Nancy boy garages

My Defender failed its MOT last week, took it in to the local garage as it's just a bicycle ride away so no need for a courtesy car. They told me it failed, went down there to see why, they said they failed it because the underside was too dirty and they couldn't see the chassis for mud! Had a look, sod all under there, so just took the keys and buggered off, they can chase me for the cash. Chassis was clearly visible and there was hardly any mud under there at all! You'd think a garage in the middle of a farming community would be sensible. I'll take it to the posh Audi garage in town, they've never had any trouble with a light dusting of mostly road dirt.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings
Loading thread data ...

On or around Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:01:36 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

while "too dirty" is a valid ground for refusing a test, I don't think I've ever had one refused for it.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

That's ridiculous. I came back from Korc one day, covered in s**te, left overnight and took to MOT next day and no worries. Find out where the local Council/Government testing station is. IME they know far more about Landrovers (indeed most vehicles) than any garage, and they do a _very_ thorough job.

Reply to
Paul - xxx

I always pressure wash the underside of mine before a MOT test. It gives me the chance to remove any fail inducing oily leak marks.

Mike

Reply to
Muddymike

My local tester has told me he would be very likely to fail my landy if i took it in covered in mud.

sounds quite resonable to me as i also dont like mud dripping on me, and really dislike having to sweep mud out of the garage/drive.

I always pressure wash mine before taking it in too, out of courtesy and to remove the leaks!, but I also know that his definition of 'too muddy' wouldnt be taking the piss like your local seems to me!

Reply to
Tom Woods

.......any fail inducing oily leak marks.

I tell my chap that the oil leaks prove to me that there is still oil in there and that I would be more worried if there were no oily marks. He seems to accept this!

Gordon

2x90, 2xS1
Reply to
gordon

Hang on a minute! Are you all trying to say Landrovers leak oil? That explains the patch on my drive then, :)

Reply to
cyberwraith

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Austin mate put your coffee down before you click this

formatting link
like AC¬DC Derek Landrover free for 2 months

Reply to
Derek

I did go for one MOT a long time ago where they justifiably said they'd have to charge me an additional bit of work to clean the muck off, although ISTR they charged me an hour in the end, which wasn't justifiable. However that was when I'd been to an off-road course like you, the landy these days just does one or two light, non-muddy lanes a week as the tyres are almost bald and can't handle sticky stuff. It really just wasn't even remotely muddy underneath, bloody chancers.

I've got a few known good choices, I just thought I'd try the guys just down the road from me, once.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

If there was mud on it, but there wasn't. Worst case there was some that might have been stuck in crevices that needed a good poke to disturb it, I don't like working on vehicles covered in mud either but there wasn't anything significant on there.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Luckily here in Australia, we don't have MOTs... Having said that, I have never, EVER had a mechanic refuse to work (for money, it has to be said!) on a vehicle with mud on or under it! It's not always possible to get a vehicle to a mechanic here *without* getting some kind of crud on it.

Mind you mud tends to be less of a problem here, but then again... I've never heard of a mechanic refusing to work on a vehicle covered in too much red dust! The dreaded red dust, I should explain, gets everywhere - even inside dash instruments and door locks, up your nose etc...

Surely the garage or service centre could have made a sale here - "We can wash the underbody for you so we can perform the MOT, but it will cost xx pounds... do you want us to proceed?"

It sounds like they were either too busy, or just couldn't be bothered. Either way, if it was over here, I'd be taking my vehicle elsewhere!

Have you tried talking to the mechanics manager? Maybe (s)he would be interested to know their attitude?

Reply to
asdf

On or around Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:17:21 -0000, "Derek" enlightened us thusly:

hehe. Now, why do I suspect a republican involvement in that?

Reply to
Austin Shackles

Well, in theory if they fail the car then I have to pay up, even if the failure involves just looking underneath, going "oooh I'm not touching that, it's dirty!" and slapping a fail on it. They had left the keys on the counter however, something else I wasn't impressed with, the counter is in a small post office and the keys and immobiliser fob for my truck were just left there with no-one watching them, I just walked in, took my keys, took my truck, like anyone else could have done.

That's what I'll be doing.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

You think so? While some items aren't done like in the UK MOT, here in the Northern Territory we do have a yearly inspection to be done. Mostly these are done at private businesses that are licensed to do so, but there are still the Govt inspection sheds here in Darwin and also Alice Springs. Vehicles up to

3 years old are exempt, mostly, and no emissions testing is done.

While I've experienced some less than competent Govt inspectors, my experiences at private inspections have been worse. At least with the Govt shed you can come away with a minimum to be done to comply, a private one can have an incentive to fail more items to create work for themselves.

My yearly troubles with one of my vehicles are with oil leaks ('75 RR still with some leather oil seals) but only a complete rebuild is ever likely to stem the flow. They can be very picky but my best pass was with one old guy who had seen the vehicle over a few years, and even once in Alice Springs. His comment was "You've done a good job of cleaning up the oil stains". So sometimes it's better not to have a vehicle that's too clean. I prefer a very wet day to go there as they are less likely to spot the odd oil leak.

PhilD

Reply to
PhilD

I think all the later neoprene type seals are interchangeable with the old seals if that helps.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

In message , Austin Shackles writes

Is refusing a test the same as failing, which is what the OP was told.

No test - no fee, Failed test - re-test fee.

Reply to
hugh

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

As Austin says too dirty is valid to decline to test the vehicle but it cannot be failed without actually conducting the test. However the test may be terminated if 'in the opinion of the tester' it is too dangerous to continue. 'Too dirty' is valid if it is not possible to adequately inspect those parts obscured by the dirt.

Reply to
JacobH

I got a "Refusal of an MOT Test Certificate" form VT30, with the only thing in section A being a statement that it's so dirty that inspection is unreasonably difficult. No actual test was carried out as they didn't like the look of it.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

On or around Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:27:08 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

bunch of knob-cheeses.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I think that's being a touch unfair Austin, how would you feel if someone asked you to MOT a motor that was so filthy that you had great clumps of mud raining down all over you every time you attempted to touch anything? You'd take umbage, I'll bet. Let's not forget the purpose of an MOT inspection - to ensure that a vehicle is in as safe a condition as can be practically expected, to be driven on a public highway. To an extent, it's a check to see if it's safe for the next

12 months......! IF, say, someone brought me a 1985 110 for a test and I couldn't check some of the brake pipes because I couldn't see them, then I've 2 choices...... 1 - Pass and advise for unchecked items (allowable, based on general condition. If all other visible brake pipes were new but I couldn't check one single pipe due to it being covered in mud, grease, underseal etc, then it's reasonable to assume the obscured one is good also) or....... 2 - Refuse to test / test termination. (Based on the general overall condition again. If I'm finding things wrong and the vehicle is generally poor, then the chances are that there could well be issues with things that are obscured so I would refuse / terminate) What you have to remember also is that if a vehicle is involved in an accident (blame or not) then the chances are, even though you might not know or be told, a VOSA man will have been called to the scene by the Police (standard practice up here!) and VOSA will make an initial general assessment of the vehicle's condition then look up the computer details. They may also, if they feel the need, have the vehicle taken to another garage and carry out a thorough examination. If it was a rot-box but passed an MOT last week, then the tester's in for a very rough ride indeed. I've sat in on a VOSA interrogation (sorry, interview!) and it's not something I'd wish to be on the receiving end of, let me assure you of that. A little bit of logic has to be applied here - the tester sees a vehicle that looks un-cared for, he's going to look hard at it. If the vehicle is presented in a good, clean, tidy, well cared-for appearance then thiongs still get checked but there may be more of a case for "pass and advise" for certain items (where allowable, based on the fact that the owner will get the work done as he/she cares for the vehicle). VOSA leave an awful lot open to interpretation, for instance "excessive corrosion", they do not specify what is excessive or not, that's left to the tester to decide on. Same with "excessive free play", define excessive? It's the individual's interpretation of these definitions (and others!) that provide the leeway for the tester, so why make his and your life difficult and piss him off? All it takes is a pressure-washing. Badger.
Reply to
Badger

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.