abuse that is...

MOT test is on a car at that point in time. So without a retest, how is the tester to know (their livelihood is on the line here) that a dodgy garage will ignore the work required & to a standard that would pass the MOT..

The garage doing the test and the garage doing the remedial work are one and the same.

The place that I use don't do MOT tests themselves, but give it a thorough inspection before presenting it to the tester elsewhere.
Anything that they feel will fail or get an  advisory, they ring and ask if I want it doing before it goes for testing. 

It’s really no different to the scenario being discussed here.

Herzlos

Ibrahim5 said:

They have to make sure that they are recording enough advisories and having enough failures to stay within the curve, but probably 99% of their MOTs are cars that are just presented normally for MOT so there won't be any issues.

Just fail more of the people without 'special arrangements' and there won't be any problems. Obviously nothing dodgy about 'special arrangements' with MOT testers.

Why the assumption that it's dodgy? Giving cars a pre-inspection before MOT is pretty common since it saves some work and hassle. It's also not an issue because the car will get the same work done to it whether it's before or between MOTs.

You've obviously got an axe to grind here, since that's been explained a few times.

I'm not saying dodgy MOT's don't exist, but ensuring cars are only sold with a clean MOT isn't evidence of that unless the car would fail an independent MOT.

Ibrahim5

LOL. ALL MOTs are supposed to be independent. I suppose talking about honesty to used car salesmen is never going to work!

photome

Ibrahim5 said:

These are car dealers that are guaranteeing that all their cars will be sold with 'no advisory MOTs'. There has to be some collusion between MOT tester and car dealer. It's obviously undermining public trust in MOTs.

Do you mean Chops garage by any chance ?  If so he sends the cars for an MOT and pays for any work to be done so that the MOTs are advisory free…..why does there have to be collusion anyone could have an advisory free MOT

Mildly_Miffed

photome said:

Ibrahim5 said:

These are car dealers that are guaranteeing that all their cars will be sold with 'no advisory MOTs'. There has to be some collusion between MOT tester and car dealer. It's obviously undermining public trust in MOTs.

Do you mean Chops garage by any chance ?  If so he sends the cars for an MOT and pays for any work to be done so that the MOTs are advisory free…..why does there have to be collusion anyone could have an advisory free MOT

The suggestion is that what would be advised if you or I took our car in, goes unmentioned if the trader takes a car in.

Now, I know for a fact that testers with a regular trusted customer will often let minor issues pass when they should strictly fail, with a "You ARE going to fix that, aren't you?" - because it saves everybody time and money bringing it back for a retest.

That's different. At the end of the day, the only difference is that a return trip wasn't needed. The issue has been addressed.

The suggestion here (and I can well believe it) is that minor issues are going unmentioned in order to allow the trader to sell a used car for more money. The difference is that the customer is unaware of things they should be aware of.

facade

Mildly_Miffed said:

The suggestion is that what would be advised if you or I took our car in, goes unmentioned if the trader takes a car in.

Now, I know for a fact that testers with a regular trusted customer will often let minor issues pass when they should strictly fail, with a "You ARE going to fix that, aren't you?" - because it saves everybody time and money bringing it back for a retest.

That's different. At the end of the day, the only difference is that a return trip wasn't needed. The issue has been addressed.

The suggestion here (and I can well believe it) is that minor issues are going unmentioned in order to allow the trader to sell a used car for more money. The difference is that the customer is unaware of things they should be aware of.

As that trader explains, the MOTs are harder on his cars and the exact opposite is the case, because the first thing a significant number of customers do is organise an independent retest and then come back shouting the odds about "dodgy MOTs" if any advisories or failures then appear, which can also come back to bite the MOT station if the customer complains to whatever VOSA are calling themselves today.

As we know, advisories are items that in the opinion of the tester will likely need attention soon, but aren't bad enough to meet the fail criteria at the time of the test. so for example, almost imperceptible play in a ball joint wouldn't get advised on my MOT, because the Tester knows that I'm unlikely to waste money paying for a second opinion, I just want a pass, and if it gets noticeably worse by the next MOT it either becomes an advisory or a fail if bad enough.

If my car was one of the Secret Shoppers sent out to spot check standards, then he would be able to justify not advising it as in his opinion/judgement the play was imperceptible, and wouldn't significantly worsen in the near future.

Herzlos

Mildly_Miffed said:

Now, I know for a fact that testers with a regular trusted customer will often let minor issues pass when they should strictly fail, with a "You ARE going to fix that, aren't you?" - because it saves everybody time and money bringing it back for a retest.

I thought it was usually the other way round. It passes with a "I just fixed the blah for you, you owe me £40 for the parts".

At least that's what my guy does, because I'll approve the work anyway and it saves him having to leave it on a ramp whilst he tries to get hold of me. The only time he doesn't is if he thinks I'm better sourcing a used part.

Mildly_Miffed

Herzlos said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Now, I know for a fact that testers with a regular trusted customer will often let minor issues pass when they should strictly fail, with a "You ARE going to fix that, aren't you?" - because it saves everybody time and money bringing it back for a retest.

I thought it was usually the other way round. It passes with a "I just fixed the blah for you, you owe me £40 for the parts".

At least that's what my guy does, because I'll approve the work anyway and it saves him having to leave it on a ramp whilst he tries to get hold of me. The only time he doesn't is if he thinks I'm better sourcing a used part.

I'm thinking of a "garage A/B" setup, where A do the servicing and take it to B for the test.

Ectophile

I think there's some rose-tinted spectacles if people think that a "no advisory" MOT means that all the advisories have been fixed.

Some years back I bought a Land Rover from a local dealer.  When I looked around the car, I could see that the tyres weren't great and would need replacing before long.  Having one flat tyre was also a bit of a hint that they weren't great.

I ended up buying the car.  It came with a brand new MOT, with no advisories.

On getting it home, I decided to have another check of the tyres.  One was so worn it was down to the tread wear indicator on one side, and just above the TWI in the middle and the other side.  So it was bald as it could be and still be legal.  But no advisory on the MOT.

Obviously, I popped down to a local tyre place ASAP and ordered a new set.

Ibrahim5

Sad really. I guess you have to make MOT testing completely independent to stop this problem. The MOT tester should have no idea if he is testing a member of the publics car or one of his mates with a 'special arrangement'.