My best mate runs an independent retail business and has two vans for delivery purposes.
One of them went in for its MOT this week at the local Hi-Q outlet.
Result? It failed its test and the list of problems requiring putting right came to a four-figure total.
Somewhat taken aback, my mate decided to have it tested at another MOT centre.
Result? The cost for two new tyres and a crisp MOT certificate.
Not surprisingly my mate is a bit miffed, to put it mildly. I said it was probably because its a van used for business and easy pickings were envisaged.
I want him to report the entire episode to the Vehicle Inspectorate - he doesn't want to become involved.
I'll keep plugging away at him as it doesn't seem right that some other unsuspecting business or businesses might get landed with unnecessary bills.
It also happened to me a few years ago at Halfords (before the takeover) and I wasn't happy with the results of the MOT test. So I also took it elsewhere and it passed without any problems.
I did report it to the Vehicle Inspectorate at the time....
|
|
Should explain that the "four-figure total" is the cost in pounds to put the "faults" right...:-)
|
|
I can see why he doesn't want to get involved as most people are relieved to get another years MOT. We don't know the failure points, but perhaps the second test centre was more lenient. A third tester might fail it again for different reasons. Presumably when all MOT centres are computerised this going to a different test centre to get a pass without rectification will be impossible as the fail will show up on the second MOT centres computer?
|
He wasn't "relieved" as you say, merely staggered that a comparatively new vehicle, which is only used for local deliveries two or three times a day and is in excellent condition, should have failed its test.
The second MOT merely substantiated the view that the van was in excellent shape - remember that I said only two new tyres were required (because it would have been necessary in any case in the not too distant future).
|
|
A colleague has just had the same experience. Three year old Pug 206. First garage - long list of faults including emissions failure, faulty lights, ball joints, faulty suspension. Cost to repair over £500. Took it to garage no 2 - only fault a worn ball joint - cost to repair £80.
|
|
|
How do you know the first test wasnt correct and the second overly lax?
"Comparatively new vehicle only used for deliveries two or three times a day?" and it needs new tyres? Suggests a fair amount of use. possibly tracking out? worn suspension components? possible MOT failure points?
|
>>How do you know the first test wasnt correct and the second overly lax? >>
Now let's get real...:-)
The first MOT station/quick fit centre only reopened recently after having been shut down for many months - the second is an established outlet.
If the so-called failure items on the list really were genuine then I'm absolutely certain all, or at least the majority, would have been itemised during the second MOT.
To change the tack slightly, I always used to have my cars' MOT tests carried out at the local bus station depot until the deregularisation of bus services was introduced.
The reason was simple. Although the depot's MOT tester was authorised to conduct the tests, the depot itself did not provide any form of car repairs or maintenance.
Hence the MOT test was as genuine as it is possible to be because there was no incentive to look for potential repair work.
|
The first MOT station/quick fit centre only reopened recently after having been shut down for many months - the second is an established outlet.
The cynic in me would suggest a recently re-opened outlet would maybe be more diligent and thorough than an established outlet who has maybe let things "slip"???
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to say that the problem is not that you can take it elsewhere to get it to pass, but that the standards are different at different test centres. What if you'd just taken it to the "lenient" place on the first go, not knowing anything about it? Are you driving an unsafe vehicle?
-M.
|
>>Are you driving an unsafe vehicle?>>
If you read the thread you will discover that the answer is No.
|
|
|
>>but that the standards are different at different test centres.>>
See:
tinyurl.com/6cxyp
and
www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/carlgvowners/motcomputerisati...m
|
Similar story here.
Found a local garage, seemed very friendly, had some bits and bobs done there so decided to take the Xantia there for its MOT.
It failed on rear height corrector leaking, n/s/f suspension leg leaking, rear hub rough in operation and windscreen washer defective. a £400 bill, IIRC.
Took it home to take a look at what was wrong. Washer pump was duff, fixed that with another from a scrappy but could not reproduce/locate the other faults. Decided instead to send the car for an MOT at the local Citroen specialist, figuring they'd be best placed to deal with the hydraulic problems.
Imagine my suprise when I received a call 60 minuites later informing me that not only had the car passed with no advisories, but the tester also commented the good condition for the milage of the car (159,000).
Slightly disheartened by it all becuase I thought I'd found the holy grail of a reliable, well priced, honest local garage. There is still a chance he just didn't understand hydraulic Citroens, but the doubt is there now.
I am wondering if there is a link between the garage which failed it charging just £20 an MOT, and the garage that passed it charging the full £40..
Mondeo is due an MOT next month. No idea where to take it..
|
I have my car MOT's test done by National which charges half the normal MOT fee.
So far the only thing I've been asked to hand over is my Tesco ClubCard to have the points added....:-)
The test is conducted in the same meticulous manner - as it should be - as if I had paid the full price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure we should be naming companies, in this instant....
But I'll add my bit!
You say all that was needed were 2 tyres, so....
Were the tyres identified as a failure, by the first testing station?
Were they to have been a failure item, at the second station, but replaced prior to the test?
