MOT tester making up reason to fail test.
Discussion
ejenner said:
Robmarriott said:
ejenner said:
A lot of it is based on opinion though. Brake pads having less than 1.5mm inspected through a hole in the alloy wheel... pull the other one.
Have you ever stood under a car when it is on a ramp? You can, with very few exceptions, see how much material is left on the brake pads as clear as day.Little Pete said:
ejenner said:
A lot of it is based on opinion though. Brake pads having less than 1.5mm inspected through a hole in the alloy wheel... pull the other one.
But this is how we are instructed to test. It’s not the testers fault that he’s given an definite figure to test to but with absolutely no way of measuring it!If the tester can see the pads but there could be some doubt as to whether there is 1.5mm of material or 1.6mm of material visible then it is a disservice to the customer to fall down on the side of failure where doubt exists. It depends on whether the MOT tester is friendly with the customer or not and I think that's pretty controversial. The only MOT testers I'll ever use are ones who prove to me after the first test that they're not using the test to get into my wallet and if they do a good honest MOT for me then I'll return year after year with both our cars and recommend the tester to friends and family... as is our current situation.
So to conclude, the opinion of the tester does count for something, as I said.
ejenner said:
Robmarriott said:
ejenner said:
A lot of it is based on opinion though. Brake pads having less than 1.5mm inspected through a hole in the alloy wheel... pull the other one.
Have you ever stood under a car when it is on a ramp? You can, with very few exceptions, see how much material is left on the brake pads as clear as day.Paul_M3 said:
ejenner said:
Robmarriott said:
ejenner said:
A lot of it is based on opinion though. Brake pads having less than 1.5mm inspected through a hole in the alloy wheel... pull the other one.
Have you ever stood under a car when it is on a ramp? You can, with very few exceptions, see how much material is left on the brake pads as clear as day.Athlon said:
ejenner said:
Robmarriott said:
ejenner said:
A lot of it is based on opinion though. Brake pads having less than 1.5mm inspected through a hole in the alloy wheel... pull the other one.
Have you ever stood under a car when it is on a ramp? You can, with very few exceptions, see how much material is left on the brake pads as clear as day.Hub said:
I've had this before - it failed on headlamp aim too high, and then passed. I didn't know anything about the failure until I checked the MOT history online! To my mind they could have seen the aim was out (if it even was out!), adjusted it and then passed it!
I've been looking at the shed-end of second-hand cars lately and doing a lot of MOT history checks - almost every single one has this failure on them. I happened to check my current car's MOT history out of curiosity and it had exactly the same at it's last MOT in May - the tester didn't even mention it to me when I picked it up. The weird thing is I noticed a few weeks ago before I was doing all this online history checking that my lights weren't level (roller door on the garage so nice straight reference guide) by a few mm and I levelled them up equal. Now I'm not sure if I should have.
Sheepshanks said:
Although they charge the full price, I had daughter's car MOT'd at our village garage for convenience. Owner cheerfully told me it passed and handed me the paperwork which I noticed also had a fail notice.
He said the lights were low so we tweaked them up. Online it says:
Nearside Front Headlamp not in good working order (not working) (1.2.4a)
Offside Front Headlamp not in good working order adversely affecting beam image (1.2.4a)
I can't say 100% they didn't do anything but there were no marks on the plastic adjuster screw.
Or they could have just used a good quality screwdriver/hex keyHe said the lights were low so we tweaked them up. Online it says:
Nearside Front Headlamp not in good working order (not working) (1.2.4a)
Offside Front Headlamp not in good working order adversely affecting beam image (1.2.4a)
I can't say 100% they didn't do anything but there were no marks on the plastic adjuster screw.
Rather the butchering it with a kitchen knife
Hub said:
I've had this before - it failed on headlamp aim too high, and then passed. I didn't know anything about the failure until I checked the MOT history online! To my mind they could have seen the aim was out (if it even was out!), adjusted it and then passed it!
