Hello,

I would like some views of MOT testers please if there are any reading.
Disappointed today, having taken my Daughter's car for an MOT at a local
garage. Let me explain the story...

About a month ago I purchased a car from a local vehicle auction. The
vehicle Ford Fiesta MK3 1995 with a low mileage (39,000), a two owner
vehicle, which is very clean and tidy, with none of the usual 'patching up'
you find on some auction vehicles. As an automotive engineer of some 20+
years experience I set about ensuring the car was safe for my daughter to
learn to drive in before I even bothered to send it for an MOT. Many parts
were replaced in order to ensure the car remains in use whilst my daughter
has it with no risk a component is about to wear out or become unsafe
requiring replacement. Many members of Joe Public would perhaps would say it
was 'overkill' expenditure on such a car of its age. The work included
replacement of front brake discs and pads, full service, oil, filters, spark
plugs and also including tappet adjustment. A cracked exhaust downpipe was
also attended to and new exhaust bolts and gaskets replaced where necessary.
All this work has been completed within the past two weeks.

I turned up for the MOT today and said I would wait for it to be carried
out. The MOT tester's young daughter drove the car onto the MOT inspection
pit where it remained for about 10 to 15 minutes with the engine idling. The
MOT tester was in the meantime attending to another customers car outside.

After coming back from the office with the log book (V5), the daughter of
the MOT tester inputted some details into the emission analyser and she
performed an emission test whilst the MOT tester was doing other work
outside on the other customers car. After she had completed the test she
informed me the vehicle had failed its emission test. She told the news to
the MOT tester who told her the details she had inputted were incorrect as
the vehicle was an overhead valve model (not sure what she had inputted). A
second test was then carried out by the MOT tester, seemingly a lot longer
test in it's duration (that test also failed).

The MOT tester carried out the remainder of the test with his daughter
present.

At the end of the test the tester's daughter informed me that the vehicle
had failed its test on a number of items, including exhaust emissions,
Service brake performance and some lighting defects. I asked to speak to the
tester regarding the content of the failure notice. He informed me that he,
"thinks" the rear brakes were the cause of the problem. He also pointed out
to me that the performance required was 50% and the vehicle had achieved 49%
efficiency on the Service brakes. I pointed out to him that the weather
conditions were in fact wet and that a number of wheels had 'locked' on the
brake rollers when the performance test was carried out. This suggested the
tyres had locked prematurely, likely to have been caused by the lack of
adhesion between the rollers and each tyre because they were soaking wet.
This comment made no difference, almost to the point the I would say the
tester could not understand what I was trying to explain. I should also add,
the static test was carried out on brake rollers of the type which relied on
the tester to write down a figure (to whatever accuracy) which he considers
the machine had obtained.

The tester also informed me that the Carbon Monoxide limit had been
exceeded. The maximum permitted would be 0.300 and my vehicle had achieved
0.481. I accept the maximum permitted limit has been accepted, but cannot
accept the method of testing is correct which I believe lead to such a test
failure of this narrow margin. This vehicle was not tested when it arrived
at the testing station, but instead it sat around for 10 to 15 minutes with
the engine idling. In my view could this have likely to have resulted in the
Catalyst in cooling significantly from it 'on the road' normal temperature.
Again, the MOT tester would not accept this and simply pointed to the engine
oil temperature which was 82 degrees (minimum requirement 80 degrees). The
tester acknowledged that the vehicle did have a new exhaust catalyst, newish
Lambda sensor, new spark plugs, oil, & filters, etc. Curious, I asked him in
his view what he thought the problem might be in this case. He simply said,
the complete injection system might need changing..! At that point a started
laughing as this test had become one big joke.

When I arrived home I also checked the lighting defects he had remarked
upon. It was alleged the n/s/f direction indicator was showing the incorrect
colour. I operated the lights again. I saw no other colour than orange being
shown to the front. I checked the bulb and in fact although old, it still
had and orange film around it. I popped up to the local shop and bought
bulbs to change both sides, which were not needed... madness.

A side light on the front was also said to be inoperative. In fact is was
working. I suppose it could have been an intermittent fault, so I replaced
the bulb ensuring the electrical connections were good.

The n/s headlamp was said to emit a poor dipped beam pattern. I checked the
bulb, again it looked new and the reflector in the headlamp looks as new as
it came out the factory. I have changed the bulb anyway for a new one, again
though, seemingly not needed.

In my mind, this is a classic example of a testing station (with a parts
shop) seeing an 11 year old car coming through the door and thinking they
can make some easy money. Sadly for them it has not worked this time. Whilst
they would not accept they were wrong to do what they have done, they did
say they will not charge me a retest fee which they usually charge 20 when
a vehicle is taken from their premises.

Wondering what any MOT testers think of the above.


