The way to negate the pitfalls, Truckersunite, is to get to know your car better. That way, when the tester notifies you of a failure point you can say "show me" and verify it for yourself with confidence.
Build a relationship with your independent garage, and they'll come to realise that you can't be messed about. After last week when my garage phoned ME to ask me how to do something on MY Triumph, I think they accept that while I'm not a professional, I've got a reasonable idea about things. Incidentally, it was having new propshaft UJs - I'd do it myself but I don't have a pit or lift.
A lot probably depends on the circumstances of the test. If business is slow at the garage then the owner might pressure the tester(s) to find a few extra faults. If its a hot sunny day, they have more cars than they can deal with, and they just want to get off at 5 and go home, then they'd probably pass a car that was missing a wheel.
|
Build a relationship with your garage
Yeah, I think that?s quite important. At least try and find a garage and stick to it, then they'll probably get used to you and your ways of doing things.
At least go regularly enough to build up a sense of trust. I have used my garage now for over a year now, and have had the car there on at least 5 different occasions for problems big and small, and I can't fault their work. If they say something is broken or badly worn, they'll keep it back for you to look at yourself. You can ask any amount of questions including some pretty stupid ones, and they'll answer them without being patronizing.
Not only that, but I have had it in for diagnostic work on a suspension clonk. They said nothing was wrong, apart from some components being dry, and thus they lubed them appropriately, starting with the cheapest and simplest repair first. How many garages would just start replacing things willy nilly and charge the earth.
I once had mine for an MOT at a different place, and it passed. But when it came back to the garage (MOTs 'sub-contracted' to another garage) the front suspension spring was broken. Another time, it failed on emissions. The tester said they rarely pass first time and so tested it again, and it flew through.
If you trust the garage, then there is no reason to doubt what they say.
|
|
|
Build a relationship with your independent garage
fail to see what this has to do with MOT.Tester whether friend or foe.Has a job to do.Many moan about a failure.
But I think we all need to get real here.Whether you know about cars or not.if its failed its failed.In cases where an advice has been given. it in effect will not need sorting untill next MOT.
But as I mentioned before it should be looked at.whether or not its false.Needs a second person to check it out.
I dont hold with this advisory has been left/no action taken it promotes those that Know little about cars.Not to get the motor checked out.
IMO this could well be dangerous to anyone that has no idea about cars
--
Steve
|
No, I don't think it is a case of "if it's failed it's failed". There is plenty of room for subjectiveness, and no shortage of garages trying it on. My point was that if you build a relationship with your garage then firstly they might start to like you and hence be less likely to try it on, and secondly they might realise that you know a bit and hence realise that they'd probably get caught if they tried it on.
I certainly always ask to be shown the faults before I authorise any work or pay the MOT fee. If they can't demonstrate the fault to me, then they don't get paid and I go elsewhere. If the fault is real and it exists then they can demonstrate it - no excuses, no exceptions, nothing.
In what other line of business would you pay for goods or services on nothing more than someone's say-so that it was required, without ever seeing the work or the product?
Incidentally I always look at my advisories - it only takes a few moments of my life and I can spare that for the sake of my peace of mind. I don't necessarily have a garage look at them though, they don't have some sort of second-sight that I don't.
|
Incidentally I always look at my advisories - it only takes a few moments of my life and I can spare that for the sake of my peace of mind. I don't necessarily have a garage look at them though, they don't have some sort of second-sight that I don't.
Think you missed a bit.To anyone that has no idea.You can show them what you like.They still dont have a clue.That was what I was driving at.Too many say they can sort out problems of there own.And strangely enough they try to be clever.But end up leaving it because they cannot be bothered to check it out
--
Steve
|
Are people who don't have a clue about cars likely to ask you to show them the faults? Can't exactly see SWMBO tottering into the workshop to grab the wheel for herself and prove beyond doubt the excess play in that track-rod end! I though those without a clue simply tended to pay the bill and go on their way - though perhaps if the michael was extracted a tad too much they might go somewhere else next time.
Advisories are just that, advisories. Nothing required on those items to get the certificate, it's just information for the motorist which they may choose to use or ignore. Hardly reasonable for a mechanic to complain that too few take them up on the offer of putting the faults right. At least I think you're almost whinging about that, you're are at least saying that you think to many ignore the advisories - which nearly amounts to the same thing.
|
>>Hardly reasonable for a mechanic to complain that too few take them up on the offer of putting the faults right. At least I think you're almost whinging about that,
I dont whing.I do get annoyed when a person gets an advisory.Does nothing about it.Then complains on next mot its failed.Which happens a lot whether you agree or not..I will leave it there.As I think you got me wrong
--
Steve
|
|
|
|
I've had my MOTs done by the same indy for over 20 years - as well as a few repairs that I haven't had time or inclination to do myself. I am allowed to sit in the car and apply brakes, switch on lights etc as required. If anything turns up the chap takes me under the car or wherever and shows me exactly what the problem is and if there is a cheap solution he'll go out of his way to do it. He is extremely methodical, fair and honest and one of the very very few garages that I would ever trust 100%
Sadly, he told me this year that this might be the last MOT he can do for me. Computerisation is simply going to be too costly. He says that his emissions equipment cost something like £8000 about 3-4 years ago and it will be obsolete within a year or so. He also complains bitterly about the amount of red tape involved.
Apparently MOT stations are very closely monitored by inspectors - they often do spot checks and your licence can be revoked at the drop of a hat. This might make many inexperienced mechanics 'play safe' by failing a component that has a small amount of wear, whereas a more experienced person would know exactly how much is 'too much' but of course many use the excuse of a small amount of wear as a chance to make a quick buck - in fact in cases where the owner is ignorant of mechanical things I daresay parts without any wear at all are changed!
I don't think MOTs are a farce when carried out by honest, decent people - but I do think that some operators exploit people's vulnerability (although this is probably equally true for routine repairs and servicing.)
Graeme
|
|
|
|
|
T. Unite and Number Cruncher, There is one area of vehicle testing where the testers are unbiased, consistent, and every test result would be the same no matter which tester inspected it. Your local HGV testing centre.
I have to prepare about twenty 7.5t vehicles a year for testing and I KNOW that if one fails the test, it isn't due to over zealous testers, it's my fault.
The same high quality testing is available at your local Bus depot, or local highways depot. These guys aren't subject to the same pressures that the local garage tester might be, and are probably a lot more experienced as well.
|
I quite agree {none} LGV MOT's are alot better, but then most commercial garages are streets ahead of car garages. It always amazed me how much cheaper the hourly rate was for a commercial garage when the bill used to drop on my desk, and the service was so much better as well. Maybe thats what is needed, someone to set up a car business based on the commercial model!!!!!
But all the other replies basically back up what I have been saying, there is very little consitency in the test, so how are we supposed to trust it!!!!!
|
its not that they are always over zealous, in many cases they are less than zealous, for instance if the testing station is also selling the same car quite bad faults will mysteriously get missed, also if their number plates disintergrate they will generally pass the car a year later rather than have the punter scream they should replace them for free - any other garage would fail them
|
|
|
|
none,
I agree that HGV testing is more consistent, but even they are not absolutely consistent. After a while, as I'm sure you know, you get to know the men from the ministry. And you also get to know which ones are more zealous, and more likely to fail components which show signs of wear, but aren't worn out.
The fundamental reason for inconsistency is that component wear isn't measured against a pass/fail criterion. Parts like king pins shackle pins, and brake z-cam shafts are wiggled, moved, actuated, and levered - and if, by eye, they move too far, you get a fail, a subjective opinion that varies - even between trained commercially independent people.
If a known force was applied to a component, and the play or movement measured using some kind of instrument, and that value compared against known values, then you have a consistent test method.
The general idea of testers being seperated from repair is, however, very reasonable. Here in Derby, I take our cars to an independent garage which only does MOTs. However, for me, it is largely irrelevant, any garage won't get much work out of me!
Making MOTs independent of repair is a good idea - it works well.
Number_Cruncher
|
Friend of mine used to work for a franchise garage in Oxford. They didn't do their own MOT's, so they took them to a bloke down the road.
If they were confident the car would pass an MOT, they would take it to him in the morning; but if there was the slightest doubt, they would leave it until the afternoon as the MOT tester loved his liquid lunches down the pub and he wasn't quite so strict in the afternoon for some reason.
|
For anyone within striking distance of Welwyn Garden City, on the road to Codicote there's Royton Express, an MOT test centre that proclaims "no repairs, just fair tests only" and charges only £26 too.
No comment on Royton Express, but I have little faith in MOT testing. When I revived my Capri, it came through the MOT (at the local Vauxhall dealership) with the offside rear brake about to fail; my mechanic knew that and was astonished that it had got through, not least because the tester himself spoke of smelling brake fluid. I recently acquired a W126 MB, complete with recent MOT certificate; it should have failed on at least three points. Fortunately, I can trust my mechanic to spot a lot more than gets noticed in the average test.
On reflection, the whole system would have been better with many fewer but much larger testing centres run by the public sector. The idea that distributing testing over the servicing-garage community would result in a good and reliable system was always fanciful. No doubt that community influenced the initial decision; now, who was the relevant minister at the time?
|
|
Thanks Roger, been after a place like this for a while now.
|
|
|
|
Our local Essex County Council workshop also does MOTs for the public.
They don't do repairs for the public and so have no vested interest in a false failure.
In addition, if a family member works for ECC you get a discount, my last one done there was £30.
|
If you want to ensure a rigorous and professional test is done, try writing or rubbing into the grime on the underside of the chassis the acronym VOSA.
I remember a thread here once where VOSA had sent the same car round a number of centres as a means of testing the centres. They couldnt understand why after the first few, all the garages did an excellent job of the MOT test. Finally they realised a mechanic at an earlier garage had worked out that they were VOSA testers, and written on the underside of the car to warn future garages.
You might get a more cautious result than at some garages, but you'll definitely get as accurate a test as the mechanic can manage!
|
|
I think a lot of us, myself certainly included, very often miss the point on this. Holding breath praying to pass MOT, and damning the garage when we don't. Sure there's human error to take into consideration, but basically the MOT is done to provide *safety* for our cars - and MOT testers, for the most part, I'm sure do the best job they can. Having just had to scrap a car due to MOT failure, obviously I'm gutted but also glad I am not driving round in a potentially dangerous machine any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
