SteveWallace
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
how reliable are mot's?
Just bought a car for my daughter who has just passed her test. Last mot had an advisory on a shock absorber (which 2 days before had been a
fail).Seller agreed to give it a new MOT and fix any fails and advisories. I was expecting at least the shock, but it came up as a clear pass. Should
I be worried, do mot passes for mates still exist?
|
|
|
|
|
ian locostzx9rc2
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 05:53 PM |
|
|
If he cleaned the shock they wouldnt see an issue there's no bounce test as part of the mot anymore there progress for you !!
|
|
|
Talon Motorsport
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
Passes for mates most definitely still happen, I took my transit recovery in for a test and it went a long the lines of
'put it over the pit for me,does it all work?'
answer 'I know it needs a track rod doing'
'well thats all ok then lets put it on the gas meter'
'contrats mate it's passed'
Time to do MOT 4 mins, time to type up MOT, smoke fag, have a p#ss, drink coffee 25 mins.
Still feel safe about having 3800kg transit recovery sat 10ft behind you on that B road?
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:17 PM |
|
|
As reliable as the testers ability to spot or not faults. Its not unfeadible for a mate to 'not see' an obvious fault. Proving it may be
difficult. Is it tested at same place?
I had an escort fail on corroded battery tray, patched it with fibre glass, painted then smeared with used engine oil and vacuum cleaner contents so
did not look newly repaired, different mot place did not even look at it.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
As reliable as the tester that did the test/signed the certificate i.e. not very 
Also as said if a leaky shock isn't obvious & is cleaned off then it would pass anyway
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SteveWallace
do mot passes for mates still exist?
I'd say so. I saw a land rover about a month ago that a friend bought. MOT was only a couple of weeks old. That should have been a fail 100%. At
least 5 fails, some dangerous. Passed with no advisories.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:34 PM |
|
|
I was always told you should go the council MOT place where they don't do any fixes, just the MOT, but that was to solve the problem of a garage
finding extra faults to get work.
As the DVLA (Or whoever it is that runs MOTs) always say, the MOT isn't any sort of proof or guarantee the car is ok.
covering things up is a good one, I worked with a bloke who glued plastic sheets over rust patches to pass an MOT no issues.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
SteveWallace
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
Thanks guys,that's what I hoped you wouldn't say! I'll challenge him on it and have a closer look myself. Worst case scenario, I can
replace the shocks, discs and pads on both sides at the front for £200, so not the end of the world even if I have had my leg lifted.
|
|
|
SteveWallace
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
I was always told you should go the council MOT place where they don't do any fixes, just the MOT, but that was to solve the problem of a garage
finding extra faults to get work.
As the DVLA (Or whoever it is that runs MOTs) always say, the MOT isn't any sort of proof or guarantee the car is ok.
covering things up is a good one, I worked with a bloke who glued plastic sheets over rust patches to pass an MOT no issues.
I saw someone paint over blue tac instead of spot welding a repair before an mot once.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
Was it the same MOT station that passed it as had given it the advisory?
If so, I'd have thought you'd have a case to take it up with the DVSA if the damper does prove to be defective?
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
You can now see the vehicles MoT history which shows the results from each time it's been taken for MoT. It shows the fails and advisories.
Print them out and confront the seller. If his mate has turned a blind eye to faults, then mention the garage and tester by name and suggest that you
may take the car to a VOSA centre for a retest......
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/?_ga=1.236280390.653928017.1447268240
[Edited on 11/11/15 by owelly]
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
SteveWallace
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
You can now see the vehicles MoT history which shows the results from each time it's been taken for MoT. It shows the fails and advisories.
Print them out and confront the seller. If his mate has turned a blind eye to faults, then mention the garage and tester by name and suggest that you
may take the car to a VOSA centre for a retest......