Did the second station fit the tyres, then test the vehicle? Or pass it & fit them at the same time?
Or just issue an advisory notice, but your friend chose to have them replaced, as they were nearing the end of their life?
& if so, why did he allow the vehicle to be used in such a, potentially, un-roadworthy condition?
Sounds like the first tester was, maybee, overcautios, giving the historyy you mention!!
I think I'd want a third opinion, if there really is chance of so much needing attention - when was the van last serviced?
VB
|
If the world were ideal, everyone assessing a vehicle would arrive at the same list of faults. Get real! - that's never going to happen.
A large proportion of the items tested are based on subjective decisions.
Although this case sounds quite extreme in terms of cost difference, I'm not at all surprised.
I think the local council usually run an MOT station, which doesn't do any repair work - as impartial as you can get.
number_cruncher
|
We took a car for MOT test a few years ago and it just failed the lamda emission test although the mechanics could find nothing wrong. Yet the boss of the garage wouldn't pass the car because he said he couldn't, legally. He suggested we took it to a main dealer for a diagnostics test.
The main dealer did the same lamda test and found it was well within limits. We took the printout to the original MOT man, who retested the car and found it was still just over the limit. He wouldn't entertain the idea that his equipment might be faulty and was reluctant to pass the car still, but after some soul searching he did let it through. Since then the same car has passed several MOT's (at a different garage) with no work having been done on the engine. I don't think anyone was trying to pull a fast one as everyone seemed genuinely puzzled.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
MOT testing always going to be based on 'fuzzy logic',
Once you find a good place, best to stick with them.
Many times, small garages have ripped me off at MOT time, saying this that and the other is wrong, even though I look and the bush or exhaust seem perfectly OK.
I now go to the main dealer, and it always passes, and they just advise on things that the others would have failed on.
|
I have had a funny experience with an MOT station.
One MOT place failed my car that I was actually trying to sell, wanting me to spend about a couple of hundred on it.
I took the list and did the work myself but he would not pass it on the brakes.
I sorted these out and got it tested FOC at a national Tyre chain centre, who gave me the printout and explained how the figurs were arrived at etc and that they were fine.
I then went back to the test station and he bregrugingly passed it saying they were only just legal.
I'm sure his completely empty worshop had nothing to do with his completely inane attitude!
I think your mate did the right thing, getting it to a second garage. It strikes me that there was too big a difference in the results to be explained away by 'different testers' arguements.
The best way to make sure vehicles pass MOTs is to get them serviced regularly by a competent outfit.
H
|
Tend to agree Hugo
--
Was mech1
|
|
|
|
Vnsboy
If you read my 14-24 posting again you will see that I stated the two tyres were replaced because it would have been necessary in any case in the not too distant future.
Not much point in having to go and have new tyres fitted on another occasion when it was able to be done on the spot. If tyres meet the legal thread depth requirement in an MOT then they cannot be used to fail a vehicle (unless, of course, they are damaged in some way).
As you will appreciate time is valuable for a business and saving time is important; the knowledge that the tyres would eventually need replacing meant time could be saved there and then.
I can also assure you that the van in question is in excellent condition - a clean, well maintained vehicle is a vital asset for any business.
|
So the best thing to do would be, as you said, get the Vehicle Inspectorate to investigate.
If a testing station is being TOO strict, they need to be made aware of this, as much as one acting a bit 'dodgy'!!
VB
|
So the best thing to do would be, as you said, get the Vehicle Inspectorate to investigate. If a testing station is being TOO strict, they need to be made aware of this, as much as one acting a bit 'dodgy'!! VB
VB
Couldn't agree more.
H
|
|
The VI. probably won't be interested unless there is some evidence of fraud or malpractice. Real evidence, that is, not an opinion. The VI do carry out regular checks on all testing stations and one of their 'methods' is to anonymously present a car for testing. They know the condition of the car and any major wrong decision results in an interview for the tester. Actually, one of the best ways of getting a thorough and fair test as possible is to use a station where you're not known and insist on watching the test. Then watch like a hawk. The tester will assume that you're a 'man from the ministry' and will behave like a motorist being followed by a police car in a 30mph zone. I often have to use the local HGV testing station, the testers there are highly trained and indifferent to anything except the component being checked at the time, but even they sometimes have to make a group decision when one of them is a bit uncertain about something. What chance does a lone tester have of getting everything right, first time, every time.
|
none - I quite agree.
One other factor here is that the MOT station was quite new. During the first few months of operation of a new station, 'the ministry' take much more interest.
While the current practice has its faults, I'm sure that the prospect of car owners having to undergo the sort of testing that goes in the HGV stations would raise many more complaints.
Interestingly, even the 'man from the ministry' isn't an entirely uniform entity. There were one or two real sticklers at the testing station in Keighley - if you got them, you were in for a tough test!
number_cruncher
|
NC,
And, at the HGV station the vehicle presenter has to stay with the vehicle and operate lights, brakes and steering as required. Last week I watched a couple of terrified old dears slowly drive their WI minibus over an inspection pit. All giggles at the end of the test though.
|
|
|
|
|
