Bear in mind that the whole core of this thread is that the vehicle in question, mine, had almost no muck on the underside at all, I've worked underneath muddy vehicles and it's not nice, but this wasn't one of them. I looked underneath myself and I'd not mind going under on a car creeper, much worse than working on a car on a car lift.
Their specific claim was that they couldn't see the chassis for mud, which was total and utter bollocks.
On or around Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:03:59 -0000, "Badger" enlightened us thusly:
as Ian points out, his vehicle was NOT covered in mud. I was referring to the specific case. In general, I agree, if it's covered in s**te, I'd not want to work on it or test it.
notwithstanding the disclaimers all over the certificate... but yes, I take the point. However, in this instance, the motor is assumed to be sound and not dirty. Bear in mind that I live in the country and the motors are often dirty underneath - I do pressure-wash them a few days before if I think they're particularly claggy.
But that doesn't seem to apply in this case. If he'd just been off-roading and driven it straight to the test centre, I could understand it.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to the specific vehicle in question, I was trying to put across the other side of the argument. There are morons out there who seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to take a vehicle with 9 months worth of mud under it for a test - in that condition! Strangely enough, most seem to be farmers... lol. Badger.
Maybe it's different hereabouts but I've heard tell of MOT's only good till the end of the inspection lane, not a guarantee of roadworthiness for year or any other time span.
I think we were agreed it was that the vehicle failed the test but was not refused test.
Sort of, it appears they refused to test it but issued a failed notice rather than just refusing to test it.
You are correct, it is no legal guarantee and should not be seen as such, but the test is designed (allegedly) to try and ensure safety for a 12 month period. Certainly, when I did my testers course some 3 years ago that was the instructor's party-line at the time. Badger.
On or around Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:39:58 -0000, "Badger" enlightened us thusly:
yeah, it's like you should get warnings for "tyre near legal limit" and such. That's what the advisory parts are for...
If they pass something which, 2 days later, is clearly not roadworthy due to, for example, major corrosion, the tester is going to have a hard time explaining why he didn't notice it, since major corrosion doesn't happen overnight.
FYI, just took my Defender down to my usual garage in a nearby town, my local garage in a farming village refused to test it because it was "too muddy" and claimed the seatbelt was torn (it wasn't) so they'd have failed it anyway, the posh audi garage in town passed it without being cleaned with just an advisory on a tyre getting near the wear limit.
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.