First Post - MOT question

[Williamraff]

Good morning all,

I am new to Pistonheads and look forward to utilising and contributing to the massive brainpower contained herein !

My first question relates to tho old “300mm” from a suspension / structural point.

Specifically - on my 2000 Peugeot Boxer. The front “inner” wheel arch is corroded at the top - it is not anywhere near a major structural or suspension piece but opinions may differ.

Could someone / anyone with suitable MOT experience advise if this will be a fail?

I am currently going through the Van / camper front to back and don’t want to cause any unnecessary work for this year - Arc eye is just about wearing off.

TIA

Will.

[ingenieur]

Generally if it's patches of rust on the bodywork in open panel areas like bonnet, roof, doors... it's probably going to be okay but bad MOT testers can fail for 'sharp edges'. i.e. if the rust is on a bumper and a person could cut their knee walking past it.

Most of the underneath of a vehicle is part of the structure as manufacturers don't generally build in excess metal for the sake of it. Most of it is structural. So if the rust is on some sort of chassis member or close to the mounting of any of the arms or struts then it won't pass.

[QJumper]

You don't say how badly corroded. Is it not something you could quickly and easily wire brush/sand clean and treat? I know you don't want to create any extra work, but it's only going to get worse over time, and become an even bigger job.

Failing that, you could always go the garage where you get your MOTs done and ask them if it's ok.

[Dr Interceptor]

I'd have thought the top of the inner arch is where the top of the suspension tower is - so if it's bad or holed, I would expect it to be a fail.

Impossible to say without seeing it though - photo OP?

[Williamraff]

Thank you everybody for your responses.

It seems the consensus is to just get on with it - I will probably be glad I did once it’s done !

For anyone interested - it has been a full inner wings rebuild, jacking points, sills, various strengthening sections, inner wheel, arches, outer sill - all on both sides- plus battery tray - all Schutzed to within an inch of its life 😳.

The rest of it is fine 🙂.

Autocruise Stardream2000 - year 2000 on a Peugeot Boxer chassis.

[paintman]

ingenieur said:

Generally if it's patches of rust on the bodywork in open panel areas like bonnet, roof, doors... it's probably going to be okay but bad MOT testers can fail for 'sharp edges'. i.e. if the rust is on a bumper and a person could cut their knee walking past it.

Most of the underneath of a vehicle is part of the structure as manufacturers don't generally build in excess metal for the sake of it. Most of it is structural. So if the rust is on some sort of chassis member or close to the mounting of any of the arms or struts then it won't pass.

'Bad MOT tester'?

Suggest you have a look at Section 6.2.1 of the tester's manual. It's quite clear.
(a) A body panel or body component:

(i) damaged or corroded and likely to cause injury when grazed or contacted, or insecure Major
(ii) likely to become detached Dangerous

Section 6.1.4 specifically covers bumpers:
a) Bumper:

(i) insecure or with damage likely to cause injury when grazed or contacted Major
(ii) likely to become detached Dangerous
www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-priv...

In addition to MOT issues sharp edges also fall under using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. Road Traffic Act 1988 S40A
According to this link penalty for non goods vehicles up to 3 points & up to £2500 & for goods vehicles an unlimited fine.
www.ukhaulagesolicitors.law/offences/driving-vehic...

IIRC we used to deal with this by the Vehicle Defect Rectification Schemes.
If your damage has exposed sharp edges that could be contacted by someone brushing past the car then either repair the area or put something over it to cover the sharp edges.

Edited by paintman on Friday 30th September 13:42

[the tribester]

ingenieur said:

Generally if it's patches of rust on the bodywork in open panel areas like bonnet, roof, doors... it's probably going to be okay but bad MOT testers can fail for 'sharp edges'. i.e. if the rust is on a bumper and a person could cut their knee walking past it.

Why would you want that to be passible?

[ingenieur]

the tribester said:

ingenieur said:

Generally if it's patches of rust on the bodywork in open panel areas like bonnet, roof, doors... it's probably going to be okay but bad MOT testers can fail for 'sharp edges'. i.e. if the rust is on a bumper and a person could cut their knee walking past it.

Why would you want that to be passible?

That's not the point.

In response to both comments.

MOT testers can have an opinion on the extent of the danger in some cases and the kind of MOT tester who wants to use the MOT as a way of pressurising you to get some work done to your car by refusing a certificate and calling your car dangerous is in my opinion a bad tester. You may think differently and that's fine.

[Hatson]

ingenieur said:

the tribester said:

ingenieur said:

Generally if it's patches of rust on the bodywork in open panel areas like bonnet, roof, doors... it's probably going to be okay but bad MOT testers can fail for 'sharp edges'. i.e. if the rust is on a bumper and a person could cut their knee walking past it.

Why would you want that to be passible?

That's not the point.

In response to both comments.

MOT testers can have an opinion on the extent of the danger in some cases and the kind of MOT tester who wants to use the MOT as a way of pressurising you to get some work done to your car by refusing a certificate and calling your car dangerous is in my opinion a bad tester. You may think differently and that's fine.

So you need an MOT tester tester to test the MOT tester before he does the MOT test?

[ingenieur]

Hatson said:

ingenieur said:

the tribester said:

ingenieur said:

Generally if it's patches of rust on the bodywork in open panel areas like bonnet, roof, doors... it's probably going to be okay but bad MOT testers can fail for 'sharp edges'. i.e. if the rust is on a bumper and a person could cut their knee walking past it.

Why would you want that to be passible?

That's not the point.

In response to both comments.

MOT testers can have an opinion on the extent of the danger in some cases and the kind of MOT tester who wants to use the MOT as a way of pressurising you to get some work done to your car by refusing a certificate and calling your car dangerous is in my opinion a bad tester. You may think differently and that's fine.

So you need an MOT tester tester to test the MOT tester before he does the MOT test?

I used to contract-out for MOTs when I ran my workshop and if you got the wrong kind of tester you'd have to try and justify their bull to a customer. If it kept happening we would switch to a different supplier. There's a fine line between safety and nonsense and good testers won't pass a dangerous car but at the same time won't make life needlessly difficult. Good local testers got all our business and the ones who kept messing us around would be used very occasionally if we were having trouble getting appointments elsewhere.