The ask an MOT tester thread

[InitialDave]

Athlon said:

Tricky, they have failed it as a suspension component missing, I am not certain that a bump stop is a suspension component for that definition.

If they have failed it for being missing then they should be sure that the stability of the vehicle would be reduced, I very much doubt that would be the case.

I would advise it personally, it would be interesting to see what the other testers say though.

I had a car where the bumpstops had come away from their mounts on the rear, and were just rattling around in the springs.

I thought putting it in for an MOT like that would be taking the piss, so I pulled them both out entirely, and it didn't attract any comment.

[Athlon]

[quote=Who me ?]Question on the dubious practice of some MOT places of classifying fails as dangerous. What powers do owners have of removing a vehicle if the repair costs seem over the top.
[/quote]

Why would it be dubious? There are specific fail criteria that generate the 'dangerous' fail, you can't pick and choose.

As for powers, what do you mean? of course you can remove the vehicle, a station has no power to hold a vehicle at all, the text (generated by the scheme) is there for is to advise you that the car should not be driven in that condition, if you do and you have an accident, both the station and the DVSA are blameless as you were warned.

[superhans88]

Hi

I've got 2 year old Avon's that look like this after 7000 miles... I've actually complained to them and been offered reimbursement but will need to arranged through my garage that fitted them. I'm assuming these would be a straight fail in an MoT? Never had this happen before with a tyre, cracks are right the way round and in all treads.. very strange. I have 4 year old Michelins on the back axle and they look absolutely fine.

[Athlon]

superhans88 said:

Hi

I've got 2 year old Avon's that look like this after 7000 miles... I've actually complained to them and been offered reimbursement but will need to arranged through my garage that fitted them. I'm assuming these would be a straight fail in an MoT? Never had this happen before with a tyre, cracks are right the way round and in all treads.. very strange. I have 4 year old Michelins on the back axle and they look absolutely fine.

Perished, if you can't see the cords it's an advise. I am seeing this a lot more frequently these days.

[Rockets7]

P&A on those tyres unless cord can be seen or it’s obviously about to structurally fail.

[TheLuke]

Thanks gents for the clear answer, I thought as much but didn't know rally cars had cats! interesting!

[wolf1]

zetec said:

I noticed the seatbelts were all undone, normally these are always left done up in my experience.

I never leave the belts clipped in. It's pointless, as the method of inspection requires you to clip them in and then apply tension on the clip and make sure it releases. No point clipping it back in as it has met the criteria and customers tend to complain when they have to faff about after getting in and realising the belts are clipped in.

[cedrichn]

superhans88 said:

Hi

I've got 2 year old Avon's that look like this after 7000 miles... I've actually complained to them and been offered reimbursement but will need to arranged through my garage that fitted them. I'm assuming these would be a straight fail in an MoT? Never had this happen before with a tyre, cracks are right the way round and in all treads.. very strange. I have 4 year old Michelins on the back axle and they look absolutely fine.

When I was looking for tyres for my car, I was hesitating with Avon, and did read that they were prone to cracking... Your picture is way worse than what I was imagining! Thanks for sharing

[Little Pete]

Athlon said:

Tricky, they have failed it as a suspension component missing, I am not certain that a bump stop is a suspension component for that definition.

If they have failed it for being missing then they should be sure that the stability of the vehicle would be reduced, I very much doubt that would be the case.

I would advise it personally, it would be interesting to see what the other testers say though.

Yep, pass and advise from me too.

[Little Pete]

[quote=Who me ?]Question on the dubious practice of some MOT places of classifying fails as dangerous. What powers do owners have of removing a vehicle if the repair costs seem over the top.
[/quote]

As Athlon has already said, nothing dubious, the tester doesn't decide the fail is dangerous, the scheme applies it to certain fails.
For what it's worth, we don't always agree with the scheme. For example is a brake pad that has 1.4mm of lining left on it dangerous? I don't think so but that is applied to a failure for brake pads worn below 1.5mm. Over the top but there it is.
Also, we are asked to make a judgement on an absolute dimension but we have no means of measuring it. No wonder it's the cause of so many complaints.

[Who me ?]

Athlon said:

[quote=Who me ?]Question on the dubious practice of some MOT places of classifying fails as dangerous. What powers do owners have of removing a vehicle if the repair costs seem over the top.

Why would it be dubious? There are specific fail criteria that generate the 'dangerous' fail, you can't pick and choose.

As for powers, what do you mean? of course you can remove the vehicle, a station has no power to hold a vehicle at all, the text (generated by the scheme) is there for is to advise you that the car should not be driven in that condition, if you do and you have an accident, both the station and the DVSA are blameless as you were warned.

Thanks, Athlone. I had one fail where I was more of less railroaded into the testing garage wanting the repair. I timed the repair and the ultimate cost, and I'd suggest that the parts price was "padded". The main reason I posed the Q was that I have recourse to an alternative repairer with no axe to grind.

[Cascade360]

I have my MOT on Monday and I have one of two rear number plate light bulbs out, and a "bulb out" warning on the dash on start up. I have tried to change the bulb, but it still isn't working - need to replace the pcb (apparently a relatively common problem). I have a replacement board but don't think swapping it over is entirely straight-forward so wondered if I don't get round to it this weekend (or do and it doesn't work), will it fail on one bulb being out?

It got an advisory on this issue last year (different owner) but searching previous threads suggest it may be a fail.

Thanks!

[whytheory]

cedrichn said:

superhans88 said:

Hi

I've got 2 year old Avon's that look like this after 7000 miles... I've actually complained to them and been offered reimbursement but will need to arranged through my garage that fitted them. I'm assuming these would be a straight fail in an MoT? Never had this happen before with a tyre, cracks are right the way round and in all treads.. very strange. I have 4 year old Michelins on the back axle and they look absolutely fine.

When I was looking for tyres for my car, I was hesitating with Avon, and did read that they were prone to cracking... Your picture is way worse than what I was imagining! Thanks for sharing

I've just bought a car with Avons which are much worse than that, 2014 on the date mark and has passed every MOT since 2017 with an advisory for perished tyres.

[Gilhooligan]

Cascade360 said:

I have my MOT on Monday and I have one of two rear number plate light bulbs out, and a "bulb out" warning on the dash on start up. I have tried to change the bulb, but it still isn't working - need to replace the pcb (apparently a relatively common problem). I have a replacement board but don't think swapping it over is entirely straight-forward so wondered if I don't get round to it this weekend (or do and it doesn't work), will it fail on one bulb being out?

It got an advisory on this issue last year (different owner) but searching previous threads suggest it may be a fail.

Thanks!

Anecdotal, but I got failed last year for one number plate bulb being out.

[mk1coopers]

Depends on if it's 2 bulbs in one light housing or 2 separate lights

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-...

Edited by mk1coopers on Tuesday 25th May 12:48

[Little Pete]

mk1coopers said:

Depends on if it's 2 bulbs in one light housing or 2 separate lights

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-...

Edited by mk1coopers on Tuesday 25th May 12:48

For multiple lamps or light sources, one not working is a minor defect, ie not a fail.

Edited by Little Pete on Tuesday 25th May 13:15

[mk1coopers]

Yes, that's what it says in the link, if it only had one light source in one unit then it would be a fail, most of the questions asked in this thread can be answered straight from the manual, people don't seem to realise that it's available to everyone

[Gilhooligan]

Little Pete said:

For multiple lamps or light sources, one not working is a minor defect, ie not a fail.

Edited by Little Pete on Tuesday 25th May 13:15

That’s interesting. I’ve got two separate light units on my car for the reg plate but still got this fail:

[Cascade360]

Gilhooligan said:

That’s interesting. I’ve got two separate light units on my car for the reg plate but still got this fail:

Looks like your tester made a mistake! That fail language suggests ALL lamps need to be out for it to be a fail.

[mk1coopers]

One lamp with one light source not working at all is a fail, one lamp with two light sources with only one working is a minor, two separate lamps with one not working is a minor, the N/S part will have been added by the tester from a drop down menu when he selected the (incorrect) fail

It is still better to have all your lights working though

Edited by mk1coopers on Tuesday 25th May 16:30