Anyone getting annoying and transient ?advisories? with their MOTs?
Four years ago, I was advised a CV joint gaiter needed replacing. Just had it done last week after a pre MOT check - no mention of that problem in the MOT?s in the intervening period.
Last year I was told I?d slight wear on the front brake discs (which were only six months old at the time).
No mention of that this time.
Had several other ,often non existent, problems pointed out (low brake fluid-not).
Feels like the advisories are being used to alarm punters into getting work done.
|
Where do you get your MoT's done GWS? I would recommend Newbold MoT Centre, Littlemoor, Chesterfield, 01246 454874. They do MoTs only, no work.
Been using them for years and in the past I have called them 'firm but fair'; but my current car (8y.o., 140k miles) has sailed through 4 tests in a row without any advisories.
(No connection with them, just a happy customer!).
|
Various places in Buxton/Chesterfield area.
Funnily enough the MOT was done successfully at Brimington last week (another MOT only place ).
|
Yes this has cropped up with various cars I have had MOT ed.One advisory was play in both top strut mounts,I could find none so this on the next MOT I expected it again, the vehicle sailed through but this time I could find a very small amount of play.The problem seems to be much of the MOT is down to the examiners discretion and probably how he is feeling on the day.
--
rustbucket (the original)
|
>>The problem seems to be....
Actually, I would say that this is the joy, the sense and the jewel of MOT testing. The alternative - a proper engineering check against defined tolerances would be seriously expensive.
The cost of a mistaken advisory is surely trivial. To check this out, all you need to do is to re-inspect the dubious item or test aspect.
Of course, I wouldn't advise automatically giving the garage authority to do the advised work without checking. Do people really do this? Why not leave a blank cheque too?
In reality, there are many aspects** of a car which are not binary as regards safety. Some aspects are given well defined and easilt measurable limits, like tyres. However, in going from 1.61mm of tread depth to 1.59, the vehicle doesn't become significantly more unsafe. However, 1.6 is the defined limit - although I would argue that anyone with any interest in safety would have changed their tyres out at 3mm or so, as the wet perfomance does begin to drop off there.
** The obvious aspects which are binary being the operation of lights, wipers, washers, horn, etc.
Number_Cruncher
|
Sometimes testers will make honest mistakes - especially if the car is not a popular model and they are not terribly familiar with it. Some undoubtedly do fish for work.
Most times they are just doing their best. The MoT standards for many components are actually pretty slack and rely on the tester's judgement - you can get a car through with an alarming amount of slop in the rack, for example. The bushes in link arms (think Merc, BMW. VW) can be splitting, but so long as there in no metal-metal contact then its a pass. Rear brakes can be at 50% eff. and get though. Rear lens can be cracked, but so long as no white light is showing then it a pass - I could go on and on. Its a basic roadworthiness test and advisories IMHO can be useful in causing the reponsible owner to do a more thorough check of the suspect item.
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/fallback/coming-soon.jpg)
