MOT testers liability question

Going from pass to fail, and going from pass to disintegration (due to wear, rather than premature failure, according to the OP) are two different things though, no?

I can't see the latter happening in four weeks.

Steve

Interesting mid-sentence snip. Are you saying that the scenario I described cannot happen/never happens?

Restores snipped text -

"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

No.

I'm saying that you can't assume that it WAS defective at the time of the test, especially considering the recall.

There are plenty of things that can be "roadworthy" at the MOT time and fail a week or two later.

I can.

I've seen brake discs pass an MOT then crack a few days later. I've seen brake flexi hoses bulge not long after test.

And if it was wear, there'd have been signs.

So if you hired a car, had an accident and it was found that the brakes were completely shot and a direct cause of the accident, do you think that a prosecution would be brought against you for not ensuring that the car was roadworthy?

The message from "shazzbat" contains these words:

I think you can /suspect/ it wasn't OK at the time of the test, but not /assume/ it wasn't OK at the time of the test.

I accept that, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a ball joint disintegrating due to wear. Different thing entirely.

Exactly. The OP says it failed due to wear. Either he's wrong and it failed for other reasons, or the wear would have been obvious to a tester at the time of the test, in which case it should have failed the test. If it was that close to failure, it is not impossible for the joint to have failed when the tester used a pry bar to check for play.

Steve

I can be absolutely certain that it wasn't OK at the time of the test, providing of course that the OP is correct in saying it failed due to wear.

Steve

if im reading it correctly, we are talking the previous 4 weeks the mot was done, as i said in my earlier post you have up to a month after the mot has been done to contact VOSA, but the problem was another 2 weeks after that, so thats 6 weeks, if the OP was in hospital due to a vehicle defect then i should imagine invesigations would have started sooner, not wait 2 weeks after being in hospital then start to blame someone, but thats hypothetical.

i had VOSA contact me after i conducted a test, same sort of time scale as the OP, a front wheel bearing let go, but i had advised at the time play was noted & inspection recommended, but as always bugger all was done and the

we dont issue advises for the sake of it, be a lot easier if we didnt, but unfortunatly in this day & age we have to cover our arses all the time.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "shazzbat" saying something like:

The OP might have done a lot of miles in the subsequent month, or been rattling up and down a rough farm track for all we know.

I've had a trunnion go dodgy really quickly a month after an MoT, yet it was fine at the time of the test. I know this because I had thoroughly inspected it beforehand and the MoT guy allowed me to go watch while he went over the car - he didn't miss it - it was fine.

Luckily for me, I was changing a tyre a month later and noticed a bit of play - trunnions are a weak point on Scim suspension and you have to keep an eye on them.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "shazzbat" saying something like:

Probably just a s**te design that allows the ball to pop out when a slight bit of wear (but not enough to be deemed a fail in a normal BJ) occurs. The fact of the BJ being recalled on the A4 is indicative of this.

"go dodgy" and " a bit of play" are a world away from "wear all the way from pass mot to disintegrate"

The first two can happen in a month, the latter not.

Steve

"Grimly Curmudgeon" > Probably just a s**te design that allows the ball to pop out when a

That would be one hell of a s**te design. I think Audi, along with all other manufacturers, have probably moved on from that long since.

The recall, according to the AA site, is about track rod ends, the pin wearing prematurely due to seal failure, and affecting the steering. No mention of complete disintegration.

Steve

Yup.

Certain enough to satisfy a court of law? With the recalls? I doubt it.

Why not? He could do the mileage I do and could have covered >10,000 miles in 4 weeks.

You'd think...

Well that's what happens when they wear...

No, that's what happens if the effect on the steering is ignored for a considerable time. The car would be undriveable due to massive play in the steering long before disintegration.

Steve

The recall, not recalls, is for a different component, and on a different year of car to the one referred to.

Come off it Conor, you know as well as I do that the amount of wear required to go from passing an MOT to causing catastrophic failure is not going to happen in 4 weeks in any real universe.

Steve