MOT check.Gov.UK is it bollocks?

[colino]

A small taste of continuing professional development that every career worth its name demands of its members.

[trigger]

They don't get everything right, the correct date of registration is 1st June 1979 as here.

 

 

But the official DVLA site makes it a year eariler.

 

[michael1703]

A small taste of continuing professional development that every career worth its name demands of its members.

It's a small thing to most of us but I knew of testers that retired because their smoke head didn't meet new test standards and others retired because of comp2

[rantingYoof]

It seems to get the history of the vehicles I have owned right - at least where the vehicle wasn't scrapped so long ago that no history exists.

 

I didn't use it before buying the Volvo, and a retrospective check hasn't alarmed me too much.

 

Concerns about the handbrake (on a Volvo, SAY IT AIN'T SO!) and front suspension related advisories (again, it's a Volvo, they're all like this yadda yadda).

 

Still, putting £500 or so away for the service/MOT in June.

[cort16]

The site is brilliant, it almost makes up for the non concurrent tax changes the DVLA made. I particularly like it when someone who clearly doesn't know the site exists declares on their ebay advert "Very solid, Will sail through MOT, I'm selling as is as I have no time to put it in for MOT". Then you check the mot site and you can clearly see it's been in for an mot 3 days ago and failed on 28 items , 21 of them marked dangerous or including the words "excessive corrosion".

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

It is useful certainly - but I wish it was more accurate.