Discussion
I've just been chatting to a guy who bought an old old car from a 'specialist dealer', which appears to have some questionable MOT history.
Obviously any old car is likely to have some issues, but before purchase he looked into the online MOT history and noted some advisories for corrosion, dating 2013. A new MOT was just issued though and the seller stated that any remaining corrosion was cosmetic. The chap takes them at their word, buys the car and drives home.
A couple of days later the car going to another workshop, for a thorough service. Whilst there, it is brought to the new owners attention that extensive corrosion remains. In fact, the corrosion is clearly marked with fresh MOT testers yellow chalk. The kind of chalk I always believed they used to highlight reasons for failing an MOT? They also say that, in their opinion, this car should never have been issued with the current MOT pass as the rust is pretty extensive.
If advisories are placed on an MOT test, do any future testers have to give these areas any special attention, other than common sense? I thought advisories were for both the owner and future testers alike?
Am I right in thinking the yellow tester chalk is to highlight failures due to corrosion? If so, should there not be an online record of any failure?
Thanks in advance.
Obviously any old car is likely to have some issues, but before purchase he looked into the online MOT history and noted some advisories for corrosion, dating 2013. A new MOT was just issued though and the seller stated that any remaining corrosion was cosmetic. The chap takes them at their word, buys the car and drives home.
A couple of days later the car going to another workshop, for a thorough service. Whilst there, it is brought to the new owners attention that extensive corrosion remains. In fact, the corrosion is clearly marked with fresh MOT testers yellow chalk. The kind of chalk I always believed they used to highlight reasons for failing an MOT? They also say that, in their opinion, this car should never have been issued with the current MOT pass as the rust is pretty extensive.
If advisories are placed on an MOT test, do any future testers have to give these areas any special attention, other than common sense? I thought advisories were for both the owner and future testers alike?
Am I right in thinking the yellow tester chalk is to highlight failures due to corrosion? If so, should there not be an online record of any failure?
Thanks in advance.
e21Mark said:
I've just been chatting to a guy who bought an old old car from a 'specialist dealer', which appears to have some questionable MOT history.
Obviously any old car is likely to have some issues, but before purchase he looked into the online MOT history and noted some advisories for corrosion, dating 2013. A new MOT was just issued though and the seller stated that any remaining corrosion was cosmetic. The chap takes them at their word, buys the car and drives home.
A couple of days later the car going to another workshop, for a thorough service. Whilst there, it is brought to the new owners attention that extensive corrosion remains. In fact, the corrosion is clearly marked with fresh MOT testers yellow chalk. The kind of chalk I always believed they used to highlight reasons for failing an MOT? They also say that, in their opinion, this car should never have been issued with the current MOT pass as the rust is pretty extensive.
Stop all work on the car, right NOW. Get on to VOSA.Obviously any old car is likely to have some issues, but before purchase he looked into the online MOT history and noted some advisories for corrosion, dating 2013. A new MOT was just issued though and the seller stated that any remaining corrosion was cosmetic. The chap takes them at their word, buys the car and drives home.
A couple of days later the car going to another workshop, for a thorough service. Whilst there, it is brought to the new owners attention that extensive corrosion remains. In fact, the corrosion is clearly marked with fresh MOT testers yellow chalk. The kind of chalk I always believed they used to highlight reasons for failing an MOT? They also say that, in their opinion, this car should never have been issued with the current MOT pass as the rust is pretty extensive.
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/problems-with-yo...
e21Mark said:
Riley Blue said:
What evidence do you have that the yellow chalk marks were done by an MOT tester?
In truth, no I wasn't there to photograph them being made, but have been present at enough MOT tests to know what they are.Riley Blue said:
e21Mark said:
Riley Blue said:
What evidence do you have that the yellow chalk marks were done by an MOT tester?
In truth, no I wasn't there to photograph them being made, but have been present at enough MOT tests to know what they are.I think the guy is going to raise the issue with the dealers concerned and see if a mutually agreeable solution can be found. Otherwise, a report to VOSA seems likely.