My car failed on the headlamp aim 3 years in a row. I was also mildly annoyed that they failed it for an item I had also booked it into be repaired for.So last year I booked the service and explicitly requested the headlamp aim was checked. Went to collect the car and enquired about the headlamps. I was told they were fine and it’s rare for these headlamp aims to sleep. Why was I so concerned?
Because I’m booked in for an mot with you tomorrow and I don’t expect to see the aim is off. I think they looked very shift and knew exactly what I was getting at. Or they may have looked at me like I was an idiot and had no idea what I was on about. Probably the latter. But that’s the first time I haven’t failed for headlamp aim off.
The test as presented and prior to any work is a dvsa advised requirement and can also allow the customer to alter their requirements dependent on test results.
Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
wolf1 said:
The test as presented and prior to any work is a dvsa advised requirement and can also allow the customer to alter their requirements dependent on test results.
Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
Excellent post that sums my thoughts up exactly. Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
NickCQ said:
pablo said:
My car failed on a main beam bulb which I know was working 20 minutes before the test. Couldn’t be arsed to complain as I knew what the response would be. My fault for leaving it late and using Kwik-bodge....
Hang on is this ‘a thing’? KF breaking bits of the car to fail the MOT and sell you a repair?2. It was fine, they replaced it for no reason and charged me £10 for the privilege
Athlon said:
wolf1 said:
The test as presented and prior to any work is a dvsa advised requirement and can also allow the customer to alter their requirements dependent on test results.
Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
Excellent post that sums my thoughts up exactly. Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
Sensibleboy said:
Does anybody know why an MOT tester would fail a car on something minor - a fault that isn't actually there? He would then immediately issue a pass certificate.
This has happened twice now on different cars but neither car actually had a problem.
It's slightly annoying as I would never take a car for a test with obvious problems such as a failed light.
At one place I used to go my car would always fail first time. Then pass immediately on the retest. The reason? Number plate bulb gone. This bulb was bust every year for 4 years. I have no idea if it was actually broken or what and I didn’t really care as it was only 50p. But I sorta don’t believe it.This has happened twice now on different cars but neither car actually had a problem.
It's slightly annoying as I would never take a car for a test with obvious problems such as a failed light.
ejenner said:
Paul_M3 said:
ejenner said:
Robmarriott said:
ejenner said:
A lot of it is based on opinion though. Brake pads having less than 1.5mm inspected through a hole in the alloy wheel... pull the other one.
Have you ever stood under a car when it is on a ramp? You can, with very few exceptions, see how much material is left on the brake pads as clear as day.
wolf1 said:
...
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? ...
Last week I had a clearly modified car in. Inevitably it failed the emissions. (CO too high) Due to the sBulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? ...
tty tuning map the guy had paid to be bodged onto his 4 yr old hatchback"but it passed last time"
And I care why exactly?
It's failed today and as you sat and watched the sodding test through the window, you'll have seen I tried TWICE to get it to pass. And of course it was somehow OUR fault for not passing it. So sod off you ! Add to that the other
s trick of incorrectly spaced plates to spell out their wky name or something. No, I will not "just pass it as I have the correct plates at home" fk you, and fk everyone you care about 
Otispunkmeyer said:
Sensibleboy said:
Does anybody know why an MOT tester would fail a car on something minor - a fault that isn't actually there? He would then immediately issue a pass certificate.
This has happened twice now on different cars but neither car actually had a problem.
It's slightly annoying as I would never take a car for a test with obvious problems such as a failed light.
At one place I used to go my car would always fail first time. Then pass immediately on the retest. The reason? Number plate bulb gone. This bulb was bust every year for 4 years. I have no idea if it was actually broken or what and I didn’t really care as it was only 50p. But I sorta don’t believe it.This has happened twice now on different cars but neither car actually had a problem.
It's slightly annoying as I would never take a car for a test with obvious problems such as a failed light.
Nearside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)
Offside Front brake disc slightly pitted (3.5.1h)".
And for almost it's life it's had ( every two or three years ) the same advisory.
