What An MOT Experience Today...

Hello,

I would like some views of MOT testers please if there are any reading. Disappointed today, having taken my Daughter's car for an MOT at a local garage. Let me explain the story...

About a month ago I purchased a car from a local vehicle auction. The vehicle Ford Fiesta MK3 1995 with a low mileage (39,000), a two owner vehicle, which is very clean and tidy, with none of the usual 'patching up' you find on some auction vehicles. As an automotive engineer of some 20+ years experience I set about ensuring the car was safe for my daughter to learn to drive in before I even bothered to send it for an MOT. Many parts were replaced in order to ensure the car remains in use whilst my daughter has it with no risk a component is about to wear out or become unsafe requiring replacement. Many members of Joe Public would perhaps would say it was 'overkill' expenditure on such a car of its age. The work included replacement of front brake discs and pads, full service, oil, filters, spark plugs and also including tappet adjustment. A cracked exhaust downpipe was also attended to and new exhaust bolts and gaskets replaced where necessary. All this work has been completed within the past two weeks.

I turned up for the MOT today and said I would wait for it to be carried out. The MOT tester's young daughter drove the car onto the MOT inspection pit where it remained for about 10 to 15 minutes with the engine idling. The MOT tester was in the meantime attending to another customers car outside.

After coming back from the office with the log book (V5), the daughter of the MOT tester inputted some details into the emission analyser and she performed an emission test whilst the MOT tester was doing other work outside on the other customers car. After she had completed the test she informed me the vehicle had failed its emission test. She told the news to the MOT tester who told her the details she had inputted were incorrect as the vehicle was an overhead valve model (not sure what she had inputted). A second test was then carried out by the MOT tester, seemingly a lot longer test in it's duration (that test also failed).

The MOT tester carried out the remainder of the test with his daughter present.

At the end of the test the tester's daughter informed me that the vehicle had failed its test on a number of items, including exhaust emissions, Service brake performance and some lighting defects. I asked to speak to the tester regarding the content of the failure notice. He informed me that he, "thinks" the rear brakes were the cause of the problem. He also pointed out to me that the performance required was 50% and the vehicle had achieved 49% efficiency on the Service brakes. I pointed out to him that the weather conditions were in fact wet and that a number of wheels had 'locked' on the brake rollers when the performance test was carried out. This suggested the tyres had locked prematurely, likely to have been caused by the lack of adhesion between the rollers and each tyre because they were soaking wet. This comment made no difference, almost to the point the I would say the tester could not understand what I was trying to explain. I should also add, the static test was carried out on brake rollers of the type which relied on the tester to write down a figure (to whatever accuracy) which he considers the machine had obtained.

The tester also informed me that the Carbon Monoxide limit had been exceeded. The maximum permitted would be 0.300 and my vehicle had achieved

0.481. I accept the maximum permitted limit has been accepted, but cannot accept the method of testing is correct which I believe lead to such a test failure of this narrow margin. This vehicle was not tested when it arrived at the testing station, but instead it sat around for 10 to 15 minutes with the engine idling. In my view could this have likely to have resulted in the Catalyst in cooling significantly from it 'on the road' normal temperature. Again, the MOT tester would not accept this and simply pointed to the engine oil temperature which was 82 degrees (minimum requirement 80 degrees). The tester acknowledged that the vehicle did have a new exhaust catalyst, newish Lambda sensor, new spark plugs, oil, & filters, etc. Curious, I asked him in his view what he thought the problem might be in this case. He simply said, the complete injection system might need changing..! At that point a started laughing as this test had become one big joke.

When I arrived home I also checked the lighting defects he had remarked upon. It was alleged the n/s/f direction indicator was showing the incorrect colour. I operated the lights again. I saw no other colour than orange being shown to the front. I checked the bulb and in fact although old, it still had and orange film around it. I popped up to the local shop and bought bulbs to change both sides, which were not needed... madness.

A side light on the front was also said to be inoperative. In fact is was working. I suppose it could have been an intermittent fault, so I replaced the bulb ensuring the electrical connections were good.

The n/s headlamp was said to emit a poor dipped beam pattern. I checked the bulb, again it looked new and the reflector in the headlamp looks as new as it came out the factory. I have changed the bulb anyway for a new one, again though, seemingly not needed.

In my mind, this is a classic example of a testing station (with a parts shop) seeing an 11 year old car coming through the door and thinking they can make some easy money. Sadly for them it has not worked this time. Whilst they would not accept they were wrong to do what they have done, they did say they will not charge me a retest fee which they usually charge £20 when a vehicle is taken from their premises.

Wondering what any MOT testers think of the above.

John

Reply to
John
Loading thread data ...

temperature.

If you're in the trade, have you not got a friendly MOT station where you can get another view? If you're sure that you're right a call to your local VOSA centre would not seem amiss.

formatting link

Reply to
Doctor D

Its illegal for anyone other than the specified MOT tester in the garage to do ANY test

Reply to
Tone

Agreed

Reply to
jOn

temperature.

with regards the emission test you do a BET ( basic emission test) test first, you enter basic vehicle data reg, mileage & cc it doesn't require any other data from the vehicle at that point, eccept it needs to know if it has a coil or a dis pack this is purely for the rpm pick up so it picks up the correct signal, he's correct in the engine temperature, its has to be 80 degrees c or above as it wont let you carry on if its not met ( unless the temp is bypassed), if it does fail the BET test you then have to do a full emission test which does take longer and you need more info entered into the computer, engine number and model. I've had vehicles fail both emission tests, but when re-tested later on in the day or the next day have gone through, you might have a hole or leak in the exhaust system somewhere which is worth a check.

orange bulbs flashing yellow, testers opinion unfortunately, I might say they are ok someone else might say not, they have to be flashing completely white to fail.

the brakes, 50% pass under 50% fail, id have re-done it to make sure since it was so close on the readings, as you say the weather does play a part in the readings. ive had it happen to me, esp on very wet days. our station writes the figures down as well, as we do not have an all singing all dancing brake meter. but its all calculated the same.

you could appeal, but then in some cases its a lengthy process and as you have made repairs to it already I doubt you get much help, I could be wrong though. never having to go through the appeal process myself.

and joy of joy's ive got a my yearly ministry inspection tomorrow.............

Reply to
reg

Reg, thanks for the reply.

Perhaps explains the reason for the two tests carried out, the first by the tester's daughter. I can tell you there are no leaks on the exhaust system, I do know that for a fact. The system has been thoroughly checked. In addition, verbally or in writing, the tester also has not mentioned there are any leaks.

The direction indicators were flashing orange, but as I have said have now changed both bulbs anyway.

I am hoping that on Monday when I take the car back to them (as arranged), the tester is going to start to be sensible about the way he tests the car. If that fails I will take it to the next level. Whether or not he charges me for a retest is irrelevant. Unless the rules of changed of late, he will have to carry out a full retest as the vehicle has failed on Service braking and has left the premises. That will provide me with a fresh opportunity to appeal on any decision to fail the car again regardless of what work I have carried out since the first test. I will also be informing the garage that will be my intention if the car does fail again. I think he is starting to get the picture that I am someone who does know a little more than how to change a wheel...!

John

Reply to
John

The one I went to last has three bays for the next vehicle and gets the next in line to tell the rest to leave their engines running as they arrive.

Mark S.

Reply to
Mark S.

If I were the tester, I'd tell you to take it somewhere else.

I've had cars fail on seemingly stupid things, I've had cars pass the emissions test one day and fail it 2 days later.

Indicator bulbs are a PITA - it's usually best to replace orange coated bulbs with new before the MOT test, as it's all in the opinion of the tester.

However, the final decision is in the hands of the tester, getting arsey with him because 'you know better' won't help you get a pass - there may well be something marginal that he'll fail you on just to piss you off.

Reply to
SteveH

Indicators must show AMBER light.

Split testing is a big no-no. The tester who signs the document should personally do all the test.

How many wheels 'locked-out' ? If more than half of the wheels lock out it is a pass. No need to worry about efficiency calculations then.

Headlamp bulbs can easily be fitted incorrectly. This is one cause of a poor beam image.

Visit ''The MOT Forum'':

formatting link

Reply to
NT

---snip---

---snip---

Getting a reading of 0.481 when the limit is 0.300 is a big time fail, not a narrow margin! Maybe you were hard done by on the other items, but it is entirely possible that this car's engine/ignition/fueling system is way past its best.

Regards, Jim

Reply to
Jim Walsh

Here's another question on this subject. When my Cargo goes in to the VOSA testing station, they load the back of it to it's max weight with a sort of hydraulic jack in reverse to test the brakes with a full load.

But when I suggested to an MOT tester that my ridiculously light LDV might not lock up so easily if I presented it for the test with half a tonne of sand in the back, he told me it wasn't allowed. Why not?

(He was happy for me to hang myself over the side which was locking up easiest though).

Steve

Reply to
shazzbat

Thanks Jim. Big time fail you say.....I hate to think then what I and other owners alike are doing to the world's population with our Triumph TR7s (and other cars of this era) in that case. I think in terms of the % by volume of CO produced (by design) by these vehicles, this narrow margin failure of +0.181% by volume becomes even more insignificant.