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/?_ga=1.236280390.653928017.1447268240
[Edited on 11/11/15 by owelly]
it's looking at that site that set the alarm bells ringing. If it had only ever been an advisory, I would have been ok. My plan is to confront
him as you say, just to see his reaction rather than in the expectation of getting anything out of it. Of course it could be fine and closer
inspection might reveal new shocks.
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
I had a clear lesson in shock absorber MoT failure on my Transhit.
One rear shock was deemed a pass, the other one was deemed an advisory. There's no bounce test. The 'pass' was because the shock
wasn't leaking oil and looked good, the advisory shock had a slight oil weep.
Because the van also failed on brake pipes, front discs and a few other 'excessive corrosion' issues (as expected) I had it in the air to
attend to it all, weld spatter burns (lovely), plenty of time, so replaced the shocks....
The MoT 'pass' shock had no oil in it, no damping action *whatsoever*. The 'advisory' shock had some damping and seemed
useable.
Anyway, one last thing to say, the replacements (ECP) have transformed the feel of the rear end.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SteveWallace
Just bought a car for my daughter who has just passed her test. Last mot had an advisory on a shock absorber (which 2 days before had been a
fail).Seller agreed to give it a new MOT and fix any fails and advisories. I was expecting at least the shock, but it came up as a clear pass. Should
I be worried, do mot passes for mates still exist?
You may be looking at this the wrong round ---- where was the previous MOT from Kwikfit by any chance?
Mot Advisories are a very grey area .....................
Mot pass is exactly that.
If you want to go with guns blazing without checking the vehicle over properly good luck to you.
[Edited on 11/11/15 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Brook_lands
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 09:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
Was it the same MOT station that passed it as had given it the advisory?
If so, I'd have thought you'd have a case to take it up with the DVSA if the damper does prove to be defective?
Just remember an advisory is just that. In the opinion of the tester the item, at the time of the test, was serviceable and met or exceeded the
standard required to pass the test. However, again in the tester's opinion, there is evidence or a reason why it may need attention in the
future and probably/ possibly before the next test.
So before we start shouting dodgy I see no problem, the car went in, tester observed some oil/ dampness around the body of the shock absorber which
MIGHT be an indication that the unit is failing but as it is it is of the required standard to pass the test. That's as far as he can go. There
is no provision in the test for further investigation. They can't start taking things apart to have a better look. Correctly they pass the
component and add an advisory. They don't know where the oil/ dampness has come from, how long it has been like that, how fast or how much the
leak is if it is a leak at all.
Next time the car comes in the shock is all cleaned up, the tester doesn't know if it is a replacement used part or the same one cleaned up. The
component is of the required standard to pass, at the time of this test there is no evidence of a possible developing problem with the unit as there
is no oil/ dampness on it, therefore no reason for an advisory.
At both times the unit was subject to the MOT test it was deemed of the correct standard to pass, what justification is there for a complaint to the
DVSA.
On that basis every item on the MOT list should be the subject of an advisory just in case it becomes faulty at some time before the next test.
All an MOT certificate is is something that is required by law for cars over 3 years old until they become exempt and an indication that the vehicle
was of the required standard when it was presented for test and when tested in the prescribed way. Not 30 seconds before and certainly at no time
afterwards. If your sills have plastic covers on, the MOT tester cannot remove them so your sills could be as rusty and rotten as anything, a correct
MOT pass under the rules, but still a dangerous vehicle.
Remember the MOT test is a minimum standard to pass, not an indication that the car is in tip top condition.
[Edited on 11/11/15 by Brook_lands]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
As reliable as the testers ability to spot or not faults. Its not unfeadible for a mate to 'not see' an obvious fault. Proving it may be
difficult. Is it tested at same place?
I had an escort fail on corroded battery tray, patched it with fibre glass, painted then smeared with used engine oil and vacuum cleaner contents so
did not look newly repaired, different mot place did not even look at it.
For a few years now MOT tester have been instructed from on high that insecure batteries are not grounds for failure ..... no logic in it but
true.
