dodgy MOT ! or ?

[Bfg]

what's the consensus on a dodgy M.O.T.  ?

 

Is the M.O.T. test an Ogre, or is it a useful check for potential crucial failure ..and in doing so, then MOT helps safeguard us &/or our loved ones, the unsuspecting passenger, other road users and pedestrians ?

 

If you bought a car with a obviously dodgy MOT - and here I'm talking about things that haven't just failed the day after (like a bulb blowing or a relay failing) nor something like a tyre or exhaust that's right on the limit being passed., no I'm asking about things that were obviously there before the test and are structural, brakes and front wheel bearings - do you do anything about it.? 

 

Or do you send the car back & get your money refunded.. but otherwise just let it go - knowing full well that car and others from the same garage are likely to be equally unsafe ..will be sold to people who naively trust (perhaps their young family's safety) when buying a car from a dealer with a new MOT. ? 

[Guest Breadvan72]

If you see a seriously Parker penned MoT, I would suggest that dobbing in is the correct public spirited choice. Tell the appropriate bit of the DVSA.   An honest report of suspected breaches of safety standards would carry no libel risk.

[rantingYoof]

I bought a car from a dealer with a 'new' MOT with a quite obvious MOT-failing chip in the windscreen right in the crucial driver's sight vision splay doowhacky majiggy.

 

It was a stupid decision and a stupid car and I regret it the most out of my assortment of trash I've owned.

 

The mileage increased by 400 miles between me putting a deposit on it and collecting it two days later too.

 

But I had every opportunity to walk and didn't so in that instance I was the fool and I was soon parted with my money.

[twosmoke300]

The main problem with all these "the car I bought was a death trap with a dodgy mot " types is that they have no clue about what an mot entails .

 

The mot is the bare minimum standard a vehicle must be to travel on the road . It is valid for the day of test (appeals are 1 month and 3 months ) and a mechanic could well condemn something that has just passed an mot .

Also remember that the tester has approx 1 hr inc paperwork to check the whole car but is not allowed to remove any parts , not even wheel trims or fluid caps .

 

 

That's my 2p anyway

[explosive-cabbage]

I dislike MOTs. But if you buy a car of the right era they are not unreasonable in their requirements. The more modern a car is (and thus the more stringent and unreasonable the MOT rules become) the more willingness there will be to let 'small' issues that are subject to seemingly unreasonably strict MOT rules pass the test.

Best just to keep the MOT simple and based solely on safety, then there is less likelihood that cheating becomes morally acceptable and more respect for the MOT system as a whole.

[Bfg]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:01, twosmoke300 said:

The main problem with all these "the car I bought was a death trap with a dodgy mot " types is that they have no clue about what an mot entails .

 

 

who are they ?  I'm asking you.

[twosmoke300]

  On 26/01/2017 at 20:59, Breadvan72 said:

If you see a seriously Parker penned MoT, I would suggest that dobbing in is the correct public spirited choice. Tell the appropriate bit of the DVSA. An honest report of suspected breaches of safety standards would carry no libel risk.

If you own a car which you suspect has obtained an mot but should not have then you have to fill in an appeal form and present your car for a test at another test centre and pay full test fee for dvsa staff to re mot it .

When I was a tester I had a few come back complaining that I failed something that I shouldn't have so I politely handed over the appeal form and highlighted the pay full fee bit and I never had a single appeal against me

[twosmoke300]

The "they " that seem to be all over facebook and suchlike moaning cos they were stupid enough to pay top money for a blatantly fucked car .

[Parky]

I remember the days when my car would fail an MOT so I would take it somewhere else on the off chance it would pass. Sometimes it would! But that was before the database so the garage wouldn't have known it had been condemned by the place up the road already.

 

All depends on the tester, some are right bastards, others have a more relaxed attitude to corrosion...

[Bfg]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:08, twosmoke300 said:

If you own a car which you suspect has obtained an mot but should not have then you have to fill in an appeal form and present your car for a test at another test centre and pay full test fee for dvsa staff to re mot it .

When I was a tester I had a few come back complaining that I failed something that I shouldn't have so I politely handed over the appeal form and highlighted the pay full fee bit and I never had a single appeal against me

 

But what was you view of inspectors that were clearly passing cars that shouldn't have. ?  I'm sure you've seen a few such cars !  

[scaryoldcortina]

I've only ever had a couple of complaints about my testing, and both of those were people who bought a car 6 months or more after I tested it, took it to kwik-fit for tyres or an exhaust and got told "This shouldn't have a MoT, it's a death trap innit" and rang the garage who issued the test in a massive strop like its my fault you bought a 15 year old micra for £200.

 

Blatantly false tests get my goat though, especially ones done to sell a lemon with.

[panhard65]

If you are seriously worried that the mot is dodgy and it is within the timescale for an appeal then contact vosa. Mot's are a nightmare as everyone's idea of excessive is different and testers are only human and miss stuff, but if the tester isn't doing his job properly then he needs to be reported. It might be worth getting a second opinion first though as an appeal does cost, but you will be refunded if it is found the tester passed it when he shouldn't of.

[Bfg]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:09, twosmoke300 said:

The "they " that seem to be all over facebook and suchlike moaning cos they were stupid enough to pay top money for a blatantly fucked car .

 

So then, in your view,  it is the buyer who's stupid.  ie.,  'buyer beware' ..rather than the inspector is criminal for passing the "blatantly fucked car"

[twosmoke300]

To be honest I can't really think of any genuine ones . It's no good looking at a car 6 months later and saying that should never have passed as a lot changes in that time .

There was a local dodgy car sales site near me that would take its mot tests miles out of the way which always seems dodgy to me . They must of had to drive past about 4 other cheap mot places to get there .

A few of the cars from there certainly seemed pretty borderline !

[twosmoke300]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:16, Bfg said:

So then, in your view, it is the buyer who's stupid. ie., 'buyer beware' ..rather than the inspector is criminal for passing the "blatantly fucked car"

Sometimes yes ! What do people expect for 300 quid or what ever it was ? The people that seem to get up in arms about dodgy tests seem to always have a mechanic "mate" who says the cars a death trap etc so why didn't they check the car over before they bought it then ?

[scaryoldcortina]

Corrosion assesment is the real minefield - I also do welding, so I get to see quite a few cars that have been tested elsewhere and failed and it's surprising how often I repair something that either shouldn't have failed due to being outside a prescribed area, not a danger to pedestrians and not compromising the brakes or steering due to structural weakness or even things that have been blatantly damaged by the tester. Pushing the CAT through a sill is not allowed - if it isn't holed you shouldn't make one. Weak/thin metal (in a prescribed area) is a fail on its own without further damaging the customers vehicle.

[twosmoke300]

Oh and a blatantly fucked car could still pass an mot no problem .

All tyres on 1.6 mm but bald on all edges - pass

All flexi hoses - perished - pass

29% imbalance on both axles - pass

Etc etc

[scaryoldcortina]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:19, twosmoke300 said:

Sometimes yes ! What do people expect for 300 quid or what ever it was ? The people that seem to get up in arms about dodgy tests seem to always have a mechanic "mate" who says the cars a death trap etc so why didn't they check the car over before they bought it then ?

 

It's because the my-mate-the-mechanic is either completely imaginary or turns out to be someone who did 2 weeks work experience as a tyre fitter, 10 years ago.

[twosmoke300]

Exactly! Idiots

[scaryoldcortina]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:22, twosmoke300 said:

Oh and a blatantly fucked car could still pass an mot no problem .

All tyres on 1.6 mm but bald on all edges - pass

All flexi hoses - perished - pass

29% imbalance on both axles - pass

Etc etc

 

this is what advisories are for.

[twosmoke300]

Yup - which ( on the old certs) the seller hides and new owner looks at online just before getting "get Dom"

[scaryoldcortina]

Yeah, I prefer everyone being able to access MoT history online. It's surprising how many people think that I can see it because I'm a tester/some sort of wizard!

[New POD]

I used to go to a place that was firm but fair, as did many of my work mates, and we often passed when other testers might not have been so lenient. I remember getting a pass, with the words "Now I'm expecting you to sort out the rust on the back end of the sills, in the next couple of months, so don't put the car up for sale next week, cause I probably should be failing it. It's a bit borderline so I'm trusting you"

 

I welded it up about a week before the next MOT was due.

[Chris2cv]

Where I work, we once had both brake lights fail on a car as it drove away after MOT! Very unlikely to happen, the only time I am aware of in 15 years there, , but would have failed a retest within 30 seconds of passing one!

 

 The 2cv once returned from MOT ( my mechanic takes it, so that he can fix any problems at the same time) The next morning I drove to work and nearly went off the road after a mile as the track rod end was not attached, so only one wheel was steered. There is no way this had happened in one mile of travel.

 

  A subsequentt mechanic took it to a different MOT some years later (I do not bring it to my work) on the understanding that the tester liked old cars. Not asking for an easy ride, just an appreciation that it was about 30 years old at the time, so would not be the same as a 3 year old Car. The tester hated 2cvs and failed it on virtually everything, covering 3 pages! The light switch was a little stiff, so he failed every single light, even though they all worked. The wipers parked on the wrong side, despite being a UK car which had always been like that along with every other 2cv etc etc.

 

  Basically I am just saying, the MOT only proves what it was like for a very brief moment in time , look for yourself or get a friend to.  And some testers are gits.

[dollywobbler]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:22, twosmoke300 said:

Oh and a blatantly fucked car could still pass an mot no problem .

All tyres on 1.6 mm but bald on all edges - pass

All flexi hoses - perished - pass

29% imbalance on both axles - pass

Etc etc

 

Which is something 2CVers know all too well. With seized pivots, my 2CV could still pass an MOT on rear brake efficiency. A specialist I know reckons rear brakes working only 15% ok will actually pass an MOT on a 2CV - presumably because the calculations are based on weight, and 2CVs don't have much of that. Regardless of having an MOT, I got the rear brakes rebuilt anyway (originally just to replace a wheel cylinder, but you might as well do it properly once you're in there). The difference is STAGGERING.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

I love MOTs

[Bren]

A chip in the screen or a tyre on the limit can be a contentious issue. Not so when a car is given a ticket despite galloping rot - my SD1 being a case in point - it was rotten in so many places that somebody obviously knew the tester.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

  On 26/01/2017 at 21:44, Mr_Bo11ox said:

I love MOTs

 

 

I don't, but I have a couple of MOT guys who are very tame. One especially so.

 

'Is this car  safe to drive or not?' is his line of thinking. Emissions and brake testing is the biggie for me, anything else is 'passed, but get it fixed before you drive it again'.

[Station]

I went to a dodgy tester who put his probe into a mucra exhaust because mine was well over. It passed!

I then drove the car a mere 5 minutes and unfortunately was KILLED INSTANTLY

[DodgeRover]

Had the van MOT'd again in the week, tester was talking about the man from the ministry coming in to retest the car he had one the ramps, he'd failled it on both front discs absolutely fucked and weakened by corrosion, man from the ministrys view was as the brakes worked then it was a pass and advise...

Oh and I heard of a screen cracking as the car bumped off the brake tester