MOT testers liability question

In news: snipped-for-privacy@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, Richard waffled on in a semi-interesting fashion, it went something like this;

The owner of the vehicle.

Yup, certainly does. MOT's are really only any use while the car is still on the MOT ramp, there to say "this car is safe to drive today", not "In a months time it'll still be safe no matter how badly you drive it".

Oh, if the ball joint was worn to the degree you state, it would have either rattled or made the steering even vaguer than Audis usual awful offerings.

[...]

...driver...

indeed. But I suspect the OP is the owner as well.

Up to 1 month after the MOT you can complain if you thought the car should've failed when it passed, or vice versa, on mechanical items, 3 months for rust.

It's gonna depend on whether you think VOSA can extrapolate back from the state of the balljoint now and say with certainty that it would've shown signs of advanced wear at the MOT. If you say there was no noise or apparent ill effects with the handling then it may have been a failure that not forseeable.

FWIW I've only had 1 lower balljoint collapse on me (my 2nd car, a MkIII Cortina, a very very long time ago when I was stupid). The steering was noticeably iffy for 10s of miles before it went. I suppose with modern power steering it could be harder to notice.

John

im not sure how you can say someone hasn't done their job properly ? you say a couple of weeks ago it went and 4 weeks prior to that you had an mot, so that's 6 weeks ? if there was any doubt as to the state of the joint either it would have failed the test or an advise issued if play was noted, so one can only assume it was ok at the time of test.! you can appeal against mot decisions or any mechanical problems within a month or 3 months for corrosion related problems.

One can also assume it was not ok at the time of the test and the garage wrote out the MOT without looking at the car, especially if it was one of their stock.

I'm wondering whether the OP bought the car recently with a new MOT?

Steve

aye there's always that scenario Steve, but unfortunately the OP should have contacted VOSA as soon as he had a problem if he thought it was down to something the tester had missed and not left it for this length of time.

'...there was no warning sign by the way of either noise nor road handling...'

Perhaps your MOT tester's crystal ball wasn't working at the time of the test ?

As far as the MOT test goes, items cannot be stripped down to be inspected. If there was no play evident when under test, what could the tester have done about it ?

If the ball joint boot was split, he should have advised you. And that's all he could have done. If there was excessive play in the ball joint at the time of test, you should have also noticed it in the handling of the vehicle. But as the quote above confirms, 'there was no warning sign by way of... road handling'.

"An MOT certificate confirms that at the time of the test, withoutdismantling, the vehicle met the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards required by law. It does not mean that the vehicle is roadworthy for the life of the certificate. The test does not cover the condition of the engine, clutch or gearbox."

Visit The MOT Forum:

Two weeks from the collapse?

He could have been in hospital that long if it had happened somewhere else.

I'd be tempted to give VOSA a call and see what they have to say about it anyway...

What if the balljoint had been replaced recently but with a dodgey faked part from turkey. ...or maybe the part was damaged when on the ramps at the MoT garage.

Do turkeys have balljoints? :-)

In law, responsibility for the condition of the vehicle rests with the driver.

Chris

Not strictly true. In the OP's case if he had had an accident then I'm sure no charges of driving an unroadworthy vehicle would have been brought unless he was aware of the something wrong. In cases where trucks crash into something and then it's found that there was something wrong with it (i.e. it had no brakes) then unless the driver knew about it or was responsible for it's upkeep it would be the owner or person who allowed the vehicle to be used that would be liable for prosecution.

The message from Chris Whelan contains these words:

Just below the Parson's Nose.

: Upon : inspection it turned out that the nearside lower front control arm ball : joint has worn to such a degre that it has desintergrated, there was no : warning sign by the way either noise nor road handling. : : Anyway to the question the car passed an MOT four weeks prior to this : incident, clearly someone has not done their job properly, had this : resulted in a major accident or death who is liable?

There was no warning sign, but you want to hold them liable?

Try maintenance, dear boy. It's much simpler.

Ian

The driver at the time.

Lower wishbone ball joints on the A4 were subject to a recall acouple of years ago, and its well known that they still fail if not *regularly* inspected in the fashion your describe.

I am guessing your car is out of the dealer network, so for it to suffer like this is hardly surprising.

Tough luck really i'm afraid.

Tim..

Care to quote a source?

Quite possibly.

Usually, both are prosecuted.

Chris

You. Ultimately the responsibility is yours. It is more than feasible for a balljoint to go from an MOT pass to fail in four weeks.

Always true.

However that only applies to the condition it was in on the day of the test. As the OP stated, there were no signs of wear.