The MOT man recently failed one of my cars on 'perished suspension bushes'. The car was sent in a week before it's MOT expired so it was still covered by the current MOT.

The MOT centre removed the taxi licence plate, despite us intending to take the vehicle straight back to our workshop for repair, and then straight back in for a re-test on the same day.

We phoned the council because it seemed a waste of time to remove the plate and re-attach it, and also that the plate had not expired, nor had the current MOT expired. The council agreed and instructed the MOT centre to put the plate back on the car. So although it wasn't used as a Private Hire Vehicle, it was still technically licenced during the MOT repairs.

MOT man has called VOSA and reckons he has the definitive answer - that if the car is used on the road with a known defect, then the police will treat it as being unroadworthy which I fully understand.

My point being that a vehicle with a current MOT will pick up defects all year round that require repair. When the car is in for repair, it doesn't need the plate ripping off because it has a current MOT and is legally licenced. I fail to see the distinction just because it is near the MOT expiry date.

He reckons the council and ourselves are wrong.

I reckon he is hamming it up. A lot.

He is trying the 'It shouldn't really be taken anywhere for repair once we have declared it unroadworthy' spin... I think he is sore because we used to use him for repairs, but he really was 'Mr Discs and Pads all round'. We stopped using him for repairs, and I think he is trying to claw a little work back.

Added to which was my private car that went in for an MOT, only to fail on emissions (recommended a new cat and a lambda sensor for a bill of approx. £400), when another MOT centre passed emissions with flying colours but picked up a knackered CV boot and a cloudy headlight that was pretty much past it. Obvious stuff that wasn't even mentioned as advisories on the original MOT.

So basically - Who is right?

Is this guy trying it on a bit and using the scary VOSA stuff to his advantage, or is he perfectly right (because we wouldn't like any of our drivers to be caught out with an unroadworthy car).

We're half a mile down the road

Latest thing is that he has just failed a car on front discs. I inspected, told him to fit new ones and then re-test.

He's taken the back wheels off (??!) and has seen that the rear discs are worn.

Now he won't pass the car even if the brakes test okay on the re-test because now he has seen them, he can't allow it on the road.

So I told him to get on with it. Now he is calling up saying the car needs a hub carrier...

I'm fast losing my patience with this guy.

He is in the wrong.

No garage can refuse to give a car back to a customer, that is theft, and if the old MOT was still in date, a new MOT fail does not invalidate the old pass.

Basically, he was a tt.

report him to VOSA, the form you want is a VT17. Regardless of how bad something is, if it aint a failure it aint a failure.

For example, if you can't identify where a leak is coming from, you can't fail it. One of my testers has power steering fluid pissing out all over him but he couldn't fail it for the leak, dispite the amount of fluid coming out.

Obviously the brakes haven't substantially degraded in the time between the first MOT and the subsequent retests. If he is only now finding that the brakes are a failure point then he didn't conduct the first MOT properly.

Report to VOSA.

Brake pad thickness is part of the MOT test, if the friction material can be seen to be less than 1.5mm, then it fails.

A brake disc can't be failed for been worn, pitted or corroded, it can fail if it is contaminated by oil or grease etc, or if it is in such a condition that it is severely weakened or insecure.

Bit out of date there chap. The RfR changed this year, and I quote:-

'a brake disc or drum in such a condition that it is seriously weakened or insecure'

Pitted, rusted etc. doesn't cut the mustard anymore, it's got to be in danger of falling off very soon.

To the OP, your tester is an arse, report him to VOSA.

Yup, I stand corrected.

slightly o/t,

but have you had any issues witht he smoke test as part of the MOT, as in them revving the nuts off the car, to 4k ive heard? who pays should the car come up with a fault after they have been revving the tits off it to see if she smokes?