Used car mot history
Discussion
Hi,
Looking for a new used car at the moment and have been checking the online mot histories of the cars I've been looking at, I was wondering is it better if cars have relatively clear mot histories or if they have things which have failed in the past which must since have been fixed?? The cars I've been looking at have generally done about 60-80 000 miles. Just not sure if something which has already had problems will be better as they'll already have been sorted out or whether something with a clearer history will be more reliable
Thanks for any advice
Looking for a new used car at the moment and have been checking the online mot histories of the cars I've been looking at, I was wondering is it better if cars have relatively clear mot histories or if they have things which have failed in the past which must since have been fixed?? The cars I've been looking at have generally done about 60-80 000 miles. Just not sure if something which has already had problems will be better as they'll already have been sorted out or whether something with a clearer history will be more reliable
Thanks for any advice
An MOT gives an idea on how the car has been maintained and looked after, but won't indicate whether it's going to be reliable or not. Sometimes a 'scary' looking MOT history with lots of red and orange can be down to a over enthusiastic garage failing a car for example "insufficient washer fluid" and "number plate light dim".
Hardly deal breakers but show as orange or red on the history, so worth delving into the colours to see the details.
Hardly deal breakers but show as orange or red on the history, so worth delving into the colours to see the details.
Personally I think the cleaner the better. I always give my car a thorough check before taking it in for an MOT so when I see cars with advisories/fails for blown bulbs, low tyre treads, ineffective wipers, poor brakes etc, I try to steer clear. A good car owner should be sorting all those things as and when they occur not just once a year at MOT time!
Personally I like to see evidence that a car has been maintained, and preventative maintenance has been carried out, not that something has broken and then been fixed. If you're seeing things like bald tyres and knackered brakes then it would suggest it just gets fixed when it's broken.
depends really - if the car has failed repeatedly for worn tyres or blown bulbs then this indicates that the owner hasn't really been paying much attention to maintenance, as these are the easy things to keep on top of. If it fails/is advised on wear and tear items that are harder to spot (worn suspension bushes for example) then I wouldn't be so concerned.
It's not always the owner's fault for the advisory.
For instance, last year I took my car in for two new tyres and rear brake pads. The MOT was due a month later, so asked them to MOT it whilst they had it.
They MOT'd it before doing the work, and got advisories, on yes, you've guessed it - Low tread on two tyres, and low pads on the rear brakes.
Fixed the same day, as that was what the car went in for.
I can understand them doing it this way around though, as if it fails the MOT on something major such as structural rust, which would cost a fortune to fix, then I would not really want the tyres or brakes doing, as I am not likely to be using the car, and quite possibly be getting rid of it as scrap/spares.
For instance, last year I took my car in for two new tyres and rear brake pads. The MOT was due a month later, so asked them to MOT it whilst they had it.
They MOT'd it before doing the work, and got advisories, on yes, you've guessed it - Low tread on two tyres, and low pads on the rear brakes.
Fixed the same day, as that was what the car went in for.
I can understand them doing it this way around though, as if it fails the MOT on something major such as structural rust, which would cost a fortune to fix, then I would not really want the tyres or brakes doing, as I am not likely to be using the car, and quite possibly be getting rid of it as scrap/spares.
I've done the vast majority of our servicing & repairs for years & have the tools, incl mig welder.
Simple service items of a mechanical nature wouldn't put me off, although a big list of advisories esp repeats on such things as brake lines would.
Body corrosion/some types of body damage, eml/other fault lights & oil leaks would put me off.
I don't do computery stuff (apart from OBD2 readers) & oil leaks can be a major PITA to get at.
I always go over a prospective purchase myself which includes crawling about & using mirrors & a torch.
If you don't know what you're doing then I'd suggest taking someone that does or having a professional independent check BEFORE buying or you may finish up as yet another poster who's bought a car thinking it's OK only to take it to another garage that tells them it needs a gazillion pounds worth of work.
Simple service items of a mechanical nature wouldn't put me off, although a big list of advisories esp repeats on such things as brake lines would.
Body corrosion/some types of body damage, eml/other fault lights & oil leaks would put me off.
I don't do computery stuff (apart from OBD2 readers) & oil leaks can be a major PITA to get at.
I always go over a prospective purchase myself which includes crawling about & using mirrors & a torch.
If you don't know what you're doing then I'd suggest taking someone that does or having a professional independent check BEFORE buying or you may finish up as yet another poster who's bought a car thinking it's OK only to take it to another garage that tells them it needs a gazillion pounds worth of work.
Edited by paintman on Tuesday 29th January 16:10
It's not always the owner's fault for the advisory.
For instance, last year I took my car in for two new tyres and rear brake pads. The MOT was due a month later, so asked them to MOT it whilst they had it.
They MOT'd it before doing the work, and got advisories, on yes, you've guessed it - Low tread on two tyres, and low pads on the rear brakes.
Fixed the same day, as that was what the car went in for.
I can understand them doing it this way around though, as if it fails the MOT on something major such as structural rust, which would cost a fortune to fix, then I would not really want the tyres or brakes doing, as I am not likely to be using the car, and quite possibly be getting rid of it as scrap/spares.
For instance, last year I took my car in for two new tyres and rear brake pads. The MOT was due a month later, so asked them to MOT it whilst they had it.
They MOT'd it before doing the work, and got advisories, on yes, you've guessed it - Low tread on two tyres, and low pads on the rear brakes.
Fixed the same day, as that was what the car went in for.
I can understand them doing it this way around though, as if it fails the MOT on something major such as structural rust, which would cost a fortune to fix, then I would not really want the tyres or brakes doing, as I am not likely to be using the car, and quite possibly be getting rid of it as scrap/spares.
I always check the MOT History of a car before buying or even consider contacting a seller but I wouldn't necessarily say a car with lots of fails is going to be a bad car. Not all drivers are mechanical wizards. My missus, for example, is absolutely useless at noticing faults with her cars but when she knows something is wrong, she gets it fixed asap.
Of course, obvious things like tyres should never fail on an MOT. They take seconds to look and see if they're f
ked. Anyone can do it. Same with bulbs. Other mechanical things are beyond a lot of drivers and they wouldn't have a clue where to start. Even brakes. Plenty of drivers will just just assume that if it stops and doesn't make a funny noise, it's fine. Pads will generally function and sound fine right up until there is literally no friction material left, so it's quite easy to not notice they are bellow the legal limit.
The MOT history check can be quite frustrating though. Until this year, my car had never had a single fail or advisory in it's UK history (8 years). Going by the history, it's always had a pre MOT check and service with any work needed carried out before taking the test. So even though it#s not been recorded, it a clear case of leaving it until it's broke before fixing it. Annoyingly, the rear passenger wheel bearing started to rumble a few weeks before the test so I bought the part and booked the car in, asking the garage to do the bearing along with the MOT as I knew it would be a fail. Of course, they MOTed it first and failed it on the bearing before replacing it and redoing the test, so now my car has a Fail even though I diagnosed and arranged to have the fault repaired to avoid this.
So yes, useful information to a point but you can't really judge an owner or a car based on the MOT history.
Of course, obvious things like tyres should never fail on an MOT. They take seconds to look and see if they're f
ked. Anyone can do it. Same with bulbs. Other mechanical things are beyond a lot of drivers and they wouldn't have a clue where to start. Even brakes. Plenty of drivers will just just assume that if it stops and doesn't make a funny noise, it's fine. Pads will generally function and sound fine right up until there is literally no friction material left, so it's quite easy to not notice they are bellow the legal limit.The MOT history check can be quite frustrating though. Until this year, my car had never had a single fail or advisory in it's UK history (8 years). Going by the history, it's always had a pre MOT check and service with any work needed carried out before taking the test. So even though it#s not been recorded, it a clear case of leaving it until it's broke before fixing it. Annoyingly, the rear passenger wheel bearing started to rumble a few weeks before the test so I bought the part and booked the car in, asking the garage to do the bearing along with the MOT as I knew it would be a fail. Of course, they MOTed it first and failed it on the bearing before replacing it and redoing the test, so now my car has a Fail even though I diagnosed and arranged to have the fault repaired to avoid this.
So yes, useful information to a point but you can't really judge an owner or a car based on the MOT history.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Tuesday 29th January 16:13
I suppose you have to be realistic. For example I have had a couple of bits done on my E320 which you wouldn't know needed doing as weren't obvious from the drivers seat. Things like a bit of play in a bearing or similar, potentially something I wouldn't have noticed whilst driving. That said the MOT says failed on X and then immediately passed so you know it's been done.
Things like tyre wear and bulbs out seems obvious and stuff the owner really should know. I don't think it's definitive by any means but using common sense it can be indicative.
I'd be as intrigued by mileage discrepancies though. Saw a chap flaunting his Audi RS4 on a FB page, nice enough looking car but wasn't sure the engine. Ended up having a look at the MOT history, had 140k on it once, last 2-3 MOTs showed 70k-ish.
Things like tyre wear and bulbs out seems obvious and stuff the owner really should know. I don't think it's definitive by any means but using common sense it can be indicative.
I'd be as intrigued by mileage discrepancies though. Saw a chap flaunting his Audi RS4 on a FB page, nice enough looking car but wasn't sure the engine. Ended up having a look at the MOT history, had 140k on it once, last 2-3 MOTs showed 70k-ish.
MysteryLemon said:
The MOT history check can be quite frustrating though. Until this year, my car had never had a single fail or advisory in it's UK history (8 years). Going by the history, it's always had a pre MOT check and service with any work needed carried out before taking the test. So even though it#s not been recorded, it a clear case of leaving it until it's broke before fixing it. Annoyingly, the rear passenger wheel bearing started to rumble a few weeks before the test so I bought the part and booked the car in, asking the garage to do the bearing along with the MOT as I knew it would be a fail. Of course, they MOTed it first and failed it on the bearing before replacing it and redoing the test, so now my car has a Fail even though I diagnosed and arranged to have the fault repaired to avoid this.
This would infuriate me. Why do they do that!?Jimi.K. said:
This would infuriate me. Why do they do that!?
To pick up on all the work that needs done to the car.They MOT it, see what it fails on, do the work, then re-test it.
As opposed to sticking it on a ramp for an hour or so to do the bearing, then take it through to the MOT bay, then potentially fali it, then have to bring it back to do some more work to it, then retest it.
I get that some people are precious about their MOT history, I'm only explaining why it is that some garages operate like that.
As with everything, it's a little more information that can assist you in forming a picture, for example, the car having the same advisory two years running is not a good sign, particularly if it relates to something like tyres or brakes.
A car regularly failing or having advisories on basic things is indicative of a lack of maintenance and/or care.
It's surprising how any 'classics' appear on the market with wording such as 'time to allow somebody else to enjoy' etc and the mot history shows failure in recent years for 'corrosion'.
A car regularly failing or having advisories on basic things is indicative of a lack of maintenance and/or care.
It's surprising how any 'classics' appear on the market with wording such as 'time to allow somebody else to enjoy' etc and the mot history shows failure in recent years for 'corrosion'.
Tired said:
To pick up on all the work that needs done to the car.
They MOT it, see what it fails on, do the work, then re-test it.
As opposed to sticking it on a ramp for an hour or so to do the bearing, then take it through to the MOT bay, then potentially fali it, then have to bring it back to do some more work to it, then retest it.
I get that some people are precious about their MOT history, I'm only explaining why it is that some garages operate like that.
There is also the question of time, if you have an hour in the morning to replace discs and pads then have an hour in the afternoon to mot it and it fails then it could be a day or so before you can do the rework, however do it the other way around you then have an hour in the diary where you can carry out any rework.They MOT it, see what it fails on, do the work, then re-test it.
As opposed to sticking it on a ramp for an hour or so to do the bearing, then take it through to the MOT bay, then potentially fali it, then have to bring it back to do some more work to it, then retest it.
I get that some people are precious about their MOT history, I'm only explaining why it is that some garages operate like that.
MysteryLemon said:
........
Of course, obvious things like tyres should never fail on an MOT. They take seconds to look and see if they're fked. Anyone can do it. ....
The previous owner of my Insignia put Nexen tyres on the front, one of which was questionably manufactured but only affecting a small proportion of the tyre on its inner third. Enough to fail the MoT (1.5mm tread; 2mm everywhere else and on the other tyre). Not enough for me to easily notice unless I'd had the car up in the air and able to inspect the whole inner edge of the tyre.Of course, obvious things like tyres should never fail on an MOT. They take seconds to look and see if they're f
ked. Anyone can do it. ....In any case, pending satisfactory MoT it had been my intention to replace all four tyres anyway because the front Nexens were always crap and were worn out after about 8k while the rear Bridgestones were original with some perishing even though they had 3-4mm tread left.
So immediately after the MoT fail on just one area of one tyre, the car was 'treated' to four new mid-upper spec tyres even though just one cheap tyre would have got through MoT.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff