MOT Passed......eventually

[Denis O]

MOT day yesterday and I'd booked into National Tyres for their £68 oil service as well, as it's 2 years since last service. Dropped off at 10.00 and returned at 12.00 to find it had failed on a split in the front tyre. SWMBO had caught a kerb a couple of days ago and damaged the rim but unbeknownst to me had also put a 2 inch split in the sidewall. It didn't look that bad to me but it was obviously a failure.

The biggest shock was the list of advisories:

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

Offside Front Tyre has a cut in excess of the requirements deep enough to reach the ply or cords (4.1.D.1a)

Advisory Notice issued

Nearside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)

Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)

Nearside Front brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened (3.5.1i)

Offside Front brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened (3.5.1i)

Frt tyres perishing on sidewalls

Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components

Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay

Rear tyres worn in centres poss over inflated....


Engine covers and undertrays FFS  ::)

I happened to have bought a couple of part worn fronts a couple of years ago, for an absolute song, on eBay, so zipped home, picked them up and then round to my local tyre fitter ( National Tyres won't fit anything but new) to be fitted. Popped them on and back to test station for 16.30 appointment where the outcome was somewhat more favourable with a pass. All the advisories, sans front tyres, remained though.

I do take issue with these advisories or scaremongering as I see them. A less informed person might see the list I had and think, their car was about to fall apart and give National Tyres carte blanche to fix everything. The front disks are a little rusty because the car's only done 3500 miles in the last year. However, a quick clean up with a wire brush and brake cleaner and they'd look like new. Christ, there wasn't even a lip on the outside edge and the pads were only about 20% worn.

Do I believe they were just touting for work? Maybe, so I'll probably not use them again. 1/2 price MOT's are obviously a loss leader so perhaps pay full price next year and go to a testing station that only does MOT's.

I was a little concerned about the rear tyres wearing in the middle. I would have thought over-inflation but the guy who put the front tyres on checked the rear pressures and they were both a few pounds down. He's put them back to 32psi but maybe this is too much for a car that never carries anything apart from driver and passenger. What are you guys running your rear 20's at to stop mid tyre wear?

All over for another year anyway and it was a beautiful sunny driving day yesterday 

[fenj66]

similar story with mine a couple of days ago. in for mot, failed on a split in rear tyre and advisories for both rears near wear limit. also the engine covers top and bottom obscuring view!!.
as you, i had a couple of spare tyres from ebay so whipped them down to local back street garage to change them over (as you say - main tyre shops wont touch second hands) and hey presto! a nice new mot.
the tyre shop put 40psi in the tyres though - way too hard.

[X5Sport]

I can't believe they are issuing advisory notes for OEM fitted covers!  That is taking the p!ss.  Rule probably designed by a Civil Servant who still drives an Allegro!

The later versions will probably fail on that then as pretty much the entire car is covered underneath!  More and more cars now have top and bottom shields for aerodynamic purposes.

Eejits

Richard

[pvr]

My M always goes to the BMW dealer for the MOT, and it always have this stupid advisory about the engine covers  )

[graemeX5]

Congrats n the mot pass.

Yes I also had the undertray cover on my smart car queried last year as it covered brake and fuel pipes, but that was done by the car designers. I think they are covering themselves as not allowed to take bits off the car to inspect.

[JohnnyRob]

I think the undertray advisory is a get out if something is amiss that they can't see, etc.

Not unusual to see them mentioned as MOT advisories these days.

[JamieX5]

I'm an mot tester myself and regularly advise if a lot of plastic under trays are fitted. At the end of the day it's my job and lively hood on the line. If a car that I have tested was in a fatal accident as a result of say a burst brake pipe that is hidden behind a plastic shield and I didn't mention it, I will be potentially the one in jail! So when you moan that you get an advise on a plastic shied that is covering critical parts and want to moan about it think what might happen to the guy testing it if he didn't!

[pvr]

There should be a different section for that though. An advisory is something that is negative, i.e. tyres worn, play in the steering etc. Not really the location to say that the tray is obscuring the view.

