Current MOT retest regs

The message from Peter Hill contains these words:

Still - at least he was looking well ahead instead of driving to target.

The main reason they put the full retest in place was to pick up on silly things like lamps that get disconnected to do welding and not reconnected. Or brakes after CV gaiters have been worked on. It's so easy to fix one fault and cause more. But the MOT station can do a full retest on the computer just by clicking the boxes and only have redo the bits that are directly connected to the computer test system (if any?).

I don't see the garage doing the repair being any less good at installing this sort of fault during repair than anyone else. So all in all it's just not fair and prevents free trade.

-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

Bollocks. Lamps in particular can be reconnected quickly. However as I've said elsewhere there are those who treat the MOT test as a diagnostic for their retest which they anticipate being free.

The computerised test is times for a minimum of 35 minutes. During which time they can't be testing a full-paying customer. So how can free retests be economically viable? Short answer is they can't. If I were an MOT garage I don't think I'd offer free retests under that situation. It was different when it just took a quick look at the item that had failed to ensure a satisfactory repair had been done - often a 60-second job. Now it's a minimum half-hour - that has to equate to at least £20 in labour.

The one that ripped me off did indeed offer a free re-test if the car was fixed within 5 working days. Hence me taking it away to my specialist to check what they'd failed it on. Since I trusted the MOT place having used them for many many years, had they not (unless they did the work) I might have just got them to do the work or at least give a quote for it.

I later discovered they had changed hands a few months earlier.

Perhaps I should have pointed out that the local council station was the only place that offered a free retest. I imagine that can afford to to offer that, as well as the inital cheap rate, as they are a public service, rather than a business, funded by tax payers.

I'll check that out ta.

Naturally, though most things dont require a full retest. I'm just wary they'll use it as an excuse to throw through another full fee test.

Garage prices are already extortionate, and I cant find any data anywhere to suggest that accidents due to DIY repairs are on the increase - can you point me towards it so i can check it out?

Either way a car is a user-servicable item, they cannot force garage use upon people unless they are willing to force garages to keep their prices down, which is contrary to the likely if they have to get licences. What will actually happen is car owners will simply leave things longer before getting things repaired instead of doing the job themselves and 99 times out of 100 doing it perfectly well.

Yet another case of this country going to pot.

Ive seen some right real bodges done by garages. In fact ive seen more done by garages than by DIY people! This is the whole reason i do my own work, ive yet to find anywhere in my area that hasnt screwed SOMETHING up on a car. Wheel nuts left loose, oil changes done with any old oil they could find, suspension components left loose, total inability to fault find on simple electronics leading to "we'll have to replace the loom". I'd say 90% of garages I've dealt with or indirectly dealt with the aftermath of made stupid judgement calls and expensive mistakes and then passed them on to the customer. And customers get fleeced because they trust them.

I'm not saying all garages are like this, i know a few good ones but they are spaced across the country by a few hundred miles.

This is true, however some people are not capable of getting under the vehicle and checking for rust, but they should have had that checked at the service. But then they probably dont have that done either, or the garage misses it (usual cause IME).

Yeah, they'd take them to a garage who'd force them to replace all sorts that they didnt have to, do the work badly and still end up having to have a re-test anyway. So unless the person could claim back the re-test price from the person they had had servicing their car and supposedly keeping it in good order then its not fair. A retest 9 times out of 10 doesnt require a full MOT, in fact i cant think of a time that it would, unles the person had replaced the body shell and the whole suspension/drivetrain needed re-checking for safety.

How come they, according to current regs, can offer 1/3 or 2/3 retests then?

Think youre lucky then, as that breaks all sorts of H&S regulations and probably voids their insurance if something went wrong. You arent trained to do the test (As stupid as that is when its the lights/steering) and so are not insured to be part of the test proceedure.

Bullshit.

You don't need to be trained to do the test. Anyone who has passed a driving test can turn a steering wheel and operate the lights, wipers and horn.

FYI, f****it, it is usually a 16 year old apprentice that is too young to even have a licence who ends up sat in on an MOT. So what do you have to say about that then?

Actually not. You're obviously unaware of H&S regulations these days.

No, clearly you dont need to be trained to actually physically perform the test, that wasnt what i was suggesting but you are obviously blind modern H&S regulations in a place of work, you cant just wander in and help these days.

F****it? Interesting - im not the one without a clue about modern working practices, the and the regulation of businesses and the insurance implications therein. Clearly you have less experience of the real world than you have ability to respond in a sensible rational manner. FYI the 16 year old apprentice is fully covered by the businesses insurance as a member of staff and will have been briefed on safety processes while performing the test etc etc. Should a non-staff member damage the vehicle, however unlikely, or an unrelated accident occur (somethign fall on them due to someone elses mistake) the business would be to blame for letting an untrained, uninsured person be in the work environment.

I never said it was sensible, its yet another case of over-protectivness from a letigious society who claims at the slightest thing. There HAVE been cases of people sueing businesses for LETTING THEM (despite them asking to) be in places when accidents have occured.

HTH your understanding of real life and maybe next time you'll be able to string together a thoughtful reply without resorting to childish insults as a method of adding weight your pathetic argument.

Well the MOT guy didn't fix the bad earth on mine that was caused by striping the boot interior to do repair work disturbing the wiring to the tail lamps. Indicators lit every time I used the brake and it passed the MOT like that.

-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

I have a CGLI in Reapir and Servicing of Road Vehicles. Part of that was H&SAW.

So come on then, what H&S regs does it breach?

Oh how naive you are.

Which they've obviously chosen to accept.

It shouldn't have. Can't have been a good MOT then.

Conor ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

When did you take that, Conor?

In my fairly recent MOT failure I serviced the car prior to it as I=20 usually do. I did as much visual inspection as possible without ramps or=20 a pit. There was no way I was going to see the split until the car was=20 up in the air. I was grateful for the MOT. I agreed with the tester that=20 I neded to do some welding and from there went on to find that the rot=20 was much worse than the tester could have found. I don't begrudge the=20 loss of =A340 of parts and oil tht I did routinely for the annual service.= =20 I don't begrudge the test cost. I don't hugely mind that I'm now driving=20 an even older car.=20

That MOT took a car off the road that was going to become dangerous.=20 That MOT *may* have saved someone's life in the next 2 years.=20

A fair and thorough tester is a useful person to have around.

Warwick ( snipped-for-privacy@affordable-afpers.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

If your idea of thorough maintenance is to change the oil and a couple of bits, without any kind of an inspection, then it's no wonder your heap failed the MOT so comprehensively.