When will people learn that the fact a car has an MOT certificate does not guarantee it's in perfect condition!
An advisory is an advisory, nothing more. Testers have discretion as to what they pass/fail and as to what they advise/don't advise.
Especially when buying an old car it's bonkers to try to rely on an MOT. A sensible buyer would either inspect the car himself or get a professional inspection done by a marque specialist. Even an RAC inspection would be better then nothing.
An advisory is an advisory, nothing more. Testers have discretion as to what they pass/fail and as to what they advise/don't advise.
Especially when buying an old car it's bonkers to try to rely on an MOT. A sensible buyer would either inspect the car himself or get a professional inspection done by a marque specialist. Even an RAC inspection would be better then nothing.
TooMany2cvs said:
Within certain limits, which some testers <understatement>have been known to be flexible with on occasion</understatement>
Apart from that, though...
So as I was saying - it's daft to rely on an MOT as reassurance about overall condition, especially when buying an older car. Apart from that, though...
Ozzie Osmond said:
When will people learn that the fact a car has an MOT certificate does not guarantee it's in perfect condition!
An advisory is an advisory, nothing more. Testers have discretion as to what they pass/fail and as to what they advise/don't advise.
No-one is looking for, or expecting perfect condition. What they are looking for though, is a car that was merely safe to use. Obviously you do not have the advantage of having seen the corrosion in question, but it is clear that an MOT pass should never have been issued.An advisory is an advisory, nothing more. Testers have discretion as to what they pass/fail and as to what they advise/don't advise.
Yes, in an ideal world we would all have full and detailed inspections done, on any potential purpose. This guy went to what was seen as a reputable, well established dealer. He carried out what inspection he could, which included noting the previous advisories for corrosion. Rust doesn't cure itself, so when he saw a newly issued MOT and no mention of any corrosion, he assumed this must have been dealt with, prior to the new test. I think he has a right to be unhappy. I don't care how much discretion a tester might display, holes are holes and there is no way this car should have passed an MOT test.
Edited by e21Mark on Friday 16th May 14:24
e21Mark said:
I don't care how much discretion a tester might display, holes are holes and there is no way this car should have passed an MOT test
You would think so, however, I've had an MOT tester (for the garage trying to sell me a LandRover) tell me that the rusted out bulkhead outrigger wasn't an issue as it wasn't structural! 
That didn't show up as an advisory either
PeetBee said:
e21Mark said:
I don't care how much discretion a tester might display, holes are holes and there is no way this car should have passed an MOT test
You would think so, however, I've had an MOT tester (for the garage trying to sell me a LandRover) tell me that the rusted out bulkhead outrigger wasn't an issue as it wasn't structural! That didn't show up as an advisory either
e21Mark said:
PeetBee said:
e21Mark said:
I don't care how much discretion a tester might display, holes are holes and there is no way this car should have passed an MOT test
You would think so, however, I've had an MOT tester (for the garage trying to sell me a LandRover) tell me that the rusted out bulkhead outrigger wasn't an issue as it wasn't structural! That didn't show up as an advisory either
e21Mark said:
No-one is looking for, or expecting perfect condition. What they are looking for though, is a car that was merely safe to use. Obviously you do not have the advantage of having seen the corrosion in question, but it is clear that an MOT pass should never have been issued.
I'm sure, in that case, VOSA will be thrilled to hear from you. Do report back with their response.Riley Blue said:
On an allied topic - how are used car dealers able to sell a car with twelve months' MOT if, at the time of advertising it, it has one with eight months to run. The earliest it can be presented for a test (as printed on a certificate) would surely be after that?
You can get a vehicle MOT'd anytime you want and as many times a years as you wish, the date for earliest test is if you would like the amount of time carried on, ie if you present the vehicle on the earliest date you effectively get 13 months MOT.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff