MOT check.Gov.UK is it bollocks?

[Doctormop]

I was browsing the wonderful GOV.UK mot check site earlier (https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history) seeing how long some of my former vehicles had lasted after leaving my ownership and noticed that one of my cars apparently failed its MOT in April 2013 for having four bald tyres, I was a little surprised at this as I still owned the car in April 2013, splashed out for four new Barum tyres in February 2013 (£164 still have receipt) and the car passed its MOT first time with no advisories.

 Does this sound like an admin error or is the MOT history of a vehicle, as provided by GOV.UK not to be trusted?  OK tyres wear out and get replaced but if I was checking the history of a potential purchase and it mentioned severe corrosion or something like that I would probably move on and keep looking, which would be a shame if the car had never failed a test and the information was wrong.

Has anyone else noticed any inaccuracies like this or am I he only one sad enough to trawl through "MOT failures I have known" on their only day off this week? 

[Guest Hooli]

Only time I've used it, it matched what I remembered.

 

Check the chassis number etc it shows, I've heard of the wrong records getting linked.

[Junkman]

Trust me, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.

I'm telling the truth, too.

[oldcars]

It must be wrong, my Reliant has a clean pass last year 

[Urko]

I wouldn't trust the government and its friendly IT suppliers to run a bath.

 

How do people with identical cars to mine get "no advisories" when I get an advisory saying there are covers fitted to stuff?

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

The MOT history of my XJ40 is completely mangled on the site.

 

Fails, passes and advisories are listed for an MOT the car has never been put in for - two passes on the same day -  along with a mileage reading which is wrong for my car. The actual MOT certificates are all correct however. I will never sell the car (I have owned it a long time and it has great sentimental value to me) - but errors on the Government's MOT history site makes it look like it has been clocked - and has had a load of advisories which are wrongly recorded. I am sure it would make the car harder to sell, since I don't think many buyers would believe me over the Government's website. It isn't rare either - there is a thread devoted to it on Pistonheads.

[Aston Martin]

It depends if the guy moting the car is a twat or not.

[alf892]

It isn't/wasn't that unknown for some places to put a few fails/advisories in so their average pass rate is not too high so they don't get flagged by the system for extra check visits. Until the self check thing came along you would never have known.

 

Apparently.

[fordperv]

It depends if the guy moting the car is covering his arse or not.

Ftfy if in doubt advise

[leakingstrut]

Surprised how quick the website updates. I had already pulled the fail sheet up and sent a text to my mechanic to go ahead and sort it before the MOT place across yard from him had let him know!

[PiperCub]

Been accurate for all mine. 

[spike60]

One of my old cars is down as failing a test on tyres worn with cords showing in the time I owned it, passing the next day. I always take them on a Saturday, I'm quite particular about my tyres and wouldn't drive the bugger like that, let alone offer for test. Mistake? Bullshit by garage to get their fail rate up?

[doobietoo]

seems to match most of the time but I did make the mistake of getting a digit wrong last time I put my details in and got a read out for a fiesta..... which confused me.....

[JayW]

Only problem I've ever had was a mileage mistake by a tester.

But it's easy to see how the slip of a digit can make things difficult, particularly if it's later corrected without note.

One thing that often escapes people is the change of registrations numbers, the MOT history is not contiguous and both reg numbers need to be checked for the full picture.

At the same time, if you're checking the history of a private number, two cars could share the same MOT history, Where the reg was swapped from one car straight to another the MOT history will be spliced together making the mileage look weird and historic descrepancies arise.

I recently pulled up an eBay seller pretending a Jag only had 22000 miles instead of 150k because an ECU change was on a previous private plate and the history available only went back to 2011, checking it's previous private plate reveals the real mileage (and failures).

 

The system is actually quite good, as long as you know it's foibles.

[Dave_Q]

Private plates mess it up and the history seems to go with the plate, don't know if relevant to OP.

[Pillock]

It's as accurate as the data behind it, and as good as the query that pulls the data you searched for.

 

I would suggest there's a good reason you still get a paper certificate, signed by an actual human bean - so if there's a cockup with the data, you've still got some proof that you had a test. How many hoops you'll have the jump through I don't know, it might be that they go "Oh yeah, you've got a paper certificate - we'll just update the computer for you", or it might be more "You LIAR, computers are NEVER WRONG, now we shall CRUSH YOUR CAR".

[scaryoldcortina]

The certificate is referred to now as a "reciept of entry onto the MoT Database" in official literature.

[Pillock]

So what would happen if I had a ROEOTMD (as it shall henceforth be called) but there was nothing on said database?

Could the tester re-enter it, or is that a job for a higher power?

[scaryoldcortina]

As far as I can tell, when you log a test as completed the main system sends back a pdf of the certificate for you to print - it isn't generated locally. This means the situation you describe can't* happen.

 

I did have to call the helpdesk for my AE recently because something "went wrong" and he tested the same car 8 times in 5 minutes because the browser wasn't displaying the pdf, it was downloading it instead.

[oldford]

Once the result is entered by the tester and the receipt issued, that's it.  He can't go back and failure items or advisories that he's forgotten to enter.  Even if he logs another test on and fails it, it's still got a valid MOT.

[tooSavvy]

It isn't/wasn't that unknown for some places to put a few fails/advisories in so their average pass rate is not too high so they don't get flagged by the system for extra check visits. Until the self check thing came along you would never have known.Apparently.

Yep. I got failed for a numberplate light - 'tap, tap, tap' - and passed on sheet.

 

I was standing right next to the guy...

 

TS

[michael1703]

PRS - "Pass Rectified on Site"

 

Gives a pass and a fail at the same time.

 

So although you take your car in and watch it get tested and the tester hands you a pass, it can have a fail generated for small problems that the tester tweaked.

[tooSavvy]

^^^ So, ref boosting stats, it is *good for the testers record?

 

TS

[Pillock]

Well, that's just honesty. It did need rectifying, he could have been an arse and failed you.

[michael1703]

I've had a visit because my failures were too high.

 

My customers are feckless and drive about on bald tyres with the chords hanging out and snapped springs as were in a rural location and they're mostly old codgers that go to the doctors and back.

 

I showed them my scrap bin full of broken springs and pads worn through the backing and photos of the worst offenders faults and they agreed my fails were valid.

 

They've got to look into the fact that you might be generating failures to boost tyre sales or repairs etc, they find it common in fast fit type places

[New POD]

I wouldn't trust the government and its friendly IT suppliers to run a bath.

 

How do people with identical cars to mine get "no advisories" when I get an advisory saying there are covers fitted to stuff?

 

Where I take my Cars, the advisories to regulars are verbal. 

[JayW]

I have an old fashioned tester, he lives in the real world where normal people like me have jobs to get to and bills to pay. If a problem isn't dangerous he doesn't fail it, he just has a word in your shell-like, safe in the knowledge that you won't take the piss and will fix it asap.

[fordperv]

The m.o.t place I use is run by a banger racer team, I find them to be fair to old cars, that's the main reason I go there, I do get advisorys that are obvious and people would say being picky, but I understand he has to cover himself

[colino]

Some think the full spread have to be there just to keep the Ministry happy.  I know NTs who as a matter of course will phantom fail and pass and PRS daily just to keep their mental image of the ideal testing station live.  The ones who do it generally look after the cars service wise themselves or are dealing in nearly new or trader prepared for retail cars.  Not much chance of anything but clean passes.

The ideal illustration of a phantom fail and pass is above.  NT notes shiny new tyres on a car presented for testing that will sail the test, fails for bald ones and "retests" and passes when new ones have allegedly been fitted.  Presenter knows nothing, unless they check the database and his figures are away from the trigger 95% passes.

I wouldn't bother, but I'd sooner have an NT who does a proper job and adjusts his figures than these nutters  who produce reams of fantasy advisories just because they haven't the experience or who have never worked on the tools and are, falsely, thinking they are covering their backs.

[michael1703]

There might be another nail in the coffin for some mot stations/testers

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-special-notice-05-16/mot-special-notice-05-16