The old hands however know they can issue a Refusal to Test on grounds of safety due to insecure load or other items.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
Above post from Brook lands {like button}
very imformative
aside to this, in aviation we have some funnys that are banded about, and one of them goes a bit like this
Pilot adds to the tech log that "evidence of oil on nose leg oleo" as a tech defect
Maintenance engineers see's the tech log, and wipes the oil off the oleo leg, and writes in the tech log
"evidence of oil removed"
so it is a failure ??
steve
[Edited on 11/11/15 by steve m]
Thats was probably spelt wrong, or had some grammer, that the "grammer police have to have a moan at
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
My diesel passed recently with an advisory on mild bottom ball joint wear. Closer inspection showed clamp bolt mostly undone and joint bouncing around
in the clamp. Fails every year on handbrake efficiency, first few years I stripped, lubed, reconned the lot for retest. Recently I've just
cleaned the caliper and miraculously the efficiency rockets ?!
|
|
|
Brook_lands
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 09:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
Above post from Brook lands {like button}
so it is a failure ??
[Edited on 11/11/15 by steve m]
Well now we are getting into causality, proxy measurements and symptom analysis.
A slightly different one. The brake fluid level light comes on on the dash. What does this mean assuming the sensor is working correctly?
Well it doesn't mean your brakes have failed because they are still working just as well as before the light came on.
It is a proxy measure that indicates your brakes MAY be about to fail but that is on the basis that falling brake fluid level May be a symptom of
pending brake failure.
But all it is actually telling you is that the level of your brake fluid has dropped below a predetermined level.
Back to yours Steve, without further investigation that question cannot be answered.
|
|
|
SteveWallace
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
I'm probably getting more wound up by this than it deserves. When I went to inspect the car, I saw the advisory on the shock and thought
"so what, I've driven loads of cars with advisories and if it needs replacing before the next MOT then its a simply fix and only £70 a
side". I also wouldn't have thought too much about the advisory not being there at the next test as they are very tester dependent as has
been said.
Problem was, I got home found the link on here to the MOT test history site and saw that it failed an MOT based on a severely leaking shock 2 days
before it passed with an advisory. To be fair to the seller, he had probably not seen the previous fail either and had only been given the later
pass, so even if it is a mates test he probably doesn't see it as a big issue.
It might be that the original test (which had a few other simple fix fails such as wiper blades and not sufficiently attached exhaust) was a Halfrauds
special and that the shock should only ever have been an advisory. Alternatively the shock might have failed completely now and therefore not be
showing any oil.
I'm also kicking myself for not testing the suspension when I did the first inspection on the car. My excuse is that I looked at it on the way
to hospital to see my nearest and dearest who had just been taken in for an op - I should have probably bailed out.
Being honest, my anger is probably 8/10 pride for having potentially missed something when I inspected the car!
As I said earlier in this thread, worst case is that it will cost £140 two new front shocks and I had might as well do the brakes and discs whilst
I'm at it for a total of £200 ish and a couple of hours of my time to get a sorted car
[Edited on 11/11/15 by SteveWallace]
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
Your daughters car
MOT is nice to have and gives you a year to fix the faults you are not happy with.
For me the MOT identifies areas I may have overlooked and I thank them for that
I've found a good MOT garage that does fix if you ask or just advises if it fails
They are always full of cars and don't push for work
I always get MOT from them and if I can't be asked they get the work
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
Brook_lands
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 10:51 PM |
|
|
The problem is the test is still somewhat subjective for some things and the inability of the tester to do further investigation within the test means
it often comes down to a judgement call - define badly leaking?
At the end of the day old cars are old cars (and even some not so old cars) have bits than need fixing.
I've used the same tester for 27 years so we know each other quite well. He knows that if he puts down an advisory or mentions something to me
it will get fixed straight away but he is always complaining that things he would happily (and correctly) mark as an advisory on my cars, he really
wants to put as a fail for some other customers because he knows they won't do anything about it until it breaks or the car comes back next
year. But as he says, if it meets the standard it passes, if it doesn't, it fails end off.
Now I know there are some bad'uns out there but I do have some sympathy for the good guys that work in these big national chains. Unlike my chap
who knows his customers and can make a call as to what ought to be done between now and when he is likely to see the car next, the testers or fitters
in the multi outlet chains probably don't. If a car comes in with what might be a developing problem they have no idea when it might get looked
at next so what do they do? We've all heard these conversations.
Fitter "Your front brakes are looking a bit worn" -subtext, they're ok at the moment but are going to need replacing sometime.
Customer " How worn" -subtext that sounds expensive can I get away without spending any more money on it just now.
Fitter "Quite worn they will need doing soon" - subtext I've not see you or your car before I don't know how you drive or how
long those pads have been on, they could last a week, a month or a day.
Customer "How soon" - subtext that sounds a bit more urgent but I still don't want to spend more money just now.
Fitter "Well we can do them for you today and then you know they're done" - subtext how the hell do I know how much longer they will
last, ok I'll go for the safe option and suggest they are done now.
Customer "Do you really think I ought to do that" -subtext I still don't want to spend money but now its sounding more urgent, or is
he just ripping me off and wants more work because he's on an incentive scheme.
At this point the customer
1 has the work done but still at thinks that maybe the fitter was just looking for more work.
2 doesn't have it done, the brake last another 12 months because they drive like a nun so they are now convinced the fitter was just looking to
do unnecessary work.
3 they don't have it done, thrash the car to death for the next month because that is how they always drive, the pads go down to the backing
plates, wreck the discs, the bill is twice as much and the customer then complains that the place the car was taken to a month early is a right dodgy
place and passes cars with duff brakes.
PS. Interestingly I didn't know the bounce test had gone because my chap still does it, guess old habits and all that.
|
|
|
Brook_lands
|
| posted on 11/11/15 at 11:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snapper
Your daughters car
MOT is nice to have and gives you a year to fix the faults you are not happy with.
For me the MOT identifies areas I may have overlooked and I thank them for that
I've found a good MOT garage that does fix if you ask or just advises if it fails
They are always full of cars and don't push for work
I always get MOT from them and if I can't be asked they get the work
Places like that are gold dust when you find them, hence why I've used the same place for 27 years. He's always packed out and employs
about 6 or 7 mechanics but is never looking for work. He has a good reputation and seems to have a lot of contacts with local businesses with small
fleets. In fact, and this has been going on for a number of years much to the amusement and/or amazement of other customers present, he flatly refuses
to do any work for me other than MOTs to point where it can develop into quite a (false) argument. We both know its a game but the other customers
don't. But the reality of the situation is, regardless of whether I can be asked or not, he won't do any work on any of my cars.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 12/11/15 at 07:29 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
My diesel passed recently with an advisory on mild bottom ball joint wear. Closer inspection showed clamp bolt mostly undone and joint bouncing around
in the clamp. Fails every year on handbrake efficiency, first few years I stripped, lubed, reconned the lot for retest. Recently I've just
cleaned the caliper and miraculously the efficiency rockets ?!
On some models even when brand new are marginal on handbrake efficiency and testers often allow a bit of leeway, I modified the handbrake compensator
on mine using a rose joint and it now can run for 2 to 3 years without fettling and the handbrake shoes.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 12/11/15 at 12:27 PM |
|
|
I have been rebuilding cars for years that all had MOT passes and most had serious safety issues somehow missed by the MOT inspectors.
The landy I am repairing now had a crack right through the rear chassis leg next to a huge hole I could get my fist through and whole car sagging due
to it, all that barely covered by a sheet steel patch held on with silicon sealant...rest of the car not much better, passed its MOT like that
MOT's are only as good as the person doing the test.
|
|
|
