That 406 Hdi I was on about - Passed it's MOT...

In the past I've talked to the MOT Inspectorate, whoever they are called now, about this sort of practice.

You will be stating a fact, it passed at this garage with 2 advisories, and failed at this one with this following list.

As long as you have the pieces of paperwork handy, then no one can sue you for libel. However I guess the inspectors will be having a close look at the garage that passed your car!!

I imagine a testing station aware of the previous disputed fail, as in this instance, would be sure to cover their own arses.

It would be interesting to know whether figures were submitted for things like the smoke and the brakes. These items are measured on calibrated equipment, and in the case of smoke/emissions, a printout should be given to the presenter. Also my tester gives figures when failing brakes. Things like the perished brake hose are a bit more subjective, especially if the word excessive is used. One man's excessive is another man's hardly at all. And AIUI the governing factor in this instance is whether the cords between the layers can be seen.

Steve

A pass or fail is according to testers opinion at the time of the test. I once had a tyre fail which was close to the limit, but not sufficently worn down to fail or to be illegal. I was told by the owner in quite a serious voice that the tester knows all about tyres and was previously a QuikFit employee, 'nuf said!!

Emission tests are very variable, hence it's often said that the engine should be worked as hard as possible shortly before the test. Indeed in the acceleration test, one can expect the emission result to reduce on every "acceleration".

What is interesting, is that the inspectorate should have access to vehicles testing details and compare the same car from one station to the one that passed. However they may well assume work had been carried out in the mean time to rectify any fault. Hence its worth telling them of the experience.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:56:11 +0100, shazzbat boggled us with:

Crap Pic of fail sheet with descriptions here:

Off the top of my head, it said something about Opacity. The limit is 3, it was 4.5 on the "dodgy" MOT test, a clear fail. Maybe me beasting it through the gears and charging down the motorway this morning cleared it out a bit? Who knows? I wouldn't have thought 15 miles would have made much difference however hard I drove it.

It simply said "Near Side rear brake" binding. It wasn't. Again, could this have been freed off by my giving it a good caning this morning on my way and using the brakes hard? I'd have thought a sticking caliper is a sticking caliper..

or could it be the fact that the owner of the car has no mechanical knowledge at all, turns up to collect it in a brand new Merc estate, and the garage entrusted to MOT and repair the car sees big pound signs? Allegedly of course.

Perhaps it's the garage that passed it that should be named and shamed ;-)

Chris

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:10:48 +0000, Chris Whelan boggled us with:

Well, I've used them before for bits and pieces, and this morning when I drove the car down here, it felt straight as a die. There was no rattling no bumping from the rear end, the brakes felt fine - I'd jacked it up and spun the wheel that was supposedly binding, and despite my leadfooted attempts to get it to smoke, I couldn't..

Make of that what you will. I even told the guy I took it too how much they'd been quoted originally - £550, so he could have just knocked a ton off and made himself some money - but he didn't, so I can only assume that it passed legitimately. He charged me £70 inc a full test and a bit for "investigations".

Pity it's costing another £160 to supply and fit a new rad, but it's still better than the £550 they were quoted eh?

Yep, indeed. My reply was tongue in cheek of course.

I got stung by a testing station I'd used for a number of years. The tester I knew there had moved on. I got a fail for rear brake initial application inbalance. It was suggested that it might just need everything dismantling, cleaning, and lubricating, and was given a price for the work. As I'd rebuilt front and rear brakes a couple of months previously, I declined.

I took it back the next morning, told them I'd freed everything up, and it passed. I hadn't done anything to it.

It was short-sighted of them; apart from my MOT work, I had recommended them to others.

I found a testing station widely used locally by the trade. They only do tests, so have no hidden agenda. They get my business, and recommendations now...

Chris

Trading standards.

Ok but what about items

True or false ?

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:22:10 +0100, Mark boggled us with:

Both false, not even advisories.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:16:14 +0100, Kellerman

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Now ring VOSA anyway...

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:37:35 +0000, Adrian boggled us with:

I already did... :-)

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Theiving scumbags like that deserve everything they get.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:45:21 +0000, Adrian boggled us with:

Indeed. I know everyone has to make a living, but not at the expense of ripping people off - well, not to that extent anyway.

She's made sure that her three friends who've used that garage in the past won't do so again, and no doubt they might tell theirs.. so hopefully, it might have cost him more long-term.

In article , Mike P writes

Nice one.

We're too passive in this country. A bit more assertiveness and service standards would improve tremendously.