MOT Question

If there is originally a working interior release then it should work.

reason for rejection: b. a driver's or front passenger's door cannot be opened from both inside and outside the vehicle.

mrcheerful

: > Ian : > -- : >

: : If there is originally a working interior release then it should work. : : reason for rejection: : b. a driver's or front passenger's door cannot be opened from both inside : and outside the vehicle.

Ta and curses.

Ian

It surely can't be much work to sort a handle that doesn't work?

: In article , : Ian Johnston wrote: : > : If there is originally a working interior release then it should work. : > : : > : reason for rejection: b. a driver's or front passenger's door cannot : > : be opened from both inside and outside the vehicle. : : > Ta and curses. : : It surely can't be much work to sort a handle that doesn't work?

It's the link between the inner handle and the lock which has rusted practically to nothing. Not that difficult to make a new one, but it'll take time and my friendly local MOT station has a slot tomorrow...

Ian

It does not say the handle has to work in the reason for rejection. It says it is a RFR (you state) if the door cannot be opened from both inside and outside the vehicle. If I was sitting in the passenger seat and wound down the window, I could open the door from the inside quite easily.

John

This largely depends on how friendly the MoT station is. I would not expect it to pass, but it is very much down to the tester on the day.

If you were to remove the window you might argue this; some sports cars had only inside handles.

But on every MOT I've ever had they've checked all the doors both inside and out.

Go somewhere which only does MOTs.

cheers, clive

Terry D ( snipped-for-privacy@ntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

You need an MOT centre that isn't trying to rip you off.

Thank gawd those days are gone.

The message from "Terry D" contains these words:

Go to the local bus depot. They do cars and won't be interested in fixing your car - so won't be interested in selling you anything.

I agree totally. The current breed of MOT testers is rapidly approaching the disgraceful attitudes of traffic wardens. I dread my MOT next month because I just know it's going to cost me a lot of money. A microscopic spot of rust is all they need for a fail, and then they'll try to convince me I need new discs, pads, brake pipes, wiper blades, lambda sensor, catalyser etc etc. My local garage, who I trusted and was within walking distance, has unfortunately closed down to make way for yuppie flats, the buyers of which will most probably own new Porches & BMW's which don't need MOT's. In the seventies you could get away with pop rivets!

Terry D.

In all the MOTs I've had with many different garages, I can't truly say they've ever failed the car without justification. You *may* not like the fact that your car needs work, but it will have failed according to the guidelines.

If it fails on emissions - no chance to fiddle there, it's done by a computer and you get a print out. As regards discs and pads, they can only fail it if the brakes don't work properly - and again you can see them being tested and note the readings for yourself.

Nor do they fail on a spot of rust. It must have weakened a structural member - or pose a danger to a pedestrian etc through parts being ripped and sharp.

Or alternately, the local Council Taxi Testing Centre...

adding an alternative release inside the vehicle for the door is permisable if you inform them before they test it

The only time I've had to query a failure was on a Land Rover at a garage that didn't know them. They failed it for play in the steering

- there was about 0.75" which they felt was excessive. I showed them the genuine LR service manual that said that there should be 1" play and they grudingly passed it, while making lots of unpleasant comments about 'crap' vehicles that shouldn't be on the road...

They didn't get any further work from me.

Should have mentioned that the play is measured at the rim of the sterring wheel, not an inch of play at the road wheels!

The message from "Simon Atkinson" contains these words:

Bridge Road Depot in Hounslow did my minibuses until they failed one on a misinterpretation of the new seat-mounting rules. One part of the manual dealt with new installations and gave a minimum bolt size - but another part said that existing installations shall be passed whatever the bolt sizes. Tosser failed me for the bolts being too small on the mountings of seats that had been there for some years. I neverwent back, but instead went to Cricklewood and got on so well with them that they forarded a load of seat upgrading work to me - enough to pay for a whole new minibus.

They have a point... ;-)

I occasionally have a problem with BMWs - the control arm balljoints are housed in a rubber block and they sometimes get failed for excessive play even though they're ok.

I also used to have a very old Mini which had a VIN plate but not in the "modern" position. The MoT place failed it for not having one when a) it didn't need one 'cos of the age and b) it had one anyway.

Recently had a Carlton fail on "rear trailing arm bushes" & the garage then quoted 250 pounds to repair saying it would take 4 hours. Well, it was actually the "rear suspension beam mounts" that had failed & they were 15 pounds each plus 30 mins each side to fit. They also quoted 400 quid for a recon propshaft when all it needs is a new centre bearing rubber support bush (which was 15 pounds)

Maximum allowable play is actually three inches at the edge of the steering wheel.!!

mrcheerful