Who can access MOT records and for how long?

[ashleyman]

I don't think you can judge a car just by it's MOT history though.

I looked after my car but was often short of time so little things like needing to replace a wiper, or fix a bulb or go and buy new tyres were often overlooked until they were coming up to being illegal. Most of the time when the MOT came round I would be needing tyres so I would always hand the car to the garage with a list of things that needed fixing - most of the time I would also supply the parts to make sure I got the proper wipers I wanted, the proper bulbs I wanted and would often specify what tyres I wanted too.

When the MOT checker came out and I checked my car it was horrible to see the tester had put the car through knowing of it's defects that I'd asked to be repaired - getting a fail for the issues I'd highlighted - and then seeing a pass with everything fixed. Over the past 3 years of me owning the car not once did the car have any other fail notices or defects that I wasn't anticipating. Yet the tester putting the car through knowing it would fail made me look bad as an owner and made the car look like it wasn't cared for.

For example my Fiesta failed in 2015 for:
Nearside Headlamp excessively deteriorated so that the light output is severely reduced (1.7.5a)
Nearside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Nearside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
Offside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)

Advisory notice item(s):
Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)

Except, I took the car in with new bulbs, wipers, asked him to fit 2 new premium tyres all before he did the test and also check for a funny sound. He didn't do as asked and the failure and advisory makes the car look like it's been abused a bit and uncared for.

Edited by ashleyman on Thursday 9th June 01:05

[CS Garth]

Ashley highlights a rather sharp practice. Mot stations need to maintain their fail rate, thus test them, fail them, fix them as asked and then pass them. In the past all you would see was the pass certificate, now you can see the whole audit trail

[Welshbeef]

Ashley

You listed two points that had illegal tyres. Supplying or asking them to fit new tyres is irrelevant you've been driving it illegally to the point pre MOT you requested them to fit new tyres - you should change tyres at 3mm for safety reasons 1.6mm is the absolute danger limit.

Wipers.. These are annual /or every two year service items you change them accordingly

Bulbs - if blown you might have no brake lights no headlights no indicators yet saying to MOT gag rage I know bulbs are dodgy fix them pre MOT.....


You also state you get similar issues year on year- run tyres to and beyond legal limit., have inferior screen clarity failed bulbs. I can understand why a garage would do this and hopefully you check these things weekly and replace when they fail not wait until he MOT day & even then not request a service and MOT instead a MOT but fix these dodgy things first.

[MrBarry123]

williamp said:

yes its great isn't it. I have saved literally thousands by not spending money I cannot afford on cars I want. Its the voice of reason. The antithesis of man maths. Come to think of it, I hate it. It should be banned

Ashley - it is a fair point however I think you're probably the exception to the rule i.e. if a car has a consistent history of failures on wear and tear items, the care of the car probably isn't a priority for the owner.

[Vroom101]

Joey Deacon said:

Worst are Renault Scenics which often badly fail their first MOTs and then have their mileage reset to zero when they have a new dash fitted. Do you think the sellers say it has had a new dash or advertise the false mileage......

Mrs Vroom had a Scenic which had had the dash replaced. We bought the car at around 45k I think, but the odometer only showed 18k. Thankfully the (somewhat back-street) dealer told the truth and there was even an invoice from Renault for doing the work. This was before the BBC's Watchdog got involved and the first owner had to pay over £400 to have it replaced If the invoice hadn't have been in the history, I do wonder if the dealer would've been so honest.

When I took the car for its first MOT in our ownership, I asked for them to record the true mileage, rather than the figure showing on the clock. I was told by the tester that this was not allowed, so it's not always unscrupulous if you see a lower mileage in a following year. It just probably is

Oh, and don't buy a Scenic. They are crap.

[Denis O]

This site, discussed on here the other day, is even better as it incorporates other info as well as the MOT history.

http://regisearch.co.uk/

The private plate thing can make the MOT info throw a wobbly. Both my cars have private plates. One's history goes back to 2006, the other shows the last 2 MOT's. I have the 2nd one's proper history from the old site that required he V5 number. That was still active when I bought the car last August.

[Phunk]

An MOT is only as good as the garage that does it though.

Last car I bought has previously flew through every MOT including one a week before I picked it up.

Took it home, MOT'd it at my work for piece of mind and it had two fails and 8 minors.

[Welshbeef]

Phunk said:

An MOT is only as good as the garage that does it though.

Last car I bought has previously flew through every MOT including one a week before I picked it up.

Took it home, MOT'd it at my work for piece of mind and it had two fails and 8 minors.

This can be an issue - did you inform trading standards?

[Welshbeef]

MrBarry123 said:

Ashley - it is a fair point however I think you're probably the exception to the rule i.e. if a car has a consistent history of failures on wear and tear items, the care of the car probably isn't a priority for the owner.

And illegal (Tyres possibly lights).

It makes you think does the owner check oil levels weekly ditto tyre pressure plus is he the sort of owner who pushes his luck with servicing rather than a bit early always overdue just because same issue as the MOT.

Clearly could all be wrong but you state consistently year on year / surely you'd get the hint?/maybe an inferior second hand value knocked down to the history widely available would change behaviours?

[irish boy]

Great when browsing car and classic and looking at that Immaculate w126 or whatever, to check mot history to find "excessive corrosion"

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

TooMany2cvs said:

eybic said:

Unless there's been a plate change. That breaks things.

It absolutely does not. If you know the latest plate it shows the full history (I changed the plate on this car in October 2015):

egistration number: FN56OBU

Vehicle makeVOLKSWAGEN Vehicle modelGOLF Date first used17 January 2007 Fuel typePetrol ColourBlue

MOT history of this vehicle
Test date12 November 2015 Expiry date11 November 2016 Test ResultPass Odometer reading59,445 miles MOT test number1656 4673 8123
Test date18 December 2014 Expiry date17 January 2016 Test ResultPass Odometer reading56,201 miles MOT test number4588 4245 4354
Test date18 December 2013 Expiry date17 January 2015 Test ResultPass Odometer reading52,893 miles MOT test number8785 6245 3336
Test date18 December 2012 Expiry date17 January 2014 Test ResultPass Odometer reading47,073 miles MOT test number6287 8305 2371
Test date5 January 2012 Expiry date17 January 2013 Test ResultPass Odometer reading39,484 miles MOT test number1697 8520 2477
Test date5 January 2011 Expiry date17 January 2012 Test ResultPass Odometer reading30,207 miles MOT test number7055 9540 1013
Test date12 January 2010 Expiry date17 January 2011 Test ResultPass Odometer reading22,605 miles MOT test number8209 1201 0090
Test date12 January 2010 Test ResultFail Odometer reading22,605 miles MOT test number7910 1241 0045

[Alucidnation]

I thought i had found an ideal run around, but checked the MOT history anyway.

Car was in perfect condition on the outside and inside, however, an MOT advisory from a couple of years ago stated it had 'considerable panel damage'.

[TazLondon]

Be wary of those dealers who will sell a car with a full 12 month MOT when you buy it. These MOTs always pass with no advisories.

I'd rather buy a used car that had its MOT carried out before the dealer got the car.

[Welshbeef]

TazLondon said:

Be wary of those dealers who will sell a car with a full 12 month MOT when you buy it. These MOTs always pass with no advisories.

I'd rather buy a used car that had its MOT carried out before the dealer got the car.

But then that's a conspiracy and trading standards would definitely want to know about it to shut them down.



Anyway passing an MOT is very easy it's a low level and very basic vehicle safety check. Any

[TooMany2cvs]

Furry muff, chaps. They've obviously fixed the breakage that plate changes introduced. Not before time, either.

But...

ashleyman said:

I don't think you can judge a car just by it's MOT history though.

Oh, I don't know...

ashleyman said:

I looked after my car but was often short of time so little things like needing to replace a wiper, or fix a bulb or go and buy new tyres were often overlooked until they were coming up to being illegal.

<raises eyebrows>

ashleyman said:

Yet the tester putting the car through knowing it would fail made me look bad as an owner and made the car look like it wasn't cared for.

For example my Fiesta failed in 2015 for:
Nearside Headlamp excessively deteriorated so that the light output is severely reduced (1.7.5a)
Nearside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Nearside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
Offside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)

Advisory notice item(s):
Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)

Riiiiight...

ashleyman said:

Except, I took the car in with new bulbs, wipers, asked him to fit 2 new premium tyres all before he did the test

Umm, not quite. You had been cheefully driving around with fked wipers, a fked headlight, two illegal tyres and a third on the borderline.

ashleyman said:

He didn't do as asked

Yes, he did. He did the work you asked and returned the car with a new MOT pass.

ashleyman said:

and the failure and advisory makes the car look like it's been abused a bit and uncared for.

Yep, it accurately reflects the state the car was in when you took it for the test.

Look, it's very easy. He tests the car when it arrives, so he has a list of what needs doing. He does the service and list of stuff you've told him to do, together with anything else the test has picked up, then - if there's only partial-retest items - it gets a partial retest. MUCH easier and quicker all round than doing all the stuff, putting it in for the test, then finding there's something that's been missed.

If you don't want the MOT history to show that it's been owned by somebody who's happy to drive around on three fked tyres, with fked wipers and a fked light, then don't BE SOMEBODY who is happy to drive around on three fked tyres, fked wipers and a fked light. Yes, it really IS that simple. And don't blame somebody else when there's evidence of your indolence, neglect and fkwittery on show.

[LDN]

I just checked the history on family cars and my partners; every time I wait for the results; my heart speeds up. Touch wood; no issues!

Everyone should know of this website... it should be common knowledge.

[LDN]

Ok, I just checked my fathers car... some oddities with the dates and mileages... I'm a little perplexed and a tad anxious here - what could this mean?

MOT history of this vehicle

Test date: 20 November 2015
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 27,836 miles

Test date: 25 July 2015
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 36,614 miles

Test date: 1 May 2015
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 26,733 miles

Test date: 25 October 2014
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 30,275 miles

Test date: 2 May 2014
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 25,972 miles

Test date: 26 October 2013
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading17,906 miles
Advisory notice item(s)
front valance scratched
trims fitted to outersills
nearside rear wheel rim and tyres damaged slightly
offside and nearside rear tyres worn to limit
275/35/19/y

Test date: 30 October 2012
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 21,999 miles

Test date: 11 September 2012
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 11,033 miles
Advisory notice item(s)
Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)

Test date: 19 October 2011
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 20,044 miles
Advisory notice item(s)
Nearside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)

Test date: 4 October 2011
Test ResultPass
Odometer reading 6,426 miles

[ashleyman]

Welshbeef said:

Ashley

You listed two points that had illegal tyres. Supplying or asking them to fit new tyres is irrelevant you've been driving it illegally to the point pre MOT you requested them to fit new tyres - you should change tyres at 3mm for safety reasons 1.6mm is the absolute danger limit.

Wipers.. These are annual /or every two year service items you change them accordingly

Bulbs - if blown you might have no brake lights no headlights no indicators yet saying to MOT gag rage I know bulbs are dodgy fix them pre MOT.....


You also state you get similar issues year on year- run tyres to and beyond legal limit., have inferior screen clarity failed bulbs. I can understand why a garage would do this and hopefully you check these things weekly and replace when they fail not wait until he MOT day & even then not request a service and MOT instead a MOT but fix these dodgy things first.

That's my point. I check over my car weekly. Check fluid levels and tyre tread and pressures. When I tested my tyres they were getting low but not illegal - unless my tread gauge is faulty. When I took it for an MOT, I asked the guy to replace the tyres.

When I looked on the MOT website it stated illegal tyres - news to me!

The lights always catch me out. On my Fiesta they have a habit of blowing and have done even since I bought it. They pop regardless of how new the bulb is. I'm usually very on top of it and do change them when they need doing - I cannot stand driving without enough light. Once, it co-incided with an MOT so I thought why not get the guy to do it but he failed the car for it.

But this is my point, my car is generally very well cared for - it is compared with probably 80% of other cars on the road. It's maintained and checked over regularly, the good parts are bought when needed and I don't do cheap tyres or run them all the way down so they're slick. It's not like I've driving it around with horrendous defects for months before the test. But the fact that the test records these fails means that a potential buyer has a tiny snapshot into the owners history they use it to make a judgement about a car which is well looked after.

[TooMany2cvs]

ashleyman said:

That's my point. I check over my car weekly. Check fluid levels and tyre tread and pressures. When I tested my tyres they were getting low but not illegal - unless my tread gauge is faulty. When I took it for an MOT, I asked the guy to replace the tyres.

And how long had they been getting low?

ashleyman said:

But this is my point, my car is generally very well cared for

...apart from the three fked tyres, the fked wipers and the fked headlight.

[ashleyman]

TooMany2cvs said:

Yep, it accurately reflects the state the car was in when you took it for the test.

Tiny snapshot of owner history that doesn't give a full insight into how the car has been treated.