|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so to set the scene, I've been telling the Mrs to get her car booked in for an MOT for around a month now, as I'll be in hospital when the anniversay lapses. Eventually, 6 days before the MOT expires, she booked the car in, and low and behold it failed, had a feeling it would but not on what it did. I thought front wheel bearing, but they say otherwise.
Reasons for refusal:
001 - Nearside Track rod end ball joint has excessive play [2.2.B.1f]
002 - Nearside front upper Ball joint dust cover excessively damaged so that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt [2.2.C.1c]
003 - Nearside rear Brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c]
Advisory Items:
004 - Front brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened [3.5.1i]
005 - Both front and both rear tyres near limit.
006 - Play in nearside front upper ball joints.
007 - Oil leak
So;
001 I can deal with, a bit of a p**s take as they were only replaced 12 months ago, all front joints were replaced as it knocked like a really knocky thing on heat.
002 This wasn't damaged when the tyres were swapped 3 days ago, so I can only assume that the tester has been a little over excited with his prod-y stick.
003 This was a real p**s take. The pipes were fine around a week ago, as I replaced the caliper this side, along with both rear discs and pads. Not only can I see new metal where its been scraped back, but the vehicle had no brakes whatsoever, and nothing was said when the Mrs picked the car up. Upon phoning them, the answer consisted of "Oh yeah, it chucked fluid all over the workshop floor." Suffice to say, there was no fluid left at the master cylinder.
004 I can deal with, as they were due for replacement, but Jimmy Hill has a bigger chin than these discs, and there is tons of life left. No pitting or scoring on the discs either!
005 Is absolute horse s**t, unless 3mm tread is now near the limit?
006 Is legit, it did seem to have play, and the Mrs has been told to avoid potholes a little better!
007 Yeah, ok, its got an oil leak, or the remains of one, I see no leaks, but I need to drop the sump off to clean the oil pick up anyway.
Rang VOSA, they're not interested that the vehicle was left in an undriveable state, with no warnings over the total loss of brake fluid, nor that the front brake pipes WILL NEED replacing as the protective coating they've had for 16 years has now been removed exposing bare steel which will rust in the next week! They say small claims court.
Your views please? Surely the manual, which I'm about to read, doesn't allow this to happen, especially allowing the vehicle back on the road, with no warnings, there were no warning whatsoever that the brakes were in effect useless..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally i would just check the things it failed on, and if your not happy with the garage, book it in for an mot at a different mot station.
|
| |
1939 Francis Barnett Powerbike
1971 Honda C90
1992 Mitsubishi Lancer 1.5 GLX
1993 Fiat Panda Selecta
2003 Vauxhall Combo 1.7DI van
|
|
a3ltr
Part of things
Posts: 33
|
|
|
|
you only have 3 options really 1. Go back & ask for an appeal form, fill it in with the full MOT fee of £54.85 & send it to VOSA but you have to leave the car in an un-repaired state until VOSA have done a test on it & go from there . . . 2. Fix said items & take it back for re-test 3. Get it MOT'd at another station & go from there The advisory items are just to bring things to your attention that may need looking at - don't worry too much about them. the main issue that gets me is that of the brakes have leaked out, the test should have been abandoned - with a leaking system the brake test should not have been done and why didn't the car fail for a leaking brake system ?? Also the tester should not have removed any protective coating on the pipes - even if they are covered in grease ! Hope this helps  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have, but the manual clearly states;
Everything else has been swapped out or replaced, but I'll be taking the car for it's retest in the morning and bring the front pipes up, as they've clearly been messed with and protective coating has been removed unnecessarily.
I think its wonderful that there is such a blatant want for work. I also think VOSA is a waste of time and do nothing more than pass the book!
|
| |
|
|
a3ltr
Part of things
Posts: 33
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately there are some garages out there that do these sort of things and I do agree with you about VOSA !
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you only have 3 options really 1. Go back & ask for an appeal form, fill it in with the full MOT fee of £54.85 & send it to VOSA but you have to leave the car in an un-repaired state until VOSA have done a test on it & go from there . . . 2. Fix said items & take it back for re-test 3. Get it MOT'd at another station & go from there The advisory items are just to bring things to your attention that may need looking at - don't worry too much about them. the main issue that gets me is that of the brakes have leaked out, the test should have been abandoned - with a leaking system the brake test should not have been done and why didn't the car fail for a leaking brake system ?? Also the tester should not have removed any protective coating on the pipes - even if they are covered in grease ! Hope this helps 1: Unfortunately, with 3 kids, the car is needed, and I can't afford another off the road, for what will turn out to be months. VOSA have already proved they're less than useless by passing the book to Trading Standards. 2: Its off for a retest in the morning. I shall be bringing the front pipes up with the tester too, as I had a feeling nothing could be removed. 3: Next MOT station is known for dodgy MOT's, investigated three times by VOSA, who only suspended the tester in question for a matter of weeks. Another blatant p**s take! Couldn't care much about the advisory items, its purely the tyres which are known to have 3mm tread on them, as this is what is highlighted on the tyre wall and they we're only put on 3 days ago, and have covered less than 200 miles. I've taken a couple of pictures of the suspect items, and once I remember when my camera is, I'll do something with them.. Thanks for the headsup! |
| |
|
|
ferny
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 986
Club RR Member Number: 13
|
MOT Queryferny
@ferny
Club Retro Rides Member 13
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. You say the brakes lines are fine. They say they're excessively corroded. There's no brake fluid left. How did it escape? It wouldn't just because they've scraped off the coating, so what happened to make it leak? Sorry if I've missed something.