John

"John"  wrote in message
news:ZIgWe.3776$6p.839@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> Hello,
>
> I would like some views of MOT testers please if there are any reading.
> Disappointed today, having taken my Daughter's car for an MOT at a local
> garage. Let me explain the story...
>
> About a month ago I purchased a car from a local vehicle auction. The
> vehicle Ford Fiesta MK3 1995 with a low mileage (39,000), a two owner
> vehicle, which is very clean and tidy, with none of the usual 'patching
up'
> you find on some auction vehicles. As an automotive engineer of some 20+
> years experience I set about ensuring the car was safe for my daughter to
> learn to drive in before I even bothered to send it for an MOT. Many parts
> were replaced in order to ensure the car remains in use whilst my daughter
> has it with no risk a component is about to wear out or become unsafe
> requiring replacement. Many members of Joe Public would perhaps would say
it
> was 'overkill' expenditure on such a car of its age. The work included
> replacement of front brake discs and pads, full service, oil, filters,
spark
> plugs and also including tappet adjustment. A cracked exhaust downpipe was
> also attended to and new exhaust bolts and gaskets replaced where
necessary.
> All this work has been completed within the past two weeks.
>
> I turned up for the MOT today and said I would wait for it to be carried
> out. The MOT tester's young daughter drove the car onto the MOT inspection
> pit where it remained for about 10 to 15 minutes with the engine idling.
The
> MOT tester was in the meantime attending to another customers car outside.
>
> After coming back from the office with the log book (V5), the daughter of
> the MOT tester inputted some details into the emission analyser and she
> performed an emission test whilst the MOT tester was doing other work
> outside on the other customers car. After she had completed the test she
> informed me the vehicle had failed its emission test. She told the news to
> the MOT tester who told her the details she had inputted were incorrect as
> the vehicle was an overhead valve model (not sure what she had inputted).
A
> second test was then carried out by the MOT tester, seemingly a lot longer
> test in it's duration (that test also failed).
>
> The MOT tester carried out the remainder of the test with his daughter
> present.
>
> At the end of the test the tester's daughter informed me that the vehicle
> had failed its test on a number of items, including exhaust emissions,
> Service brake performance and some lighting defects. I asked to speak to
the
> tester regarding the content of the failure notice. He informed me that
he,
> "thinks" the rear brakes were the cause of the problem. He also pointed
out
> to me that the performance required was 50% and the vehicle had achieved
49%
> efficiency on the Service brakes. I pointed out to him that the weather
> conditions were in fact wet and that a number of wheels had 'locked' on
the
> brake rollers when the performance test was carried out. This suggested
the
> tyres had locked prematurely, likely to have been caused by the lack of
> adhesion between the rollers and each tyre because they were soaking wet.
> This comment made no difference, almost to the point the I would say the
> tester could not understand what I was trying to explain. I should also
add,
> the static test was carried out on brake rollers of the type which relied
on
> the tester to write down a figure (to whatever accuracy) which he
considers
> the machine had obtained.
>
> The tester also informed me that the Carbon Monoxide limit had been
> exceeded. The maximum permitted would be 0.300 and my vehicle had achieved
> 0.481. I accept the maximum permitted limit has been accepted, but cannot
> accept the method of testing is correct which I believe lead to such a
test
> failure of this narrow margin. This vehicle was not tested when it arrived
> at the testing station, but instead it sat around for 10 to 15 minutes
with
> the engine idling. In my view could this have likely to have resulted in
the
> Catalyst in cooling significantly from it 'on the road' normal
temperature.
> Again, the MOT tester would not accept this and simply pointed to the
engine
> oil temperature which was 82 degrees (minimum requirement 80 degrees). The
> tester acknowledged that the vehicle did have a new exhaust catalyst,
newish
> Lambda sensor, new spark plugs, oil, & filters, etc. Curious, I asked him
in
> his view what he thought the problem might be in this case. He simply
said,
> the complete injection system might need changing..! At that point a
started
> laughing as this test had become one big joke.
>
> When I arrived home I also checked the lighting defects he had remarked
> upon. It was alleged the n/s/f direction indicator was showing the
incorrect
> colour. I operated the lights again. I saw no other colour than orange
being
> shown to the front. I checked the bulb and in fact although old, it still
> had and orange film around it. I popped up to the local shop and bought
> bulbs to change both sides, which were not needed... madness.
>
> A side light on the front was also said to be inoperative. In fact is was
> working. I suppose it could have been an intermittent fault, so I replaced
> the bulb ensuring the electrical connections were good.
>
> The n/s headlamp was said to emit a poor dipped beam pattern. I checked
the
> bulb, again it looked new and the reflector in the headlamp looks as new
as
> it came out the factory. I have changed the bulb anyway for a new one,
again
> though, seemingly not needed.
>
> In my mind, this is a classic example of a testing station (with a parts
> shop) seeing an 11 year old car coming through the door and thinking they
> can make some easy money. Sadly for them it has not worked this time.
Whilst
> they would not accept they were wrong to do what they have done, they did
> say they will not charge me a retest fee which they usually charge 20
when
> a vehicle is taken from their premises.
>
> Wondering what any MOT testers think of the above.
>
>
> John
>


If you're in the trade, have you not got a friendly MOT station where you
can get another view?
If you're sure that you're right a call to your local VOSA centre would not
seem amiss. http://www.vosa.gov.uk

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:48:09 GMT, "John" 
wrote:



>
>Wondering what any MOT testers think of the above.
>
>
>John
>
>

Its illegal for anyone other than the specified MOT tester in the
garage to do ANY test



--


Just livin the Vida Sofa

"Tone"  wrote in message 
news:uj8ji1h5fuldope2kihun0nrlr9q60punb@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:48:09 GMT, "John" 
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Wondering what any MOT testers think of the above.
>>
>>
>>John
>>
>>
> Its illegal for anyone other than the specified MOT tester in the
> garage to do ANY test
>


Agreed