How much force does an mot tester need to use?

Sorry to be negative but "at the end of the day" there is corrosion that is an MOT fail. The fact the tester MIGHT have used excessive force is IMO really irrelevant. After all do you want to know your car has MOT fail rot or would you prefer tester ignor and pass ? Where do you draw a line as what they should give a pass when strictly a fail ?
If any doubt contact VOSA straight away and tell them it seems tester has discovered rot that otherwise might have gone unnoticed for their opinion but doubt they will side with you as tester just did his job.

Paul H

Thanks Paul, I see where your coming from and to an extent agree. However the the damaged areas I refer to, mainly the scratches along the sills didn't have any rot underneath hence it not being stated on the test.

I could easily make a whole in a perfectly good panel if I hit it hard enough. The metal around the small wholes is very solid.

There was a couple of areas that I totally agreed were gone and need repair however some of the damaged areas which will now need cosmetic attention were not a refusal.

I have done a quick search and found lots relating to when the rear belts had to be worn from but does anyone know when they had to be fitted from? Like I say if I can show him something stating it was law after 85 I can get him to change it to an advisory? Thanks

Well if the panel was a perfectly good panel with no rust bubbles to start with then you have grounds for a complaint. If the damaged areas are right next to areas that clearly have corrosion then the tester is perfectly within his rights to check the extent of the corrosion and the fact that it will need repairing is moot as it needs repairing anyway.
Why not post up some pics so we can get a better idea of what's happened.

Well I'm in the bath right now so don't have my mot manual to hand. If the tester was in any doubt as to whether your seatbelts are legal its his job to check and if he's still in doubt the benifit of the doubt should have been given to you. What I mean is, he should have advised it anyway.
That said, if a vehicle was brought to me for an mot and I found corrosion at a seat belt mount I would fail it regardless of age. It's a seat belt and one of the few things in an mot that really is life or death.
The mot test is not very strict and to fail a car really does have to be in pretty poor condition. A lot of it is rubbish like number plates and emissions but the few safety critical items that are covered are there to try and maintain a basic standard of road worthiness. If your prepared to duck and dodge something as safety critical as seat belt security maybe its a waste of time even bothering with an mot. I hear you can get a dodgy one for about 70 quid in these parts.

I have had a mot done at a garage where my sills were cut open as if by a tin opener up to six inches away from the rot in solid metal.

loads of the balljoints were failed with new screwdriver shaped holes in them.

not the only person to have 'unexpected' repairs from there both at mot and servicing.

I fixed the inner sills and the rear void bushes and the 8 or 9 other 'failures' fixed themselves magically when taken to my regular test station

still angry 15 years later.

not sure its relevant to your case thomas although I would not expect any more than a prod with a finger followed by a 'tap' with the toffee hammer on any structural area that looked rotten or 'freshly+thickly painted'

sounds a bit excessive on the not rotten areas - but its the testers ass if he misses something and a complaint goes back.

if the filler area was just blistered paint and he has failed it due to the 30cm rule + wants you to tell him if it should only be an advisory, then that says it all really.

my view would be fix it and never go back there again


generally speaking if a mot is done by the book most failures are there to save the lives of you and yours (plus the odd kitten), and to be clear nearly every mot tester I have used has been spot on



.....walks away grumbling....




edit:

more succinctly summed up by Rev. although, in the interests of safety, I hope his laptop is running off battery power if he's using it in the bath

Thanks for the link but I looked at that already, it states more about the function of the belt which is not at question in this case.

That's what I thought, It's confused me him saying it would change to an advisory if the car was produced before the law came into effect.

Some reason when trying to post a pic it says the forum has reached some sort of limit?

Yeah I understand that so why has he said depending on the car age makes a difference as to wether its an advisory or a refusal?

Give us a min I'll try and get a pic up.

Unless there's a hole there its not a fail. That doesn't look like a hole from the pic.
As for cutting open sills, that's totally not allowed. We're not even allowed to remove underseal to check if repair panels are properly seam welded. You can tap with the hammer and if you suspect corrosion you can scrape to see if corroded metal falls away. If it does you're allowed to prod. If you prod and penetrate then its a fail. The complete opposite of what normally happens when I prod and penetrate which results in bags of win.
It sounds to me like the tester hasn't really seen much over ten years old and he's gone to town a bit to cover his basil brush. You can appeal it if you want but its a drawn out process and would involve the car being off the road for a long time, or just take it to someone who's a bit more experienced with older cars. You'll loose your fee but just put it down to experience.
If there is a hole there then its definately a fail. You could take the seatbelt out to get it through but that to me seems pointless. Like removing a cracked screen or taking the headlights out because the bulbs are blown. (yes, you can actually do that too.)