John

Reply to
John

We're doing better than all these modern "green" cars that are turning reletively harmless CO into greenhouse creating CO2 ;)

Reply to
Stuffed

John: I've snipped your story for brevity in my comment; but what caught my eye and sounded familiar was "the testing station 'with' a parts shop"! I'd always imagined that a UK inspection 'station' would be completely independent/separate and at least DOT regulated if not actually run by DOT?

I'm in the province of Newfoundland, Canada not Britain. The provincial government here finally scrapped the regular inspection of private motor vehicles so long as they are a certain age and there is no change of ownership. Here the inspection could be and still is for those vehicles requiring it done by a licensed/approved mechanic. The reason for doing away with overall inspections was widespread abuse of the inspection procedure; which was and is nothing like as thorough as you describe, basically just a 'static' check.

Abuses included slipping the mechanic enough money; no inspection at all! Note 1. At the other extreme, if the vehicle owner appeared 'well heeled' or was a woman and therefore presumed to be ignorant of things mechanical or if the vehicle was owned by a company, the amount of work 'needed' to meet inspection was often appreciably higher! Within the community it was/is well known that at least one leading Canadian purveyor of Tires pays it's mechanics a percentage of the cost of parts used; so again an incentive for the small and large auto repairers to 'pad the parts' bill!

When the cancellation of inspections was announced was politically popular and there was an outcry from the auto repairers who had just seen a lucrative part of their business disappear!

There are disadvantages with the present system some people continuing to drive rust-buckets or ignore necessary repairs etc. until vehicles just collapse. However the roads have not been filled to any greater degree with car accidents and wrecks. Even a major highway accident involving several deaths whereby afterwards inspection revealed 21 defects to the trailer lorry involved (the inspection mechanic who had OKd it worked for the owner of the lorry!!!!) was stated by the RCMP investigation report to "Be the fault of the car driver involved, not any mechanical failure".

Trucks (lorries), buses etc. still require regular inspection, school buses, for example must be replaced at 15 years regardless. Also inspection when personal vehicles are sold either through dealer (trade-in etc.) or privately.

In my opinion inspection stations to be fully effective should not be in any other line of business (except maybe a free courtesy coffee machine while you wait!). Their only business should be 'Inspection'. For example a government run weigh scales and truck inspection station, finding say a defective tyre or 'over weight' on the rated capacity of an axle does not jump in with "We just happen to have a deal this week on 'almost new' tyres and we'll install it for only $xyz ... etc. "

I would emphasize this is only about this far flung province; not necessarily what they do elsewhere in Canada.

Note 1. Some 15 years ago, when annual vehicle inspections were mandatory, I drove to an adjacent community in our vehicle Number 2 to ask the owner of small repair station when I could arrange to bring in our vehicle Number 1 for an inspection, prior to renewing its annual licence. His reply was "Got the papers with you?". I happened to have them with me and walked out a few minutes later with inspection of Number 1 approved; he having never seen the vehicle! Didn't charge anything extra either, just the regular $25 (about ten quid) fee! Not sure what it costs now; maybe $50? Oh, by the way he afterwards, several years later, after universal inspections were made unnecessary the government tightened up the requirements and he lost his permit to perform inspections at all!

Reply to
Terry

The message from "Terry" contains these words:

Not at all, they're almost always garages with a permit to conduct tests.

Reply to
Guy King

There are a small but increasing number of such test-only stations in the UK. I won't take my cars anywhere else now; as they don't do repairs they have no vested interest in a failure, and as it is their only business they cannot afford to lose their licence, therefore you get a straight, fair test both ways. The other advantage with the one I use is that they don't do appointments, you just drop in, useful when you suddenly realise it's due, or if you're not sure when you'll have the time. I took my Austin in recently on a whim, when I realised it was the Owner's Club AGM show the next day. After adjusting the headlamp beam on the ramp the car passed with just a couple of advisories, not bad after standing still for three months! (Footnote: it won 2nd best Mk2 at the show!)

Reply to
Chris Bolus

These do in fact excist, read this articel which tells you where to find them

formatting link

Reply to
BeeJay

The message from Chris Bolus contains these words:

I used to use the bus garage in Cricklewood for the same reason. Now we live in Telford there's an MOT-only place which is the only one I use.

Reply to
Guy King

Why are you such an arse?

Reply to
Conor

No Conor has NO trade connections, he's a sweaty arsed trucker, who feels the need to throw his weight around in a forum where no-one can see his face. He's proved wrong on almost every point he makes, then he gets angry and starts throwing insults...

Almost daily.....

Reply to
Tony Bond (UncleFista)

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.