Dealer supplied MOT, am I right be to worried?

[grumpy52]

The set up at many small garages that have a workshop first , car sales second set up is this . A car for sale is given to the workshop for a look over , if it's going to need loads to pass an MOT or other repairs it will be passed on through the trade or sent to auction.
Many will have a full MOT inspection but not entered on the system , they get an MOT issued at the last moment to please the punter with a full 12 month MOT .
The only dodgy MOT places that I know these days are the ones generating unnecessary parts replacement work for the workshops , they are just preying on paraniod members of the public and it's rare that they fail on items that they don't keep in stock .

[TooMany2cvs]

DickyC said:

If it's safe we pass it, if it isn't we fail it." When I said about the other garage failing almost everything, the answer was unequivocal, "He's a greedy man." Simple as that. It's the same if you take a car to another garage for a second opinion, if they're slack they'll find things wrong with it in the hope they get the work.

The owner of the garage who failed almost everything came to him to complain about losing the work. According to him it wasn't fair. Going to other garages that pass cars just because they're safe? Outrageous behaviour.

Mmm. The MOT isn't quite that simple... Sure, tester's opinion comes into play in limited ways on certain test points, but the things that a car can fail on are tightly defined in the "Reasons for Rejection" column of the tester's manual. If the busy garage are ignoring the tester's manual, and just going off gut feel, they're out of order and crying out to lose their test licence. Likewise if the "greedy" garage are ignoring it, and just making things up.

[DickyC]

That's the point I was trying to make. The busy garage did the proper MoT, the greedy garage failed cars that didn't need to be failed. If you take a car bought at one garage to another garage for an immediate retest or a "can you find anything wrong with this car" they will say it needs work.

[GC8]

rallycross said:

This subject of dodgy MOT's come up quite often on PH, it's massively exaggerated
I run a fleet of older cars including a few bangers and I know quite a few MOT testers, for the person who is testing the car, they are effectively opening themselves up to loss of livelihood by passing something that should be a fail (sure enough some wont care but for most this is a massive risk to losing their income and its not worth it for the risk).

This said, I know somewhere where it will pass. It happens. Im not dodgy and couldn't ever have found a dodgy MOT, but have a salt of the earth, but dodgy AF acquaintance who knows several places who will if they arrange it.

[GC8]

They cover themselves easily - look at the advisories, because every reason for rejection will be here.

[jas xjr]

I have a mate who is an not tester. The only favour he would be to pass a defect that could potentially happen on the way home from the test station. So damage to the windscreen he would pass. Welding , he would pass, if it needed doing.

[TooMany2cvs]

DickyC said:

The busy garage did the proper MoT, the greedy garage failed cars that didn't need to be failed.

Or did the "busy" garage do a mate a favour, and the "greedy" garage picked up genuine issues?

DickyC said:

If you take a car bought at one garage to another garage for an immediate retest or a "can you find anything wrong with this car" they will say it needs work.

Only if they'd do that anyway... Which most won't.

[anonymous-user]

I bought a three year old approved used w204 Merc estate from a main dealer a few years ago, a relatively rare petrol one. When driving the car home the check engine light came on, back to the dealer it went and a day later I get a phone call "Its been fuelled with diesel" hence why the light came on: new fuel lines, cylinder head etc. and out of action for a week or so.

"No sir, it wasn't us, we would have filled it with petrol you see, it must have been like that when we got it"

"So how did it pass the MOT test, especially emissions that you put it through the day before I collected it then..."

"We are willing to fix under warranty"

When I got it back there was also a new windscreen; the previous one had quite a few chips in the driver's line of sight...funny how that went through the MOT fine too!

My point: even mainline dealers on approved used cars can have questionable approaches to MOT'ing.

And yes, after years of lurking I signed up just to get that off my chest...!

Edited by JIMMYJ4ZZ on Saturday 10th March 18:29

[matthias73]

Burgerbob said:

matthias73 said:

My current car came with a 12 month MOT which was useless.

If I get a car from a trader again, I'll ask for it to be MOT elsewhere and that I'll pay the 35 pounds. If they decline, it's because they know it'll fail.

You sound like the sort of person who makes sweeping generalisations on the internet. By extension, I now fall into that bracket too :haha:

In what way was the MOT useless, it either passed or failed, unless you know it should have failed but they passed it, which in that case you should have rejected the car?

I'd imagine many sellers of cars would refuse your offer for having it MOT'd elsewhere simply due to the hassle. Unless you're paying top dollar then there isn't enough profit in a car to be messed around.

An MOT isn't a full check of a car anyway, if you have concerns or want to have peace of mind then a proper independant check is the only real answer. Such as one of these...

https://www.rac.co.uk/buying-a-car/vehicle-inspect...

The washer fluid bottle had a crack in it that meant no windscreen washer or xenon headlights washer could be used. Prior to purchasing the car I asked them to fill it up because I naively thought it was just empty. As I didn't drive the car home, I was hours away before I realised.

That is a simple fail that they definitely knew about. The other issues I can't prove existed at the time.

Yes in theory I could have rejected the car. However I decided on balance I'd just fix everything. If the car is leaking oil from the diff when I buy it, that isn't necessarily going to stop me buying it, however I need to know about it so i can rectify the issue.

So Yes, I won't be buying another old car with an MOT from the shop I bought it from. I'd rather buy privately or make do with the 4 months or however long the car already has.

Not stopping anyone else doing how they please though..

[Valgar]

Update...

I picked the car up on Sunday but didn't look at it much as I was busy.

The MOT just had the same advisory as last year, brake lines, which wouldn't take a genius to do. I did not receive an emissions sheet, 1st red flag

Today I've had a look around and generally it seems OK, but there were a few issues I thought were questionable

The front wipers were both perished and did not clear screenwash very effectively

The rear wiper, was totally split and fked, it should've been mentioned I thought even if it's not a fail?

Both number plate bulbs not functioning.

So overall I do not believe an MOT was done, although I am happy with the cars overall condition. I will go to my trusted garage for a service and a thorough check over for the things I can't check at home, like light beam, emissions etc.

[ReverendCounter]

So you were right to be concerned. Sounds like the MOT outfit/tester should be reported, to be honest.

[anonymous-user]

Seconded, you should report. I regret not doing this in the past.

Info here: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/tackling-mot-...

[rallycross]

Valgar said:

Update...

I picked the car up on Sunday but didn't look at it much as I was busy.

Either a troll or an idiot.

[Valgar]

rallycross said:

Either a troll or an idiot.

Or maybe I'm not going to do a private MOT at 4pm on a Sunday afternoon on his forecourt after work and he's only there to fill out the V5.

"Oh hang on mate, do you mind waiting around for half hour because I am suspicious that you have faked an MOT, also do you mind if I use your workshop for this because it's pissing down outside"

I had already looked at the car previously and test drove it. The car was fairly low value and I knew if there were any issues I could address them later.

But no please carry on insulting people, how good does it feel to be fking perfect?

JIMMYJ4ZZ said:

Seconded, you should report. I regret not doing this in the past.

Info here: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/tackling-mot-...

Thanks, I'm going to get my trusted garages report and go from there.

[LarsG]

Valgar said:

Hi, earlier on this week I put a deposit down on a little shed money runaround from a dealer and it was to come with 12 months MOT

Naturally they'll supply their own MOT which is already potentially concerning.

Now it's late on Friday, they close Saturday although I'm due to pick it up tomorrow out of hours and as yet according to the Gov website, it currently still has no MOT.

I'm thinking i'm going to get a dodgy MOT because if they do it tomorrow then they needed a part, they would really struggle to get a part delivered on a Saturday.

If I do get one then I know how to deal with it so I'm not worried about that part.

Am I just being paranoid or does this sound iffy?

So long as it has had a coat of creosote it should last the winter.

[LarsG]

No matter. The vehicle has to be fit for purpose, so have it checked out by your fav garage the day you buy it. List any faults that might result in an MOT failure or any problems, if there are get a quote for the work. Approach the dealership and demand they pay it or put it right. If they do not get a written statement from your fav garage and demand your money back. If they fail to do so, trading standards should be your next call. Also a claim through the county court is relatively cheap to make. Sold as seen is not an excuse. You have rights under the consumer protection legislation so if necessary use it to your advantage.

[Toaster Pilot]

Pica-Pica said:

The Gov website lags behind the actual MOT date. Just make sure you have the MOT when you pick it up.

check-mot.blah is instant, hooked into the same system the testers use

vehicleenquiry.blah can be laggy.

[TooMany2cvs]

Valgar said:

I did not receive an emissions sheet, 1st red flag

Really? Why? There's no requirement for it to be handed over. My test station doesn't - and I know they're "straight", because if you're waiting with the car, they get you to do the controls, and have absolutely no problem with you hanging around and looking over their shoulder.

Valgar said:

Today I've had a look around and generally it seems OK, but there were a few issues I thought were questionable

The front wipers were both perished and did not clear screenwash very effectively

The rear wiper, was totally split and fked, it should've been mentioned I thought even if it's not a fail?

Both number plate bulbs not functioning.

So... about £15-worth of consumables? Yes, the test should have picked up on all those. Equally, they're the "Look, these need doing - they're trivial, and you WILL do 'em, right, so here's your pass." end of the spectrum.

[Valgar]

Update 2:

Finally got around to getting it checked by my local mechanic and it wasn't good news

It was in their opinion that an MOT had NOT been done, they found...

Brake pads 75% worn (should have been advised)
Both front lower suspension arm bushes perished and cracked although no play yet (advisory)
Exhaust has a temporary repair (advisory)
All rear brake pipes heavily corroded (advised on the MOT which was the same as the year before, should have been failed according to my mechanic who is MOT registered)
Both rear springs corroded (advisory)
Both rear tyres perished (advisory)
Rear anti roll bar corroded (advisory)
Both track rod end gaiters split (MOT fail)

The fact the place who supplied the MOT didn't mention any of these bar the brake pipes and on top of the minor issues I found previously is pretty damning.

Needless to say as soon as they open tomorrow I shall be having a polite word.