The ask an MOT tester thread
Discussion
borcy said:
What's the going rate/wage for an MoT tester, obviously regional dependent but ball park?
Usually £11 per hour plus depending on area. There are few free lance tester through agency that will go where garages need them they earn good money usually £14 per hour after they deduct tax etc.Most garages or dealerships will look for techs with additional pay for techs with mot license etc most do a mix of both from experience very few are mot only.
DaveH23 said:
I've dipped in and out this thread so haven't seen every question but do testers look at previous advisories before testing?
I ask as I have always used the same garage and something that was an advisory last year isn't this year yet I haven't sorted it yet.
I believe alot of the MOT Is the opinion of the tester so can understand why, but just curious if checking the prior advisories is something that happens?
I do quite often. It is nice to see when advisories have been sorted. It’s also surprising how often you remember a car from the previous test. I tested a BMW yesterday and failed it on rear pads and near side rear tyre. I was sure I’d advised them last year so I checked, and I had. I was feeling pleased with myself at my good memory but my wife just thought it was sad!I ask as I have always used the same garage and something that was an advisory last year isn't this year yet I haven't sorted it yet.
I believe alot of the MOT Is the opinion of the tester so can understand why, but just curious if checking the prior advisories is something that happens?
austinsmirk said:
Given how many cars have badly/illegal no plates on them,what happens at test time ? I’d be amazed if 100,000’s drivers have duplicate proper plates and swap them ?
If I spot them before the test I will advise the owner it is going to fail if I log it on as it is, gives them the option to sort it out, otherwise the car fails. Well my car initially failed today for headlight beam alignment.
Then the tester must have sat in the car and adjusted the beam via the small wheel behind the steering wheel and it passed. WTF.
As long as it is ok after adjustment within the car , surely this is ok and no need to give a fail....
Thoughts?
Then the tester must have sat in the car and adjusted the beam via the small wheel behind the steering wheel and it passed. WTF.
As long as it is ok after adjustment within the car , surely this is ok and no need to give a fail....
Thoughts?
davidc1 said:
Well my car initially failed today for headlight beam alignment.
Then the tester must have sat in the car and adjusted the beam via the small wheel behind the steering wheel and it passed. WTF.
As long as it is ok after adjustment within the car , surely this is ok and no need to give a fail....
Thoughts?
It should not fail, if the beam is low we can check the inner adjuster and set it to another level , there is a 'non component advisory' to alert the owner to the fact we have moved the wheel to another setting. No need to fail or PRS it really.Then the tester must have sat in the car and adjusted the beam via the small wheel behind the steering wheel and it passed. WTF.
As long as it is ok after adjustment within the car , surely this is ok and no need to give a fail....
Thoughts?
Athlon said:
davidc1 said:
Well my car initially failed today for headlight beam alignment.
Then the tester must have sat in the car and adjusted the beam via the small wheel behind the steering wheel and it passed. WTF.
As long as it is ok after adjustment within the car , surely this is ok and no need to give a fail....
Thoughts?
It should not fail, if the beam is low we can check the inner adjuster and set it to another level , there is a 'non component advisory' to alert the owner to the fact we have moved the wheel to another setting. No need to fail or PRS it really.Then the tester must have sat in the car and adjusted the beam via the small wheel behind the steering wheel and it passed. WTF.
As long as it is ok after adjustment within the car , surely this is ok and no need to give a fail....
Thoughts?
Fastpedeller said:
Isn't it usual to test the lights on the zero setting? With rear seat passengers added the driver (should) adjust to the correct setting using the guidance (handbook) or numbers referring to passengers to maintain 'normal' height. If the beam height is corrected by using the small wheel to get it lower, then when rear seat passengers are added it may not be possible to achieve a legal height?
I think that's the point Athlon was making. If someone has set them low with the internal adjuster, they can be adjusted up, but if they're too low via mechanical adjustment, it's a fail, and then an adjustment to sort them. It's not uncommon to see tests with the advisory:Vehicle's internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck lights
Which is a CMA advisory for the tester.
JakeT said:
Fastpedeller said:
Isn't it usual to test the lights on the zero setting? With rear seat passengers added the driver (should) adjust to the correct setting using the guidance (handbook) or numbers referring to passengers to maintain 'normal' height. If the beam height is corrected by using the small wheel to get it lower, then when rear seat passengers are added it may not be possible to achieve a legal height?
I think that's the point Athlon was making. If someone has set them low with the internal adjuster, they can be adjusted up, but if they're too low via mechanical adjustment, it's a fail, and then an adjustment to sort them. It's not uncommon to see tests with the advisory:Vehicle's internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck lights
Which is a CMA advisory for the tester.
Thanks for the replies.
Car is a Seat Mii .
The fail notice says repair immediately :headlamp aim too high 4.1.2
Then goes on to say:monitor and repair if necessary: vehicles internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck the lights.
Seems very suspect to me.like they need to bump up the quota of fails or something...
Car is a Seat Mii .
The fail notice says repair immediately :headlamp aim too high 4.1.2
Then goes on to say:monitor and repair if necessary: vehicles internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck the lights.
Seems very suspect to me.like they need to bump up the quota of fails or something...
That should have been a fail. Then using the PRS scheme they could have adjusted the headlamps correctly, they should not have used the internal adjuster to move them.
Nothing will stop the DVSA having a look at a tester, by keeping green it helps them know that in theory you are doing it right but they will still get around to looking at them.
Nothing will stop the DVSA having a look at a tester, by keeping green it helps them know that in theory you are doing it right but they will still get around to looking at them.
IF it is real and it gets picked up by the DVSA I think it would end with a reprimand at best.
Advisories are there to help owners of cars understand there may be an upcoming issue they need to consider resolving, abuse of the system is frowned on however funny the tester thinks it is.
Advisories are there to help owners of cars understand there may be an upcoming issue they need to consider resolving, abuse of the system is frowned on however funny the tester thinks it is.
aU CONTRAIR- I'd suggest that advisories are put on the MOT to show monitoring that tester has/is doing his job.
I've had this one for the life of the car ,starting whn the car was tested forsome reason when it was two year old "
Nearside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)
Offside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)
at 14k. I've had this one on and off for the past good few years. I've had the discs checked by RAC, who told me that it's only the unswept part of the disc that has excess material. Of course tester cannot measure the disc, but I can and it's over the min thickness, but this is not enough to prevent an advisory.
Then again I also get "Central Front Lower under tray fitted" or " Child seat fitted not allowing full inspection of adult belt" .
I've had this one for the life of the car ,starting whn the car was tested forsome reason when it was two year old "
Nearside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)
Offside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)
at 14k. I've had this one on and off for the past good few years. I've had the discs checked by RAC, who told me that it's only the unswept part of the disc that has excess material. Of course tester cannot measure the disc, but I can and it's over the min thickness, but this is not enough to prevent an advisory.
Then again I also get "Central Front Lower under tray fitted" or " Child seat fitted not allowing full inspection of adult belt" .
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff