As some of you might know I sold the old van. The man who bought it was our 
cleaner's husband. He is trying to start up a little business and it seemed 
just right for him. I knew it needed a little bit of welding and a new 
silencer, and the brakes needed adjustment after they caught fire a few 
months ago. Just a few minor things, but the van was a real good runner, 
always started and never let me down. Although I felt it was worth much more 
I let it go for £100. I waved goodbye to it with a tear in my eye, and 
looked for vehicular bereavement counselling on the internet.

The cleaner's been in and out of hospital for a while so we haven't seen 
much of her, so when she rung up to arrange a day's work I asked about the 
van. There was a short silence, then she said, "I'll put Rick on." In that 
brief moment I thought that Rick had forgotten about the dodgy handbrake and 
left it at the top of a cliff or something.

Perhaps that would have been for the best, because when he came on he said, 
"Err well Bill, it didn't pass the MOT."

"Well I told you it wouldn't!" I said impatiently. "A bit of welding, sort 
the brakes out, that sort of thing, eh?"

"Err . . .  there was a lot of things."

"So what's it going to cost?"

"Oh I can't afford it. It would be thousands."

I was gobsmacked. Later I saw Rick and he gave me a copy of the fail 
certificate, which I reproduce below for your amusement. It just goes to 
show how much can go wrong with a vehicle in less than twelve months. 
Needless to say I gave Rick his money back.

Measurements

Brakes Failures: RBT Park Brake Efficiency: 12%. RBT Front Brake Imbalance: 
32%

Reasons for refusaI of a Test Certificate

001 Offside rear fog lamp not in good working order (not working) [1.L6h1

002 Nearside headlamp aim too low [1.61

003 Offside headlamp aim too low [1.61

004 Offside front seat belt cut, causing the fibres to separate [5.1.B.2a1

005 Nearside front brake pipe excessively corroded (3. 6.B. 2c1

006 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1

007 Nearside rear brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1

008 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1

009 (front to fear) brake pipe excessively corroded 13.6.B.2c]

010 Rear parking brake mechanism/associated mounting prescribed area is 
excessively corroded [3. .

O11 Offside rear tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.LD.l1

012 Nearside front suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
corroded

[2.4.A. 21 **DANGEROUS**

013 Offside front suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
corroded [2.4.A. 2] **DANGEROUS**

014 Nearside rear suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
corroded

[2. 4.A. 2] **DANGEROUS **

015 Offside rear suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
corroded

[2.4.A.2] **DANGEROUS**

016 Offside front (steering box) steering component mounting prescribed area 
is excessively corroded [2. 2.C. Ig] ** DANGEROUS **

017 Rear exhaust system has a part missing [7.1.la]

018 Offside rear brake binding [3.7.A.5a]

019 Nearside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]

020 Offside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]

021 Parking brake efficiency below requirements [3.7.A.9/10]

022 Front wheels brakes unbalanced [3.7.A.2e]

023 Rear brake load sensing valve linkage defective [3.6.F.3]



Bill

> I waved goodbye to it with a tear in my eye, and 
> looked for vehicular bereavement counselling on the internet.

If you find some let me know - I get far too attached to my cars. :-(

 -- 
Regards
Dave Saville

NB Remove nospam. for good email address

>[2.4.A. 21 **DANGEROUS**
>
>013 Offside front suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
>corroded [2.4.A. 2] **DANGEROUS**
>
>014 Nearside rear suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
>corroded
>
>[2. 4.A. 2] **DANGEROUS **
>
>015 Offside rear suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
>corroded
>
>[2.4.A.2] **DANGEROUS**
>
>016 Offside front (steering box) steering component mounting prescribed area 
>is excessively corroded [2. 2.C. Ig] ** DANGEROUS **
>
>017 Rear exhaust system has a part missing [7.1.la]
>
>018 Offside rear brake binding [3.7.A.5a]
>
>019 Nearside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
>
>020 Offside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
>
>021 Parking brake efficiency below requirements [3.7.A.9/10]
>
>022 Front wheels brakes unbalanced [3.7.A.2e]
>
>023 Rear brake load sensing valve linkage defective [3.6.F.3]
>
>
>
>Bill
>
>

And you were running round in that death trap?!!....
-- 
Tony Sayer

...snip...

The worrying thing is it passed the year before.  I bought a car from a 
friend and a year later it required almost every brake pipe replacing 
because of corrosion.  My only thought was why was nothing about the pipes 
mentioned on the previous years MOT?  I do very little mileage, all of it on 
good roads or motorway so it wasn't getting a thrashing over my "first 
year".

Paul DS.

Maybe you should have just flogged the Engine on its own?

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:CdydnUZjW7g2CTLaRVnyjQA@pipex.net...
> As some of you might know I sold the old van. The man who bought it was 
> our cleaner's husband. He is trying to start up a little business and it 
> seemed just right for him. I knew it needed a little bit of welding and a 
> new silencer, and the brakes needed adjustment after they caught fire a 
> few months ago. Just a few minor things, but the van was a real good 
> runner, always started and never let me down. Although I felt it was worth 
> much more I let it go for £100. I waved goodbye to it with a tear in my 
> eye, and looked for vehicular bereavement counselling on the internet.
>
> The cleaner's been in and out of hospital for a while so we haven't seen 
> much of her, so when she rung up to arrange a day's work I asked about the 
> van. There was a short silence, then she said, "I'll put Rick on." In that 
> brief moment I thought that Rick had forgotten about the dodgy handbrake 
> and left it at the top of a cliff or something.
>
> Perhaps that would have been for the best, because when he came on he 
> said, "Err well Bill, it didn't pass the MOT."
>
> "Well I told you it wouldn't!" I said impatiently. "A bit of welding, sort 
> the brakes out, that sort of thing, eh?"
>
> "Err . . .  there was a lot of things."
>
> "So what's it going to cost?"
>
> "Oh I can't afford it. It would be thousands."
>
> I was gobsmacked. Later I saw Rick and he gave me a copy of the fail 
> certificate, which I reproduce below for your amusement. It just goes to 
> show how much can go wrong with a vehicle in less than twelve months. 
> Needless to say I gave Rick his money back.
>
> Measurements
>
> Brakes Failures: RBT Park Brake Efficiency: 12%. RBT Front Brake 
> Imbalance: 32%
>
> Reasons for refusaI of a Test Certificate
>
> 001 Offside rear fog lamp not in good working order (not working) [1.L6h1
>
> 002 Nearside headlamp aim too low [1.61
>
> 003 Offside headlamp aim too low [1.61
>
> 004 Offside front seat belt cut, causing the fibres to separate [5.1.B.2a1
>
> 005 Nearside front brake pipe excessively corroded (3. 6.B. 2c1
>
> 006 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
>
> 007 Nearside rear brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
>
> 008 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
>
> 009 (front to fear) brake pipe excessively corroded 13.6.B.2c]
>
> 010 Rear parking brake mechanism/associated mounting prescribed area is 
> excessively corroded [3. .
>
> O11 Offside rear tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.LD.l1
>
> 012 Nearside front suspension spring mounting prescribed area is 
> excessively corroded
>
> [2.4.A. 21 **DANGEROUS**
>
> 013 Offside front suspension spring mounting prescribed area is 
> excessively corroded [2.4.A. 2] **DANGEROUS**
>
> 014 Nearside rear suspension spring mounting prescribed area is 
> excessively corroded
>
> [2. 4.A. 2] **DANGEROUS **
>
> 015 Offside rear suspension spring mounting prescribed area is excessively 
> corroded
>
> [2.4.A.2] **DANGEROUS**
>
> 016 Offside front (steering box) steering component mounting prescribed 
> area is excessively corroded [2. 2.C. Ig] ** DANGEROUS **
>
> 017 Rear exhaust system has a part missing [7.1.la]
>
> 018 Offside rear brake binding [3.7.A.5a]
>
> 019 Nearside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
>
> 020 Offside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
>
> 021 Parking brake efficiency below requirements [3.7.A.9/10]
>
> 022 Front wheels brakes unbalanced [3.7.A.2e]
>
> 023 Rear brake load sensing valve linkage defective [3.6.F.3]
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>

