Hi all,
I may well be wrong (nowt new) but it is my understanding that if a rear door won't open on a car it is an M.O.T fail. Is this correct
Thanks,
Hi all,
I may well be wrong (nowt new) but it is my understanding that if a rear door won't open on a car it is an M.O.T fail. Is this correct
Thanks,
"Orange? no thanks." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Only fronts.
Might depend on why the door won't open.
You live and learn. Thanks for that Adrian.
Regards,
But presenting a car with doors that won't open for an MOT test is not likely to impress the tester.
Makes it tricky to test the rear seat belts too...
Chris
Chris Whelan gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
It does? Bugger me, how do they do it on 2dr cars, then...?
Seriously, if they're that difficult to get to, the belts probably aren't testable under...
Have you never owned or been carried in a two-door car?
The doors are much wider; the seats tip and/or slide to enable access.
On anything reasonably modern, getting in to the back of a four door car via the front would require a level of flexibility comfortably beyond my
64-year old frame, and my tame MOT tester is older than I...I'd be interested to know anyone who's got away with that...
Chris
2dr cars usually have larger doors and seats that can tip forward. Getting into the back on any normal 4dr car is really quite hard if both back doors cannot be opened at all, I would imagine that could be grounds for a refusal to test. if one door can be opened either by reaching the inner handle or from the outside it should be ok to test. It would also be difficult or impossible to check the operation of foldable rear seats if you can't get into the rear seat area.
Designated by whom, I wonder? Would "Do not use" stickers on the seats get you out of inspection of the belts?
:-)
Then again I always have the child locks on even at MOT test time.
Chris Whelan gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Why, yes, Chris - there seems to be two parked outside right now...
Hint:
you are correct it is grounds for refusal to test, but you cant actualy fail it for a rear door that you cant open, (but this is changing next year from
1st Jan 20012 as all doors must open) but you refuse to test it because of the points below & no we are not allowed to grovel over the front seat to check rear seat belts ect.A proper examination cannot be carried out because of the inability to open any device - e.g. door, tailgate, boot lid, engine cover or fuel cap - designed to be readily opened.
In fact I refused one today, actually two, first one was I could'nt open the rear door to gain access to check whether the rear seat belts upper & lower mounting points were secure/corroded & whether the rear seat back was secure. The other one I refused was the water pump was about to let go along with the timing belt !!!
The vehicles condition is such that, in the opinion of the tester, a proper examination would involve damage to the vehicle.
Assuming you own at least one of those, perhaps you need to look at ease of access to the rear compared to a four door. (Unless you've never owned or been carried in one of those, of course.)
Anyway, it looks as if our resident MOT tester, reg, has come up with the answer I anticipated...
Chris
As I appear to have started a bit of a debate I thought I should explain why.
I was looking through ebay and stumbled across this Scenic (
Having asked how long they have had the car (approx 10months) I was wondering about the validity of the M.O.T.
Cheers.
On the strict wording of the MOT inspection manual I'd have to disagree. It states in 6.2 of private passenger vehicles:
Open and close the driver's and passengers' doors. Check that each latches securely in the closed position. Check also that front doors can be opened from both inside and outside the vehicle."
So ALL doors have to be opened and closed by the tester, front doors have to be able to be opened from both inside and outside and rear doors only from the outside i.e. to allow for child locks.
Note also where the apostrophe is on [passengers'] indicating it means the plural, all passengers, and not just [passenger's] the singular which could be inferred to mean just the front passenger.
I very much doubt whether there'd be much debate about the intent of this wording and punctuation in a court of law.
Chris Whelan gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Both, thanks. But you're welcome to buy one of 'em off me.
Can I refer you to the second half of the previous reply?
Just the one at the moment, but plenty in the past.
There's one with three side doors outside, too - but you can walk from the front to the rear in that, and there's a cooker in the way of a theoretical second rear door.
Then there's the one with two doors, but only two seats. Oh, yes - and the one with no doors at all.
There's a fair ol' selection here. Take your pick.
My favourite seat belt failure was one of my neighbours cars, on the failure cert the tester had written. "rear seat belts gnawed by mice"
Steve
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:28:06 +0000, Chris Whelan wibbled:
Not quite the same, but I had a Saab 900 16v for a while with one knackered rear belt. No one ever went in the rear. I just put the baby seat in using the knackered belt at MOT time, and it wasn't ever tested.
very poor testing, I wonder what else was ignored?
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.