Ford Ka Rust

Its OK, ive found it.

Words fail me too. Someone who keeps their car perfect should pick up faults before they get an MOT advisory on them.

He isn't. He's a mechanic, not an IT expert. I use him to do actual work rather than faff about with a PC.

I thought there could only be a limited number of registered 'data entry clerks', sorry, 'IT experts' allowed to enter the details online. I'll check.

Al.

[For the avoidance of doubt, I wasted many years in the IT industry designing IT systems. From what I've seen of the MOT one, it's dreadfully inefficeint. But then again, I haven't done 'IT' since it became 'fashionable' ;-)]

Doh! Do try and keep up at the back. I said "getting this car PERFECT", not that I'd always kept it perfect. I do the regualr checks on our 4 vehicles every week, I just can't be expected to keep on top of things that I don't know about.

I doubt that 99.9% of the population could detect some of these advisories, especially those that are based on some (normal) corrosion, some (advisory) corrosion or just plain rust. Likewise 'play' in components. How much play is allowed in the numerous joints on a car? How is it measured? What's just wear and tear, and what's just plain knackered. It's down to the skill of the tester.

My argument is that if the testing station rectify the advisories, they should be able to delete them from the database. Sounds totally fair and reasonable to me.

Example - Advisory: Some corrosion on brake pipes. The work is done, whole braking system replaced just to be make sure the car is perfect. Car is sold. And sold again. A year or 5 later, a 3rd/9th hand buyer ploughs into the back of a bus, checks the advisory and comes chasing me. But the work was done. Who gets sued? Me? The MOT statation and/or repairer?

Al.

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

Which is why they're advisories, you numpty. Because they aren't bad enough to fail - yet.

It's down to the educated _opinion_ of the tester. Their skill should be at a relatively high level as a bare minimum in order for them to become testers in the first place.

I'll stick my hand up here, and say that I didn't know the advisories were online. I've just checked the Saab's, and found out a couple of fail points the year before last that I want to check into properly, to see how well they were fixed. I've also found an advisory from last year which ties in with something I'd suspected but hadn't checked out yet.

Don't be silly. Go and find out a little more about what an MOT pass/fail or advisory actually *means*.

But you can't necessarily tell if they've been fixed! What is important enough for one tester to add as an advisory seems to be different to what the next tester thinks.

Example: 2006 MOT, one of my cars had, among others, advisories on "deteriorated tie rod bushes". I've done nothing to them since. A year later, same station, different tester, no mention at all.

However there is now an advisory relating to "service brake efficiency" which had "only just met the test standard and needed attention/new parts". This was due to new shoes fitted _before_ the test which had not fully bedded in!

In message , asahartz writes

Had the same thing with lower arm bushes. Mentioned one year and I chanced it the next year at the same station. Didn't even get a mention.

A light spray of oil once every couple of years works for my old motors. Not over bad rust though as that needs attention, but stops it getting that way in the first place.

Graham