m.o.t law

[da SLUG man]

also to add, theres lots of things i might not agree with the test but have to comply, one example is a car can have the central 3/4 width of a tread at 1.6mm, were as a 9 seater mini bus is allowed 1mm at any 3/4 as long as it has visible tread across the width of the tyre, if yer have seen a mini bus trye at 1mm its ludicrous if you ask me but thems the rules.

same with HGV... they're 1mm

[pete-w-]

there is an appeals procedure for failed MOTS...

you can appeal a passed MOT too!!... who'd wanna do that??

yes and you pay the privilege of a full retest fee to do it on both accounts lol

[Albannach]

I used to work for a franchised dealership and whilst I was never an accredited tester, I knew all the rules and regulations.

In my experience, many testers think they are gods. They have the power to fluck you up big time. They also think they are pseudo police, failing vehicles on RT offences when in reality the fault is not an MoT offence. Loud exhausts for example are not an MoT offence, no matter what the tester thinks or the rules say, all that is required is a resonator, a silencer and a sealed system. Number plates are also not an MoT offence, RT offence yes, MoT offence, no. As long as the tester can read it correctly, it's OK. And before anyone argues, my bike's 6x2 plate is illegal, I know it is and the tester knew it was, but he could read it easily from whatever the regulation distance was, so it passed.

When I was being certified as a tester (I left before I finished my training), the DoT examiner tested a brand new car (BMW 318) to the Nth degree, it failed. Failed on trivial things, but it still failed. In reality it would have passed with flying colours, but the exercise showed that if we wanted to fail a car, we could.

It all depends on the tester on the day.

[BUSHWHACKER]

I rest my case.

[pete-w-]

silencer reason for rejection
"b. a silencer in such a condition, or of such a type, that the noise emitted from the vehicle is clearly unreasonably above the level expected from a similar vehicle with a silencer in average condition2


numbers plates reasons for rejection
"A rear registration plate with a. a letter or figure not correctly formed or likely to be misread b. letters and/or figures likely to be misread or not easily legible by a person standing approximately 15 metres to the rear of the machine c. a letter or figure which is obviously not of equal width along its entire length d. any feature on a registration plate that has the effect of changing the appearance or legibility of any of the characters of the registration mark, so the true identity of the machine is less easily identified"

why people make assumptions about something they have never done ill never know, ive worked in garages scince ive left school and never seen anythin to suggest mot testers think there gods or anythin of the sort, seen plenty of people get ####ed off cause they think they know everythin about cars cause theyve read a haynes manual and think that automaticly guaranties there car an mot pass lmao ,it also dont make me the worlds best mechanic theres loads i dont know and loads im learnin every day, its easy to critisize somethin youve never done or dont actually do yer self or obviously know little about imo.

[Albannach]

silencer reason for rejection
"b. a silencer in such a condition, or of such a type, that the noise emitted from the vehicle is clearly unreasonably above the level expected from a similar vehicle with a silencer in average condition2

Define 'average'? This is one of the many ambiguous requirements that allows testers to play god.

numbers plates reasons for rejection
"A rear registration plate with a. a letter or figure not correctly formed or likely to be misread b. letters and/or figures likely to be misread or not easily legible by a person standing approximately 15 metres to the rear of the machine c. a letter or figure which is obviously not of equal width along its entire length d. any feature on a registration plate that has the effect of changing the appearance or legibility of any of the characters of the registration mark, so the true identity of the machine is less easily identified"

Which is essentially what I said, as long as it can be read, it's OK.

why people make assumptions about something they have never done ill never know, ive worked in garages scince ive left school and never seen anythin to suggest mot testers think there gods or anythin of the sort, seen plenty of people get ####ed off cause they think they know everythin about cars cause theyve read a haynes manual and think that automaticly guaranties there car an mot pass lmao ,it also dont make me the worlds best mechanic theres loads i dont know and loads im learnin every day, its easy to critisize somethin youve never done or dont actually do yer self or obviously know little about imo.

I'm not assuming anything. I suspect I've been in and around the motor trade for a bit longer than you, I've seen many testers who think they're gods... Also, I think I've got a bit more knowledge than the Haynes manual brigade.

Just as you don't like people generalising about MoT testers, please don't generalise about non testers.

Also, bear in mind that there is no requirement to be a qualified mechanic to be a MoT tester.

[pete-w-]

Also, bear in mind that there is no requirement to be a qualified mechanic to be a MoT tester.

no you dont, but you have have to pass the ntta which has a people pass rate of about 16% who take it, or you have to have gained yer level three city & guilds, so i think its a little bit harder than taking any muppet of the street and making them one.

ive worked in the motor tade for 19 years from an aprentice, so ive seen and worked with a fair few testers to make an opinion.

[Albannach]

I've been 33 years in and around the trade and have met many muppet testers (many brilliant and fair ones too), maybe you've just been lucky?

[Koi]

My runner failed MOt last year on one rear seat belt had a small nick in it.
I sourced a new belt but wouldnt get it in time for a free retest.
So unbolted the rear seats and took them out, took Runner back to garage for retest.
The same tester said you cant do that, I said as it has no rear seats the selt belts become redundant. He argued this point to the fact he stormed off to get his manager.
Manager came out from office and looked in veh and said thats fine no rear seats mean the belts do not become part of a test as theres no seats.
He was arguing that I would put the seats back after I left the garage, no different from removing the cat (or other parts) replacing it for MOT then taking it back off again. (although technically you dont need a cat but will fail emissions without it)

[fergus]

what with all the people who spend lots of money on making their car nosiey...whats the attraction. in most cases when you hear a noisy exhaust it means some spotted teen with a basball hat is going to go by in a nova or saxo trying to sound fast because they cant afford a fast car.
maybe i'm getting old.....

[Retribution]

what with all the people who spend lots of money on making their car nosiey...whats the attraction. in most cases when you hear a noisy exhaust it means some spotted teen with a basball hat is going to go by in a nova or saxo trying to sound fast because they cant afford a fast car.
maybe i'm getting old.....

I love the fiesta and corsa's with loud exhausts driving around the town center all night, the police know this now and pull em over accordingly and i have seen 1 or 2 loaded onto the back of the recovery company and them being cuffed and put into the back of the riot van, 1 guy had 6 people in a fiesta

[Sancho]

Good news! There's an MOT forum. That should be fun.

http://www.motester.co.uk/forums/

[gwh200]

im absolutely lost for words !!!!!!

what an astounding forum,but im not sure for why its astounding...

[Sancho]

im absolutely lost for words !!!!!!

what an astounding forum,but im not sure for why its astounding...

Read some of the threads. There is an obvious split between genuine testers and those who, let's just say, seem to enjoy failing people.

[gwh200]

Read some of the threads. There is an obvious split between genuine testers and those who, let's just say, seem to enjoy failing people.

picked up on that.lots of talk of trying every angle as well, to charge twice