MOT failure on Brake pad thickness.

[redstu]

My trusty old e28 failed its MOT on Thursday, nothing major but one item was rear pad thickness less than 1.5 mm, they passed on braking effort but have been deemed too thin! Clearly they will need replacing soon but as the disks are still ok (no advisory) why did they fail on thickness? They quoted £130 to fix! The Pads at Eurocarparts cost £22. Is there a minimum pad thickness and how did they measure them?

It also failed on both rear fog lights not working and quoted £86 to fix, I pulled the fuses and give them a clean and hey presto working fog lights, so what were they going to charge £86 for ? New bulbs?

I was intending selling the car anyway so a failure is a bit of a pain.

I've used the same station for the previous 2 MOTS without any real issues.

So Whats their game now. Not making enough lately so trying to stitch up a few mugs?

[Jasandjules]

I must confess I thought it was simply if the brakes worked when tested (i.e. the computer said yes) then that was the end of it.

[D900SP]

redstu said:

My trusty old e28 failed its MOT on Thursday, nothing major but one item was rear pad thickness less than 1.5 mm, they passed on braking effort but have been deemed too thin! Clearly they will need replacing soon but as the disks are still ok (no advisory) why did they fail on thickness? They quoted £130 to fix! The Pads at Eurocarparts cost £22. Is there a minimum pad thickness and how did they measure them?

It also failed on both rear fog lights not working and quoted £86 to fix, I pulled the fuses and give them a clean and hey presto working fog lights, so what were they going to charge £86 for ? New bulbs?

I was intending selling the car anyway so a failure is a bit of a pain.

I've used the same station for the previous 2 MOTS without any real issues.

So Whats their game now. Not making enough lately so trying to stitch up a few mugs?

Sounds like that was an 'estimate" for repairs.

For the fog lights, if the fuses fixed the problem, which is the first thing the garage would look at (hopefully) then you would be charged for that time.

The brakes would be labour time, pads, sensor(s) and any related parts such as anti-squeal paste (for instance) and VAT.
Pads prices vary, garages know which ones work and the ones that either squeal and then cause comebacks.

While the garage has to stand by their work, meaning they cover the parts and labour for problems, shops that sell parts only will replace the faulty part and not cover the labour costs. Different types of business, your choice.


Edit, because I just thought of it >>>

If the vehicle is regularly serviced, the pad thickness would have been reported at the last visit, particularly for a service.
Garages are there to make money, like all businesses, so the opportunity of reporting repairs and maintenance to vehicle owners is part of the operation.

Edited by D900SP on Saturday 12th September 20:47

[WhoseGeneration]

redstu said:

My trusty old e28 failed its MOT on Thursday, nothing major but one item was rear pad thickness less than 1.5 mm, they passed on braking effort but have been deemed too thin! Clearly they will need replacing soon but as the disks are still ok (no advisory) why did they fail on thickness? They quoted £130 to fix! The Pads at Eurocarparts cost £22. Is there a minimum pad thickness and how did they measure them?

It also failed on both rear fog lights not working and quoted £86 to fix, I pulled the fuses and give them a clean and hey presto working fog lights, so what were they going to charge £86 for ? New bulbs?

I was intending selling the car anyway so a failure is a bit of a pain.

I've used the same station for the previous 2 MOTS without any real issues.

So Whats their game now. Not making enough lately so trying to stitch up a few mugs?

So, you couldn't be bothered to check the state of your lights before you presented your car for MOT?
Pad thickness?, well 2mm is considered the minimum, measuring?, perhaps having seen them, the tester used a pad gauge.
The charge for the rear fogs?, again, perhaps they'd experience of your model and based the quote on that.
Remember that tester has quite a personal responsibility.

[redstu]

If 2mm is the minimum then fair enough, I cant say if the car has a brake wear sensor on the rears, as I've not changed them.
And yes you're right I ommited to check to see if the rear fogs worked, its one of those things that so rarely get used. The E28 has a panel which warns of failure of the other lights but clearly not the fogs.
I doubt that the tester has much recent knowledge of 22 year old cars , certainly not enough to state £ and pence for "fixing" fog lights.

[tim2100]

redstu said:

If 2mm is the minimum then fair enough, I cant say if the car has a brake wear sensor on the rears, as I've not changed them.
And yes you're right I ommited to check to see if the rear fogs worked, its one of those things that so rarely get used. The E28 has a panel which warns of failure of the other lights but clearly not the fogs.
I doubt that the tester has much recent knowledge of 22 year old cars , certainly not enough to state £ and pence for "fixing" fog lights.

Dunno seems reasonable, he will be guestimating that on that as the car is 22 years old all the wiring could need replacing, it could 2 hours to trace the problem then time to go and get parts. In some cases such as your it could be a simple bulb replacement.

[Athlon]

1.5 mm is the min thickness, and to be fair, if they are that thin then they need changing, it is a fail.

Look up the testers guide, it is all online

Athlon (tester)

[WhoseGeneration]

redstu said:

If 2mm is the minimum then fair enough, I cant say if the car has a brake wear sensor on the rears, as I've not changed them.
And yes you're right I ommited to check to see if the rear fogs worked, its one of those things that so rarely get used. The E28 has a panel which warns of failure of the other lights but clearly not the fogs.
I doubt that the tester has much recent knowledge of 22 year old cars , certainly not enough to state £ and pence for "fixing" fog lights.

Thing is, that tester has to put his or her name to the certificate stating that the vehicle examined is safe to be let loose among the millions of others.
Oh and a Person from the Ministry might appear to check that MOT just undertaken, having sat round the corner, laptop logged on.
"Big Brother", everywhere.

[simon mk2]

Its not the end of the world mate, if the fogs are not working then they are not working!

Pads are not much, i have have just had to pay £450! and i did al, the work my self after it failed! and the car has only done 22000 miles, you have got to way up the cost, replace the pads for £20 max your self and pay £45 for an mot retest or let them do the work for x amount!

cars cost money these days if you dont like it by a push Bike.

If your a car fan then you dont mind paying out, if your not a car fan why are you on this site!!!!

[Athlon]

Athlon said:

1.5 mm is the min thickness, and to be fair, if they are that thin then they need changing, it is a fail.

Look up the testers guide, it is all online

Athlon (tester)

P.S. the fail ref in the manual is 3.5.f. and states: f. a brake lining or pad insecure or less than 1.5mm thick at any point

HTH

[redstu]

Thanks for the info.
Its a fail then as 1.5 is too thin , no problem there- I've probably always changed "in between" tests previously so not been caught.

I dont have a problem with failing on items which clearly need doing, but dont want to line the pockets of garages just out to make mugs of people. Yes the pads dont cost much and maybe £130 is fair, but I'd rather do them myself in an hour or so and save over £100, its not a difficult job.

Oh and I've also got a pushbike , now check out the cost of pads for disk brakes on those , that is crazy!

Edited by redstu on Saturday 12th September 21:40

[WhoseGeneration]

redstu said:

Its a fail then as 1.5 is too thin , no problem there- I've probably always changed "in between" tests previously so not been caught.

I dont have a problem with failing on items which clearly need doing, but dont want to line the pockets of garages just out to make mugs of people. Yes the pads dont cost much and maybe £130 is fair, but I'd rather do them myself in an hour or so and save over £100, its not a difficult job.

Oh and I've also got a pushbike , now check out the cost of pads for disk brakes on those , that is crazy!

So, what's your point?
Objecting to garages making a profit?
If so, do it yourself, you suggest you are capable.
Which must mean they won't make a mug out of you.
Don't get me wrong, I maintain our cars and have a healthy scepticism of garages but I don't present cars with problems for MOT.

[simon mk2]

Sorry about the push bike bit!

just do the cheapest thing, your in a corner now! learn by mistakes i have, i have bcome a lttle lazy in my olders years! have you been offered a free retest???


good point about cost!

[Ian Davidson]

I'll do it for £30 + parts.

<-- Aylesbury if that's any good for you.

[Swervin_Mervin]

How did they measure it? You aren't supposed to take the wheels off to test. If they can see an issue with the wheels on, then that's fine, but they cannot remove them to see if there are faults.

[Rich_W]

Swervin_Mervin said:

How did they measure it? You aren't supposed to take the wheels off to test. If they can see an issue with the wheels on, then that's fine, but they cannot remove them to see if there are faults.

Probably from the inside. And with a tread depth gauge.

[Disco_Biscuit]

Rich_W said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

How did they measure it? You aren't supposed to take the wheels off to test. If they can see an issue with the wheels on, then that's fine, but they cannot remove them to see if there are faults.

Probably from the inside. And with a tread depth gauge.

They probably didn't, gauged it by eye.

It really annoys me when people like the OP moan about there failing the test, if you think it should have passed, appeal its as easy as that.

If your intending to sell the car then all the more reason to have it in a road worthy condition surely.