There is an appeal procedure both for vehicles that have been passed and those that have failed, if the appellant feels the decision was wrong. It would certainly cause problems for an MOT test station if they were subject to a number of appeals.

You can view the MOT test history for any vehicle, including advisories - the MOT has a tick box that shows if any advisories were issued, if you have the relevant documentation: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/D...9

Fourtraks and Sportracks are well known for terminal tin worm.

I'd thought that MOT testing standards had been reformed to the point where this glaring faults, overlooked on a technicality, were a thing of the past. All testers are not equal, it seems.

I don't think things are nearly as bad as they used to be, but equal? No way.

Passing a MoT test is a legal requirement - relying on an MoT test instead of an independent examination has never been recommended by anyone.

I'm used to much higher standards of assessment, hence I was trusting that this MOT was based on a reasonable examination and report. Not so.

It seems that I've been submitting my vehicles over the last 18 years to meticulous testers, but have bought a car that has been squeezed through the test with commercial gain in mind.

I'm grateful for all the helpful replies here, but I've detected that some might see me as a whingeing consumer rights PITA. I've come from a family where most worked in the motor trade, have done my own MOT prep since 1994, hence would like to think that I view cars, especially older ones, as more than white goods. Of course there are variables, and assessments will differ between testers. However, I was expecting a level of professionalism from trade professionals that was obviously lacking.

Whether the MOT was lenient or not, the OP is not a person who has no clue about cars, and knew what to look for.

It comes across as if you've slipped up and haven't checked the vehicle properly first, we've all done it at times and learned by our mistakes, one of those things, if it's other wise good get to and weld it up to your standard, i see no good coming from trying to stir things up for this MOT station.

And i agree that corrosion is something that no two testers would give identical verdicts on anyway, especially on a vehicle that has a separate chassis in solid condition.

Good point. You don't see many rusty cars these days.

>Also younger testers may not have that much experience of rusty cars so skip this part of the test

I'm not sure how they could miss crumbling steel and emerging holes...

However, I did hear of a Citroen XM being failed due to "absence of parking brake" or similar. The young lad couldn't find the foot-operated brake.

I sat in my own XM when it was on the lift, and listened to an older hand explain to a young chap (who was the tester and under the car) the principles of the Citroen Hydractive 2 suspension. I think he was concerned about "a leaking brake pipe" which was actually a minor leak from the height corrector.

In more recent times, my cars have gone to Dave Stott in Middlesbrough, a Citroen veteran who had course certificates for the DS on his wall dating from 1972. Rust and welding are daily encounters for them. I'd recommend them to anyone.

Yes, Mercs from the turn of the century were rot boxes (I've seen thast for myself and not just a lazy forum trope). The A series in particular derves special mention for sloppy build quality.

SORRY FOR THE RESURRECTION....BUT.... my old Daihatsu Fourtrak was...and in places,still is, in the same boat.

What 'kills' the Fourtrak, are the seatbelt mounting rules.

This is most commonly found on the rear outer sill section. Easily seen, very visible.

Becasue teh tester, essentially, is not allowed to dismantle interior trim, or move carpets, other rot [which essentially in a Fourtrak is irrelvant..they ain't posh like Rangerovers]....will go un-noticed, unless the levels of underseal underneath are seriously reduced. [It is a recommendation amongst those who use Fourtraks properly...ie, don't actually 'play' with them....to underseal, and keep on undersealing, the floor...and to drill and spread any 'box' sections with oily greasy substances.]

The rear seat mounts actually have an in/outrigger for support.

Of course, a major area of laciness lies underneath the plastic rear wheelarch extensions......out of sight....

Holes will be found by lifting the floorcoverings from around the rear seatbelt mounts.....whilst this probably doesn't weaken the mounts at all...there are actally several 'skins' of metal in this area....and the thicker ones are inside the rear wheelarches, actually visible to the tester...the mounting bolt protrudes into the wheelarch...but if the carpet is removed, the corroded , very thin,metal will generate a fail.

The front seatbelt mounts are attached to an immensely strong 'roll cage'.....behind the doors....placed there to do exactly that. [The LWB Fourtraks, with the plastic rear body top, also has a rear roll cage too]....but exposed corrosion on the floorpan [very thin metal..probably thinner than 20 gauge]....will raise a fail....despite the fact the examiner knows the floorpan isn't a structural element of the vehicle.

If the owner is lucky, they will still have the excellent Daihatsu floormats...rubbery trays, to be exact...these are stronger than the original steel floorpan, easily cleaned, but hard for a tester to remove. If one's floor is holey, the rubber trays will stop one's delicate feet decending to the road below.

Of course, I would never recommend passengers to wear ballet shoes in the back.

[If one still has the original Daihatsu jack, keep it, it is a marvellous piece of kit]

The only real issue with the huge chassis, as such, is the tubular crossmember, just in front of the rear axle.

This merely carries the brackets for the links which prevent the axle twisting under load. [don't dump the clutch, and it won't twist].

However, for some reason, Daihatsu attached it to the chassis side members via a large hole, either side.

The crossmember has a U-bend in the centre, to provide clearance for the rear prop shaft....so, fills with mud, which then dries out, rotting the X member away at either end. Itt can be seen from under each rear wheelarch....needs a good reaming out regularly...if a power hose shoved in one end, doesn't produce a jet of water at the other , the X member is blocked...and hard to clean out. Farmers tended to ignore it altogether..[in fact, mine is an ex-farmers...and when I got it, the entire chassis was invisible........].....a valid repair for this crossmember involves replacing with rectangular tube, right across the chassis.....easier to weld brackets to. If NOT intending to tow stuff, leave it as a straight tube...easy. If intending to tow, then weld another tube along the top.....and cut out the middle of the lower tube. Cap all open ends, drill & fill with oil, leave parked over a drip tray for a week or so.

I have just welded in a square metre or so of 16 gauge to the rear floor......once I started digging, I couldn't stop! I've just had a local expert in these vehicles weld me in a new cross member.

Mechanically, the Fourtak is just a small lorry, which is what they all should be. Big, simple engine that runs on anything that might go bang....probably good for half a million miles....transmission is robust...just DON'T leave it in 4wd on grippy ground/tarmac...otherwise it'll break most quickly.

It is more comfortable to drive than a Landrover, especially for the taller person....it is equally as economical, but the one thing the Fourtrak can do, over and above any other vehicle that can be driven on a Cat B licence...anywhere.....is tow......3.5 tonnes!

That is the manufacturer's figure, on the plate under the bonnet.

The brakes reflect that, being far too big for a vehicle of that size....

Daihatsu Fourtrak..the farmer's friend...a workhorse, for go, not show.

Love it.

Edited by alastairq on 03/04/2015 at 19:17