I've had a brakedown bloke look at the discs and all he advises is to run an angle grinder over the edge of the disc that is not swept by the pads. The disc at new should be 22mm, new and 19mm to replace. Last check ( circa 90k) the disc was circa 21mm. Ii've noticed that over the past fw years that this does not crop up .Perhaps, the testers have realised that I'm not on for their schemes. I'd suggest that a lot of advisories are to protect the back of the tester.
Otispunkmeyer said:
At one place I used to go my car would always fail first time. Then pass immediately on the retest. The reason? Number plate bulb gone. This bulb was bust every year for 4 years. I have no idea if it was actually broken or what and I didn’t really care as it was only 50p. But I sorta don’t believe it.
I've had that. However, I was present during the MOT and could see the car at all times.My bulb was either replaced by magic or the MOT tester was, in fact, the invisible man who peeled off his skin and removed his clothes before replacing said bulb.
It takes all sorts I suppose.
Little Pete said:
Athlon said:
wolf1 said:
The test as presented and prior to any work is a dvsa advised requirement and can also allow the customer to alter their requirements dependent on test results.
Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
Excellent post that sums my thoughts up exactly. Take for example a customer wants a full service, two tyres and an mot. The service and tyres comes to £360. the vehicle then goes through it's MOT test and fails miserably on outer cills being badly corroded (before the pedants start most french cars have heavy plastic coating on cills making them look fine until finger and thump pressure is applied) suddenly the repair bill including service, tyres and mot is exceeding £800 and the customer is thinking of scrapping the car but still has to pay the initial £360 plus test fee.
As for the inventing fails, do me a favour! I'd rather have everything pass and just smash out mots all day than dick about making brake lines, bugger about with seized and corroded fasteners and replace the oh so clean and lovely cv boots etc etc. On a time, materials and wages basis I make more an hour doing Mots as there's less messing about and no waiting for parts, customers to authorise repairs etc.
Bulbs that were working perfectly just before the test? Yeah I hear that every day and still they don't work on the test so get failed. Unless it's an expensive bulb then it gets replaced free at the end of the test and a prs is recorded (ever swithched the bathroom light off and then gone in there a moment later and plink! the bulb blows?)
Advisories for undertrays? Well two perfect examples would be zafira front subframes which rot for fun and mercedes C class brake lines that rot faster than a crack heads teeth. Guess who gets the blame when these components fail even though we can't see them?
It's only since the inception of the ability to check online for mot results that this has become such a touchy subject as for some reason people get affronted about perfect records etc as if it's some sort of slur on their manhood.
The only thing which annoys me at the moment is the combination of corrosion and grease advisory on brake lines - I grease some brake line areas which are prone to corrosion. The advisory makes it look like they're rotten (as everyone assumes the worst) - they should be split into two separate categories - covered/greased/painted etc, and another for corroded.
[quote=Who me ?]
...
I've had a brakedown bloke look at the discs and all he advises is to run an angle grinder over the edge of the disc that is not swept by the pads.
[/quote]
The only thing a recovery driver can do is tow and change a battery (and even then...)
They are not and never will be technicians! DO NOT LISTEN to them
[quote=Who me ?]Perhaps, the testers have realised that I'm not on for their schemes. I'd suggest that a lot of advisories are to protect the back of the tester.
[/quote]
The latter.
As above, testers don't have pass rates. They also cant be arsed to fail cars for no reason! You get enough fking ery from wkers when you fail them for a genuine reason AND provide a video to prove it! 
...
I've had a brakedown bloke look at the discs and all he advises is to run an angle grinder over the edge of the disc that is not swept by the pads.
[/quote]
The only thing a recovery driver can do is tow and change a battery (and even then...)
They are not and never will be technicians! DO NOT LISTEN to them
[quote=Who me ?]Perhaps, the testers have realised that I'm not on for their schemes. I'd suggest that a lot of advisories are to protect the back of the tester.
[/quote]
The latter.
As above, testers don't have pass rates. They also cant be arsed to fail cars for no reason! You get enough f
king ery from wkers when you fail them for a genuine reason AND provide a video to prove it! Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff