Anyone seen Jay-Lo???

Hi Lee, Just for the record, unless I've got my dates mixed up, from your reg you don't need a chassis plate for the MOT. All vehicles Reg before 1981 don't need one, it is quoted in the testers manual.

cheers

Gary

Lee_D wrote:

H'mmm..... So many dates.... then again I don't suppose if the guy doing the test couldn't find the plate it's self the book of rules is no doubt long since lost :-)

The garage that did it is used to as many are these days newer models and the chap was probably on Auto pilot but I'll make a mental note of that for future reference.

Cheers,

Lee D

"Lee_D"

You're right about the date - I was failed an MoT on my 1968 Ser 2a by a young tester for not having a VIN plate - I failed to convince him that VIN plates were a much more modern invention than my vehicle and had to get the older (Land Rover friendly) testing chap phoned up at home who told the young chap he was wrong.

Graeme

If ever you want to query a testers decision ask to see what it says in the testers manual. It should always be at hand If he refuses contact the Vehicle inspectorate or whatever it's called now VOSA or something

Andy

On or around Wed, 3 Sep 2003 06:26:59 +0000 (UTC), "Andy.Smalley" enlightened us thusly:

good point. I was wondering about age-related engine tests, the book says it's for me to prove the age. Unfortunately, Rover apparently didn't record engine numbers for P5Bs. Dunno whether there's a definitive list of which engine series was produced when, which would serve, no doubt.

AFAIK it's the age of the vehicle which is relevant rather than the age of the engine.

Nick

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:44:38 +0100, Tim Hobbs made me spill my meths by writing:

Bloke testing my 1971 SIIa when it had a Y reg plate said he went on the number plate and not to worry anyway as it passed easily. I pointed out the date of manf on the log book but he said he had to go by the age of the number plate. He couldn't give me an answer when I asked what he would have done if it had an ageless number on it, where would he have got his date from then :)

Don't know what I'd have done if he'd failed it though. this was a few years back and I didn't have the easy access to the likes of this group. Moral and support and "been there done that" goes a long way when you find yourself being browbeaten by experts. Definitely one of the plus points of this newsgroup.

But if that newbie comes in here with his .jpg attachments and top posting and starts whining about his MoT tester I'd say Oi!, No!!!

And you'd be well in order Fwank.

Jacket with oil stains, yes that's mine, why?

On or around Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:44:38 +0100, Tim Hobbs enlightened us thusly:

this is so, but the onus is on the owner to prove the age of the engine, otherwise it gets a test appropriate to the vehicle age.

relevant dates are, IIRC, 1975, and 1986 - before '75 (if that's the right date, it might be '76) it's "visible smoke", after that until '86 you have one lot of CO and HC figures, after '86 the levels drop. Then after '93 you get to the cat-level test.