[X5Sport]

Exactly.  My X6 was MOT'd for the first time recently and I got no advisories at all, which hardly supports a consistent approach.

I can understand a tester commenting, but it doesn't justify an advisory if the car is standard and approved for use with those covers fitted just to cover your backside.  Makes a mockery of the system surely?  Perhaps the Tester Community has already said something to the VSA and been ignored as so often happens.

Richard

[Horizon]

[quote="pvr"]
There should be a different section for that though. An advisory is something that is negative, i.e. tyres worn, play in the steering etc. Not really the location to say that the tray is obscuring the view.
[/quote]
My MOT test listed the plastic covers, so I asked the tester on the next MOT, he told me its a get out clause to say they can only examine visible parts, ie they can't remove covers to inspect everything such as hidden brake lines. The options are pre filled in on the advisories , so they click on the relevant wording closest to the fault.
There have been a few posts from members experiencing ruptured brake lines after MOT's that couldn't be seen to be corroded at the time of test due to being hidden from sight by the plastic panels

[Reusch]

[quote="JamieX5"]
I'm an mot tester myself and regularly advise if a lot of plastic under trays are fitted. At the end of the day it's my job and lively hood on the line. If a car that I have tested was in a fatal accident as a result of say a burst brake pipe that is hidden behind a plastic shield and I didn't mention it, I will be potentially the one in jail! So when you moan that you get an advise on a plastic shied that is covering critical parts and want to moan about it think what might happen to the guy testing it if he didn't!
[/quote]

No you won't be liable.

[snipez999]

A quick visual check of brake fluid reservoir level should indicate if there is a leak somewhere though, surely? 
So on cars with OEM trays the advisory is actually strengthened by such a check?  Also you'd probably get a cockpit warning for low brake fluid anyway(?)

Also was that the infamous 4 speed Allegro??!

[Denis O]

[quote="JamieX5"]
I'm an mot tester myself and regularly advise if a lot of plastic under trays are fitted. At the end of the day it's my job and lively hood on the line. If a car that I have tested was in a fatal accident as a result of say a burst brake pipe that is hidden behind a plastic shield and I didn't mention it, I will be potentially the one in jail! So when you moan that you get an advise on a plastic shied that is covering critical parts and want to moan about it think what might happen to the guy testing it if he didn't!
[/quote]

In that case, please answer this. The plastic shields have been on the car from new. It's a 2006 car so this is it's 5th MOT and the first time it's had an advisory for plastic shields. Where's the consistancy?

If the car was in a fatal accident because of something hidden behind a shield that you're not allowed to test then why would you be culpable? The fact that you mention these as advisories does not in any way make the owner look behind the shields to see if there is anything wrong. He/she is not compelled to by law and would probably be unlikely to recognise a problem, even if he did look. Purely arse covering and pushing the responsibility to someone else.

If you want to do something useful then perhaps the rule makers at VOSA should be told that you, the tester, needs to be allowed to remove any shields that are covering critical, life saving components, so that you can check they are in good order. Much better that twiddling your thumbs saying you've done your bit of arse covering by telling the punter his cars OEM shields are obscuring your ability to test life saving components.

[JamieX5]

As your 2006 vehicle has maybe never had these shields removed to inspect what's behind them, perhaps instead of crying about the person that did his job correctly it might be a good idea to have a look behind them! You might be quite surprised that it has just "passed" an mot

I totally agree that vosa need a massive shake up in what they allow the testers to look at on a test but to start bad mounting someone because they have covered themselves is completely wrong. I don't know what your profession is but whenever you are doing any job there is always a degree of covering your own arse!

[JamieX5]

[quote="snipez999"]
A quick visual check of brake fluid reservoir level should indicate if there is a leak somewhere though, surely? 
So on cars with OEM trays the advisory is actually strengthened by such a check?  Also you'd probably get a cockpit warning for low brake fluid anyway(?)

Also was that the infamous 4 speed Allegro??!
[/quote]

Not the case on e53s but on a lot of modern cars you can't see the reservoir because it's covered. Hence the advisory is there. I agree it's stupid that on an mot you can't remove something to check a critical level but we don't make the rules.