MOT history check - advisories disappearing question
Discussion
I'm looking at buying a car and just done an MOT history check. For the previous 2 MOTs there was an advisory of 'Corrosion on and around rear subframe and mounting areas corroding'. On the most recent MOT this is no longer an advisory.
I have noticed the previous 2 MOTs where the advisory is noted is with garage X, but the most recent one is with garage Y. Does this mean the corrosion has been sorted, or garage Y hasn't picked up on it? Do garages not check centrally the history of advisories and see if they are still present? Or might this be a miss by garage Y? Obviously I don't want to buy a car and get caught with big bills for corrosion.
Appreciate thoughts from people in the know on this one.
I have noticed the previous 2 MOTs where the advisory is noted is with garage X, but the most recent one is with garage Y. Does this mean the corrosion has been sorted, or garage Y hasn't picked up on it? Do garages not check centrally the history of advisories and see if they are still present? Or might this be a miss by garage Y? Obviously I don't want to buy a car and get caught with big bills for corrosion.
Appreciate thoughts from people in the know on this one.
itz_baseline said:
Does this mean the corrosion has been sorted, or garage Y hasn't picked up on it?
Could be either.itz_baseline said:
Do garages not check centrally the history of advisories and see if they are still present?
No, they don't.itz_baseline said:
Or might this be a miss by garage Y?
Possibly.If you really want the car, but aren't sure of the condition get it inspected by someone else.
Relying on the MOT as a guarantee of good condition and avoiding bills is not a good idea.
As already said, if you really like the car ask them to put it up on ramps and have a look yourself. Most garages won't mind if it means they'll get a sale (probably take it to an MOT center down the road they're friendly with). Equally if they refuse they're probably trying to hide something, so you should find out either way
Advisories are purely the individual tester's opinion on the day of the test.
I have had advisories on a vehicle and put it in for MOT at the same garage a year later, with the previous year's advisories stapled to the old certificate, and they haven't been carried forward.
I hasten to add this is on a vehicle doing less than 1000 miles a year and I do keep an eye on the items in question.
I have had advisories on a vehicle and put it in for MOT at the same garage a year later, with the previous year's advisories stapled to the old certificate, and they haven't been carried forward.
I hasten to add this is on a vehicle doing less than 1000 miles a year and I do keep an eye on the items in question.
Smanks said:
I had a recent MOT advisory of "engine cover fitted obscuring engine components" or similar 
, makes me feel as though some garages have an advisory quota to fill sometimes
Not really. It does make a lot of sense to put that. Perhaps the undertray (which the tester's not allowed to remove) is hiding torn driveshaft/steering gaiters or subframe corrosion., makes me feel as though some garages have an advisory quota to fill sometimes https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/horror-story-...
i've had loads of advisories which have not been rectified and never get noticed again.
I took my mini to a garage a few years ago after full detail including the engine bay and it came back with a list of advisories as long as your arm, most of them for trivial stuff, any trace of oil on anything which was otherwise clean was listed as a leak, the very clean windscreen was listed as having chips, there were a couple of very small chips which were fairly obvious as it was very clean.
The same windscreen has been through several more MOTs with far more stone chips, never a mention of stone chips.
I don't understand why they now have to put advisories about engine covers and undertrays, the idea is it's covering thier ass, but from what i am not sure. It would seem a very obscure situation where someone would put a car in for an MOT, then remove the cover before it then needed to be reinspected for some reason, and it not being fairly obvious that normally there would be a cover over it.
I took my mini to a garage a few years ago after full detail including the engine bay and it came back with a list of advisories as long as your arm, most of them for trivial stuff, any trace of oil on anything which was otherwise clean was listed as a leak, the very clean windscreen was listed as having chips, there were a couple of very small chips which were fairly obvious as it was very clean.
The same windscreen has been through several more MOTs with far more stone chips, never a mention of stone chips.
I don't understand why they now have to put advisories about engine covers and undertrays, the idea is it's covering thier ass, but from what i am not sure. It would seem a very obscure situation where someone would put a car in for an MOT, then remove the cover before it then needed to be reinspected for some reason, and it not being fairly obvious that normally there would be a cover over it.
TooMany2cvs said:
Smanks said:
I had a recent MOT advisory of "engine cover fitted obscuring engine components" or similar , makes me feel as though some garages have an advisory quota to fill sometimes
Not really. It does make a lot of sense to put that. Perhaps the undertray (which the tester's not allowed to remove) is hiding torn driveshaft/steering gaiters or subframe corrosion., makes me feel as though some garages have an advisory quota to fill sometimes https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/horror-story-...
Perhaps they've had a recent check visit from DVSA & had a b
king for not noting that an undertray prevented them seeing a defective testable item?
I've had one where the tester said he thought he could hear a slight blow on my exhaust but as the undertray meant he couldn't see it or get at it there wasn't a lot he could do about it other than tell me. He was correct, the clamp was slghtly loose.
king for not noting that an undertray prevented them seeing a defective testable item?I've had one where the tester said he thought he could hear a slight blow on my exhaust but as the undertray meant he couldn't see it or get at it there wasn't a lot he could do about it other than tell me. He was correct, the clamp was slghtly loose.
TooMany2cvs said:
No, since I was replying directly to the bit I quoted.
Did you read the article I linked to? That explained exactly why testers are flagging undertrays which obscure their view of otherwise testable components.
So what? you could say the same about an interior carpet, or a boot liner, or a hub cap etc.Did you read the article I linked to? That explained exactly why testers are flagging undertrays which obscure their view of otherwise testable components.
An article on the very same blog says they don't need to do it.
https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/giving-the-ri...
"Similarly, consider whether it is necessary to select items from the non-component advisory list such as “undertrays fitted obscuring some underside components” where they are known to be standard fitment on the model of vehicle tested."
Smanks said:
I had a recent MOT advisory of "engine cover fitted obscuring engine components" or similar , makes me feel as though some garages have an advisory quota to fill sometimes
They do., makes me feel as though some garages have an advisory quota to fill sometimes My MOT tester told me that on average there are 2-3 advisories and therefore he ALWAYS puts 2-3 advisories on so his stats are in line with the average hence he's less likely to get an inspection.
Now some of the stupid advisories begin to make sense.
TooMany2cvs said:
No, since I was replying directly to the bit I quoted.
Did you read the article I linked to? That explained exactly why testers are flagging undertrays which obscure their view of otherwise testable components.
Where did I mention anything about undertrays? I said engine cover. Did you read the article I linked to? That explained exactly why testers are flagging undertrays which obscure their view of otherwise testable components.
Smanks said:
No, you've lost me. This is a bog standard engine cover we are talking about, so no I cannot see why it makes sense to advise about it, unless as I mentioned perhaps they have a quota to fill.
What if there a fuel leak under that cover? Even a slight one from a spill pipe on a diesel? It covers the tester because they are not allowed to touch the covers at all on the MOT. I think some people on here think testers/mechanics are out to get them sometimes.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff