My car failed its MOT last week (see thread on Micra: repair or
offload).
It is booked in for another test this week.

Question: Should the car fail again, what is the time limit in which I
am allowed to fix the car then get a follow-up test incurring no extra
charge?

Question: Should the car fail Test2, is it reasonable for the tester to
verbally give me specific reasons for failure and suggest the exact
work required. For example, at the last test fail on brake imbalance,
the tester said: " I won't know the exact cause or how much work is
involved to fix it until I strip down the brakes."

MOT is £40 a go. I'm a bit worried about having to keep going back!
Fortunately, I have 2 weeks until the MOT expires.

Bruce

wrote in message
news:1124783850.152286.113360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My car failed its MOT last week (see thread on Micra: repair or
offload).



Its down to the gararge that do your mots, best to ask them..

>There's a set minimum :-

http://www.motester.co.uk/retest.html <

If I understand that correctly, anything more than dodgy wipers or the
like will require a full re-test, including emissions etc. So that
would probably cost me £40. I'll find out on Thursday.

Bruce

(bruce_phipps@my-deja.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
saying :


>>There's a set minimum :-
> http://www.motester.co.uk/retest.html <

> If I understand that correctly, anything more than dodgy wipers or the
> like will require a full re-test, including emissions etc. So that
> would probably cost me 40. I'll find out on Thursday.


Did you understand the sentence that followed it, too?


>> Anything above that - "Bring it back in a couple of weeks, and we'll 
>> retest it free" - is a commercial decision that's at the test centre's 
>> discretion.


It's down to the test centre as to what they offer you, above and beyond 
that. We don't know the test centre. Ask them. But, yes, you did understand 
it correctly. They don't have to offer you a free re-test.

Think about it from their point of view - Why should they? They have to 
spend another 3/4 hour going back over the whole car, purely because you 
originally brought a shed in that wasn't in a fit state to be on the road.

The message 
from bruce_phipps@my-deja.com contains these words:


> Question: Should the car fail Test2, is it reasonable for the tester to
> verbally give me specific reasons for failure and suggest the exact
> work required. 


No. He is obliged to tell you what it's failed upon, but not how to fix it. 

-- 
Skipweasel.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word was Aardvark.

>Did you understand the sentence that followed it, too? <

Its the MOT regulations I can't follow...

"If the vehicle is taken away from the Testing Station and returns for
re-examination on other than one or more of the items listed below, the
vehicle must be fully inspected on all Testable items, for which the
Testing Station may charge (up to) the full Test fee."

Other than one or more. What's that mean? Zero?


>They have to

spend another 3/4 hour going back over the whole car<


>From a practical point of view, do they *really* do a full re-test, or

just check the failure points then wave it through?


>purely because you

originally brought a shed in that wasn't in a fit state to be on the
road.<

The car is not a danger to drive. If it was it would say so on the MOT
fail sheet!
 Are you suggesting I should get my car checked over by a mechanic
prior to sending in for its MOT? Impractical for a £500 motor.

Bruce

In article ,
    wrote:

> My car failed its MOT last week (see thread on Micra: repair or
> offload).
> It is booked in for another test this week.

> Question: Should the car fail again, what is the time limit in which I
> am allowed to fix the car then get a follow-up test incurring no extra
> charge?


Unless the garage in question is doing the work needed themselves, it's
down to them if they offer a free re-test at all - and for how long after.
So best to ask them first.


> Question: Should the car fail Test2, is it reasonable for the tester to
> verbally give me specific reasons for failure and suggest the exact
> work required. For example, at the last test fail on brake imbalance,
> the tester said: " I won't know the exact cause or how much work is
> involved to fix it until I strip down the brakes."


Yes - each and every point the car fails on should be documented - unless
the overall condition was so poor it was deemed unsafe to do a full test.
However, you may or may not get advice on how to fix the fault.


> MOT is 40 a go. I'm a bit worried about having to keep going back!
> Fortunately, I have 2 weeks until the MOT expires.


-- 
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

bruce_phipps@my-deja.com wrote:

>> Did you understand the sentence that followed it, too? <
> Its the MOT regulations I can't follow...
>
> "If the vehicle is taken away from the Testing Station and returns for
> re-examination on other than one or more of the items listed below,
> the vehicle must be fully inspected on all Testable items, for which
> the Testing Station may charge (up to) the full Test fee."
>
> Other than one or more. What's that mean? Zero?


If the *only* failures were due to items on the list (one or more) then a 
retest is *not* required.

If you fail on *other than* items in the list you need a retest.


>
>> They have to
> spend another 3/4 hour going back over the whole car<
>
>> From a practical point of view, do they *really* do a full re-test,
>> or
> just check the failure points then wave it through?


Officially a retest *has* to be a full retest. There are 'undercover' 
inspectors....

A tester near where I live was recently suspended for not doing it right.


>> purely because you
> originally brought a shed in that wasn't in a fit state to be on the
> road.<
>
> The car is not a danger to drive. If it was it would say so on the MOT
> fail sheet!
>  Are you suggesting I should get my car checked over by a mechanic
> prior to sending in for its MOT? Impractical for a 500 motor.


He seems to have an axe to grind here.. ignore him.

You know if there is anything 'obvious', and you should have fixed it 
anyway. Otherwise the MOT is the cheapest way to check it fully for the test 
in the first place!

(bruce_phipps@my-deja.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
were saying :


> Its the MOT regulations I can't follow...
> 
> "If the vehicle is taken away from the Testing Station and returns for
> re-examination on other than one or more of the items listed below, 
> the vehicle must be fully inspected on all Testable items, for which 
> the Testing Station may charge (up to) the full Test fee."
> 
> Other than one or more. What's that mean? Zero?


Read the whole clause :- "Other than one or more of the items listed 
below" - in other words, if the retest is because of a fail on something 
not on the list.

It's not that difficult.


>> They have to spend another 3/4 hour going back over the whole car<

> From a practical point of view, do they *really* do a full re-test, or
> just check the failure points then wave it through?


Yes, they MUST. The test procedures clearly state that. There are only 
certain things that can be retested on an individual basis.
 

>> purely because you originally brought a shed in that wasn't in a fit 
>> state to be on the road.
 
> The car is not a danger to drive. If it was it would say so on the MOT
> fail sheet!


Turn it around. If your car was in a fit state to drive, it'd pass the 
MOT. The MOT is a bare *minimum* standard, not a target.

Are you one of those people who regards the MOT as a pain in the arse, 
and treats it as a guide as to whether your car needs "servicing"?

From your original post about your MOT -


#>> 95N Micra 80k miles.
#>> Had a front shunt last year, I replaced the appropriate panels and 
#>> kept on driving. It chugs along OK, brakes and steering seem OK.
#>>
#>> It has just failed its MOT and requires quite a lot of work:
#>> 
#>> 1) Nearside rear brake pipe corroded

What if it bursts?

#>> 2) Offside rear brake pipe corroded

What if it bursts?

#>> 3) Front to rear brake pipe corroded

What if it bursts?

#>> 4) Brakes imbalanced

What if you have to brake hard on a wet road? You'll be round in a spin 
before you know what's happened.

#>> 5) Front chassis box section damaged -- requires welding. 

And if that spin finishes in you hitting a tree, you think that that is 
going to do its job properly in preventing your car folding up around 
you?


> Are you suggesting I should get my car checked over by a mechanic
> prior to sending in for its MOT?


If you can't do it properly, then yes.


> Impractical for a 500 motor.


It's more likely to be needed for a 500 motor. There's no such thing as 
a cheap car.

And if you think your bodged write-off of a Micra's worth 500, you're 
in cloud cuckoo land.

PC Paul (me@home.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : 


> A tester near where I live was recently suspended for not doing it
> right. 


Good.

>> A tester near where I live was recently suspended for not doing it
>> right.
>
> Good.


Agreed.  Having undercover inspectors is the only real way to tell whether 
they're doing things properly.  The only real proof that a full retest has 
taken place, short of the tester carrying around a camcorder and narrating a 
'video diary' of the test, is to provide emissions and brake test printouts 
from the retest.  These could quite easily be done in about 2-3 minutes, 
still leaving the rest of the test to be skipped.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

>> Agreed.  Having undercover inspectors is the only real way to tell
>> whether they're doing things properly.  The only real proof that a
>> full retest has taken place, short of the tester carrying around a
>> camcorder and narrating a 'video diary' of the test, is to provide
>> emissions and brake test printouts from the retest.  These could
>> quite easily be done in about 2-3 minutes, still leaving the rest of
>> the test to be skipped.
>
> I wish they used the same system in schools - or at least unannounced 
> inspections. As it stands now they have weeks and weeks notice in which 
> they blow the years budget on repainting etc. trying to make the place 
> look nicer..
>
> Unannounced inspections would be much fairer and less stressful for the 
> staff too.
>
> Well, unless they aren't up to the job...


Couldn't agree more.  The whole point of any inspection is to see how 
something's being run.  There's no point in warning people because they're 
going to do their very best to cover up any wrongdoings, and give a very 
obviously false picture of how things really are.  Completely defeats the 
object.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

John Greystrong wrote:

> PC Paul wrote:
>
>> I wish they used the same system in schools - or at least unannounced
>> inspections. As it stands now they have weeks and weeks notice in
>> which they blow the years budget on repainting etc. trying to make
>> the place look nicer..
>
> No they don't. The VOSA man made an unannounced inspection at my local
> garage last week. He turned up and retested the last tested car.
>


" I wish they used the same system in schools"

Schools get lots of notice. Garages don't.

I wish schools didn't.

HTH

John Greystrong wrote:

> PC Paul wrote:
>
>> " I wish they used the same system in schools"
>>
>> Schools get lots of notice. Garages don't.
>>
>> I wish schools didn't.
>
> Whoops, my bad.
>


All your fail certificates are belong to us!