MOT

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

Sensible answers to sensible questions.

Reply to
Adrian
Loading thread data ...

Of that they are swinging the lead.

Last year my car failed on a bent wheel rim and scored valve on that wheel. (I put the spare on for the retest) IMHO the valves weren't scored and the rim wasn't bent. However I had thought the Tracking Rod End had a bit of play and this wasn't mentioned at all.

This year I put the 'bent' wheel with the "scored" valve back on the day before the test and took it to the local DofT vehicle testing station for it's mot.

Sure enough nothing wrong with the wheel or valve but it did need some welding which *surely* should have been an advisory last year.

Moral. You can't trust non DofT MOT stations and you can't *always* trust yourself. (The 'dodgy' TRE is fine and yet I missed the rust)

There's a degree of subjectivity about testable items which can't be definitively measured. If for instance a headlamp is out of alignment, or the emissions are out, it's measurable. But if, as I had last week, an amber bulb is getting pale so that it looks like it's getting white, how pale is pale? I got an advise, and I changed the bulbs, but in this case one mans fail is another mans advise.

Steve

Reply to
shazzbat

You obviously don't get asked many sensibe questions then!

Reply to
danny_deever2000

It will also mean that roadside cameras will be able to spot if you are using your car bewteen it failing and the retest!

No more driving down the road to pick up the spares needed-you'll have to walk!

Rather interestingly, the system also keeps a check on how long each MOT tester takes when testing vehicles. If a tester is consistently quicker than average the guys at the ministry will pay them a visit...

sponix

Reply to
s--p--o--n--i--x

It keeps a check on times between log-ins, not quite the same thing.

John

Reply to
John Greystrong

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

Not by you, true.

Reply to
Adrian

I didn't really mean the silly bits like you mention here, but something important like a tyre or a balljoint. I have a garage I trust completely to do a fair MOT, in fact I often take vehicles home with a pass and change stuff that is borderline, especially tyres, as what can just scrape through looks dodgy enough to need changing to me, especially if the car is in regular use.

mrcheerful

Reply to
mrcheerful

Get it done now. You don't have to wait for the old one to expire. The last thing you need is to go into labour 3 weeks early and be worrying about it!

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

Your understanding is completely wrong. Your knowledge of a defect has no bearing on whether or not you can be prosecuted for it.

Reply to
SimonJ

That depends whether or not the vehicle has a certificate still in force or not. Just having failed an MOT does not necessarily make the vehicle illegal to drive.

Reply to
SimonJ

You mean to say you never check your tyres until after the MOT tester has told you they are 'borderline'?

Reply to
SimonJ

No, you misunderstand, I take customers vehicles for MoT on a very regular basis, I then have a list of stuff (or not) to fix, plus I service the vehicle, while servicing I often find things which although they are good enough to pass, they are not good enough to leave in service for an extended time.

mrcheerful

Reply to
mrcheerful

Why? If its solid, no advisory needed.

And you can't trust DofT test stations either.

Reply to
Conor

WRONG. If the defect is there you can get done. You don't have to know it's there.

Reply to
Conor

Like brake pads down to

Reply to
Conor

However, the chances of actual successful prosecution are low, if they can't prove you did know about it.

My brother got prosecuted for a broken brake light switch (lights always on). He wasn't given the standard MOT failure docket to get signed off, it just went straight to court.

He was found guilty, given an absolute discharge and police had to pay costs.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

They dont need to prove that you knew about it, they only need to prove that the defect was there.

He was extremely lucky.

Reply to
SimonJ

I doubt it. The court would consider that the correct procedure in the event of a single mechanical fault not known to the driver would be to issue the MOT failure docket and have it signed off. They don't want their time wasted by the police going straight to court for no reason.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

To do this you have to have the old test cert with u

Bill

Reply to
Bill

The message from "Bill" contains these words:

And make bloody sure you show it to the tester /before/ he starts the paperwork. Or data entry as it is now.

Reply to
Guy King

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.