|
| |
Last Edit: Jan 7, 2015 23:59:07 GMT by ferny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The brake lines were fine, before the test, as I'd rebuilt most of the rear end.
The tester, and it can only be the tester due to how and where the vehicle has been parked, has not only used the 'spae end' of the corrosion assessment tool, but what seems to be a hammer and chisel to remove most of the near side rear brake line, that showed no sign of corrosion a week previously.
Scraping away at the rear pipe, to remove good shiney metal that was previously covered with a protective coating, is what has left the vehicle with no brakes.
What beggars belief is that the test continued.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This all sounds a bit murky, not least the conduct of the tester but massively in your favour is the fact that the car must have had brake pressure when presented and when the test was started or they would have recorded that as a fail and the leak has appeared (by whatever means) during the test.
By not abandoning the test, the tester has not followed the procedure and left himself open to scrutiny on that.
How did the re-test go?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, personally I wouldn't worry about not abandoning the test, they don't stop at the first thing they find wrong. What would you say if they said we found a light out, test abandoned, fix that and represent?* It depends what order they did the test in. They could have done the brake efficiency test first and later found the brake pipe during the inspection. There are not many of us that are capable of disputing a test and being without car for an indeterminate amount of time and the extra cost and inconvenience. I think it is just a case of sucking it up, do the work get the ticket, move on. frustratingly we live in the real world not an ideal one. That is not to say that you shouldn't express your opinion about it to them. Keep it civil with them you never know they might offer a compromise. Just don't get all bitter and twisted about it. Good luck.
Colin
*Edit: In fact you don't want them to abandon the test, you want a complete list of what is wrong. Otherwise you could end up paying twice.
|
| |
Last Edit: Jan 8, 2015 16:40:13 GMT by colnerov
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the problem, the MOT manual states otherwise! A major leak, or component failure and the test should be abandoned.
Surely there's a logic to the test proceedure. Would you perform an efficiency test before checking the lines are in good order? No, you wouldn't. Lets test the brakes then screw the lines up, dumping fluid on the workshop floor and not telling the customer.
Personally, I would want the test abandoned, especially when the vehicle is in an unroadworthy state following component failure on their property while undergoing an inspection.
The fact that VOSA are simply not interested either raises questions too!
|
| |
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,309
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
MOT QueryChasR
@chasr
Club Retro Rides Member 170
|
Jan 17, 2015 22:39:25 GMT
|
FWIW, I would look to take it to an MOT elsewhere. I used to go to a garage very much like this one who was cheap ; I soon found out why! Thankfully I have found a good place these days. The VOSA deal however is a laugh! It is a small wonder that testers can get away with this kind of stuff! Personally I would send a letter of complaint to the DVLA, even if it results in getting nowhere. As for the issues? Here's my 2p: 001 - I've had this before, with pattern parts, especially on a daily driven car. The solution? Genuine bits wherever possible IMO. If they lasted 100k on the car they'll do that again . OE branded stuff can be hit and miss in my experience but you get to know what works with certain cars after a while IME . 002 - Are you sure about this? I don't wish to insult you but on a 205 of mine I changed all of the drop links 12 months before an MOT. A month before it was retested I am sure I only counted 2 iffy boots with the top two looking fine on inspection (for a tyre change!). When I came to do the job it was 4 knackered balljoint boots. OTOH from what you are saying he may have become too keen. 003 - This sounds like he is taking the Michael. I guess that will need replacing. Is it the metal or flexi part which has gone? Advisory Items: 004 - It could be corroded on the inside (I just changed a set and only found out about the state of them after a very good inspection ; I was in for a shock) 005 - MOT testers do this to cover themselves. Policemen IME especially after a bad day will get funny about anything close to the limit, even 2.5mm IME. I could tell you of stories where such matters have been disputed but I shall leave this. If my tyres are 2mm my tester will tend to give an advisory of the tyres being right on the limit. 006 - See Point no. 1 - If it makes you feel better I changed 2 upper arms on an Alfa Romeo once due to them developing play (1 was a cheapo part, the other an 'OE' Lemforder ; how an Alfa specialist did not laugh in my face (much) when I told him about my boggle, and he told me what worked for him (in that case either genuine, TRW or best of all Poly bushes (the latter never die). As said, my 205 stopped knocking completely (from slightly) when I went from Q-Drive drop links (only a year and 1000 miles old!) to Genuine Pug items (which were NOS to add insult to injury; they were cheap to buy mind you!). 007 - Testers have to report on what they see, so as to cover themselves. With an MOT (thus the tyres as well) a tester has to cover the car from what I was told for 4 months worth of use, hence the tyres advisory. This is not a guarantee, but more of how they are taught and told to do when assessing a car. |
| |
|
|
JohnK
North East
Posts: 470
|
|
|
|
With an MOT (thus the tyres as well) a tester has to cover the car from what I was told for 4 months worth of use, hence the tyres advisory. This is not a guarantee, but more of how they are taught and told to do when assessing a car. I don't understand how that can be true - isn't it a case that the car is only deemed roadworthy in the eyes of the MOT at the time of test (ie when I get home I take my steel wheels with 5 mm tread off and put my alloys back on with the cords exposed?). And ultimately I put 25k miles on my daily a year compared to say 2k miles in my E23, so a component may only last a month on one car compared to another year on the E23. I would agree with other responses mate if you're unhappy take it for a retest somewhere else. Just suck up the repairs if you need the car back on the road - I know it's a pain in the backside but DVSA (the new name for VOSA) will have you hanging about for months. I wouldn't worry about advisories either - I've had the same car tested at the same garage but with 2 different testers and I did none of the advisory work from year 1 and got a clean sheet the second year! It is all down to the individual tester. |
| |
Last Edit: Jan 18, 2015 6:33:32 GMT by JohnK
-------------------------------------------
1999 'V' Rover 620Ti
1999 'T' Mercedes E55 AMG
1997 'R' Ford Probe 24v
1994 'M' Nissan Maxima 3.0
1992 'J' Honda Prelude 2.0iS
1986 'C' BMW 728i Auto
1985 'C' Talbot Solara 1.6 Minx
1984 'A' Talbot Horizon LE Ultra 1.3
1978 'S' Ford Cortina 1.6 GL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately most places test the brake efficiency at the start of the test as fur to how an mot bay is set out you have to drive over the rollers to get to the ramp This is the problem, the MOT manual states otherwise! A major leak, or component failure and the test should be abandoned. Surely there's a logic to the test proceedure. Would you perform an efficiency test before checking the lines are in good order? No, you wouldn't. Lets test the brakes then screw the lines up, dumping fluid on the workshop floor and not telling the customer. Personally, I would want the test abandoned, especially when the vehicle is in an unroadworthy state following component failure on their property while undergoing an inspection. The fact that VOSA are simply not interested either raises questions too! |
| |
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,309
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
MOT QueryChasR
@chasr
Club Retro Rides Member 170
|
Jan 18, 2015 17:49:58 GMT
|
With an MOT (thus the tyres as well) a tester has to cover the car from what I was told for 4 months worth of use, hence the tyres advisory. This is not a guarantee, but more of how they are taught and told to do when assessing a car. I don't understand how that can be true - isn't it a case that the car is only deemed roadworthy in the eyes of the MOT at the time of test (ie when I get home I take my steel wheels with 5 mm tread off and put my alloys back on with the cords exposed?). And ultimately I put 25k miles on my daily a year compared to say 2k miles in my E23, so a component may only last a month on one car compared to another year on the E23. I would agree with other responses mate if you're unhappy take it for a retest somewhere else. Just suck up the repairs if you need the car back on the road - I know it's a pain in the backside but DVSA (the new name for VOSA) will have you hanging about for months. I wouldn't worry about advisories either - I've had the same car tested at the same garage but with 2 different testers and I did none of the advisory work from year 1 and got a clean sheet the second year! It is all down to the individual tester. If a copper was to stop the car and the brake linings were on the metal after a week of a car being tested things would get quite awkward for the tester let's just say or if part of the suspension had a major failure. The point about the tyres is true, and I saw it like this for quite some time. However, how many people change their tyres as a % of the population? Down my street I would say that I am the only one and I bet that even within the radius of a few streets it is only another person at best. Moreover, you never know which garage is ever being watched. A garage locally went from being OK to being beyond strict (overzealous (I am sure he was using more force than necessary to test cars afterwards)) as soon as his name was branded across the papers by an unhappy customer. It really doesn't take much. As for tyres? I was stopped with having my tyres at 3mm as some parts were on 1.6mm (I could not tell. On the basis they were due to be changed I did but I did feel like challenging it. Yes I could have dispute it but is it really worth it? On another instance a tester told me about the head refresher course manager at a local VOSA centre being stopped on his way back from work. One side of the tyre had almost no tread (the very edge). He got pulled over. The copper was telling him how this tyre was dangerous etc. etc. The tester replied that he should take a photo of the tyre with his mobile phone and that he would see him in court. At this point the officer's senior came out to see what the issue was. Upon the VOSA chap flashing his bade to show who he was the whole thing was dropped. Funny that eh? |
| |
|
|
