MOT Advisory Notice

They do. Quicker with modern pads.

Quite a while, probably. Your car handbook or Haynes manual will give you the minimum safe thickness, but it's better to replace discs while there's a few more mm left. Brakes are not a thing you want to economise on.

Your "faults" didn't justify a fail. The advisory notice is just that

- advisory. What the proviso on the form means is that if you don't later replace pads/discs when they're worn beyond the minimum required, your car will then not be roadworthy and your insurance may then become invalid.

brake components are very cheap, just change the lot and drop the need to even think about it, there are important things to worry about, worn car brakes are not.

Bren ("Bren" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I got an advisory yesterday, too.

I'm very proud of it.

"Strongley advise there is boddy dammage throughout vehicle but not causing any jagged edges as this is a offroad vehicle and may cause more dammage"

I haven't got a clue what it means. Any suggestions?

Yes, and that's why they're telling you that they may need doing soon.

An MOT pass confirms that, when the vehicle was examined in accordance with Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it met the minimum legal requirements for those items prescribed under the act. It does not mean that the vehicle fully meets all legal requirements or that it will continue to be roadworthy for the next year.

An MOT is not an annual high-water point of vehicle condition, it is a BARE MINIMUM.

Not if they weren't badly worn enough to warrant a fail.

They'd look at the rear disks, if there was any suggestion they may have contributed.

I'd be proud of that...

The mantra that VOSA are trying to drill into MOT testers is "Pass and advise", so unless your car is actually dangerous (or about to be) it'll probably pass an MOT.

Whether this has anything to do with the plans to roll out roadside stop checks from September, which will be issuing instant fines for "unroadworthy" vehicles, who knows, but there will be stop checks to inspect cars with minor faults and they'll be part-based on the advisory notices given at MOT time.

Another issue is testers are covering their own arses by issuing advisory notices for things that aren't important. I've seen a few recently with "body kit fitted, covering outer sill" as an advisory.

Presumably where the tester thought the fitted body kit was concealing rot in the sill itself?

Only a dangerous loony would be prepared to drive that thing?

VOSA have recently turned a blind eye to complaints about two local Vauxhall dealerships giving MOT certificates when cars have clearly failed! Trading Standards investigated one by putting a few cars through, the Police did the other one as one car was in such a condition that it would put the driver and other road users at risk. Never rely on VOSA, they are not the slightest bit interested whether garages do a correct MOT.

What, like a 2CV owner or something :-)

Chris

I got a while back on my TDi octavia "large engine undertray prevents inspection"

Not necessarily, I've seen it written on cars that have only just had their first MOT.

Point being missed here I think.

I had some advisories fixed on one of my vehicles and asked that as the work had been done that the advisories be removed from the database, as they were irrelevant and misleading.

Apparently, once an advisory is logged, that's it. One hundred percent pass, no remaining notices, vehicle is perfect.

So, I get an advisory on 'brake pipe corrosion'. I get it fixed. But the record remains. 9 months later I have an accident due to a brake caliper failure. Plod will record 'brake failure', I've got a brake warning, so goodbye insurance claim, hello points on licence or jail.

I'm still wondering if advisory notices are likely to result in defamation claims. The vehicle has been fixed. The notice is irrelevant and actaully false.

Thoughts?

Al.

Please show where this has happened.

You worry too much.

If you have an accident due to brake failure the MOT's irrelevant , it's having the accident due to brake failure that's the cause of you being prosecuted. And your insurance will still pay up.

oh yes VOSA are, trust me.

Ian Dalziel (Ian Dalziel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

You've seen it...

The tester apparently was very pissed off that he couldn't find a thing to fail it on - he really wanted to, and he tried very hard, but just couldn't.

Chris Whelan (Chris Whelan ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Even dafter than that. It's the 2cv4x4.

Al (Al ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Thanks for the advance warning.

If the pipe is still corroded, and has burst and caused the crash, then the investigation will see that, and you will be prosecuted for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

If the pipe's been replaced, then the investigation will see that.

So? The advisory was correct at the time of issue. Which is all that is stated by any MOT pass or fail.

You're paranoid.

Do a proper pre-MOT check, you idle git.

Are you a Vauxhall dealership ;)

The advisory presumably means that access to the sill is unavailable and therefore the corrosion (if any) can't be checked. Do I understand from what you've (it was you, wasn't it?) written above, that you think this is unimportant?