There is a conspiracy to get all older vehicles off the road.
Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Paul D.Smith"  wrote in message 
news:47b016cf$0$21932$4d4eb98e@read.news.uk.uu.net...
> ...snip...
>
> The worrying thing is it passed the year before.  I bought a car from a 
> friend and a year later it required almost every brake pipe replacing 
> because of corrosion.  My only thought was why was nothing about the pipes 
> mentioned on the previous years MOT?  I do very little mileage, all of it 
> on good roads or motorway so it wasn't getting a thrashing over my "first 
> year".
>
> Paul DS.
>

In message 47b016cf$0$21932$4d4eb98e@read.news.uk.uu.net,
Paul D.Smith  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> ...snip...
>
> The worrying thing is it passed the year before.  I bought a car from
> a friend and a year later it required almost every brake pipe
> replacing because of corrosion.  My only thought was why was nothing
> about the pipes mentioned on the previous years MOT?  I do very
> little mileage, all of it on good roads or motorway so it wasn't
> getting a thrashing over my "first year".
>
> Paul DS.

You said you bought it from friend, so probably not the same situation, but 
many years ago, I bought a (very cheap) car out of the paper, it looked Ok, 
and came with a recent MOT which it seemed to have passed with flying 
colours.
Within a week, we were having problems, my brother-in-law (who was 
regrettably away when we bought the car) came over and had a look he wasn't 
happy, and took it into the garage where he works (he's an MOT engineer) to 
give it a proper once-over.
The car failed on pretty much everything, and due to the state of some of 
the problems, it was quite clear that whoever had issued the previous MOT 
had probably not actually seen the car (if you know what I mean...).
My Brother-in-law spoke to the issuing garage in an 'official' capacity, and 
I think the words 'Ministry of Transport' and 'operators licence' were 
mentioned, and well as probably 'fraud' amongst others, and they kindly 
agreed to sort it all out and issue a new certificate...  so all was well, 
but it was a lesson in not taking anything like that at face value...

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Bill Wright wrote:

> 002 Nearside headlamp aim too low [1.61
>
> 003 Offside headlamp aim too low [1.61

I've never understood how headlamps aiming low would be dangerous, too high 
I could at you may dazzle other drivers.
-- 
Adrian

On 11/02/2008 09:53, ChrisM wrote:

> My Brother-in-law spoke to the issuing garage in an 'official' capacity, and 
> I think the words 'Ministry of Transport' and 'operators licence' were 
> mentioned, and well as probably 'fraud' amongst others, and they kindly 
> agreed to sort it all out and issue a new certificate...  so all was well, 

How does issuing a second hooky certificate make anything all right?
Did he have the cheek to flog it with "12months tax and mot"?

In article ,
   Adrian  wrote:
> Bill Wright wrote:

> > 002 Nearside headlamp aim too low [1.61
> >
> > 003 Offside headlamp aim too low [1.61

> I've never understood how headlamps aiming low would be dangerous, too
> high I could at you may dazzle other drivers.

I'd have thought driving when you can't see where you are going is fairly
dangerous.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On 11/02/2008 10:05, Adrian wrote:

> I've never understood how headlamps aiming low would be dangerous, too high 

Low aiming headlamps won't illuminate obstacles in the road until you're 
closer to them.

Bill Wright wrote:

> Brakes Failures: RBT Park Brake Efficiency: 12%. RBT Front Brake Imbalance: 32%

> 005 Nearside front brake pipe excessively corroded (3. 6.B. 2c1
> 006 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
> 007 Nearside rear brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
> 008 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
> 009 (front to fear) brake pipe excessively corroded 13.6.B.2c]
> 010 Rear parking brake mechanism/associated mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded [3. .
> 018 Offside rear brake binding [3.7.A.5a]
> 019 Nearside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
> 020 Offside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
> 021 Parking brake efficiency below requirements [3.7.A.9/10]
> 022 Front wheels brakes unbalanced [3.7.A.2e]
> 023 Rear brake load sensing valve linkage defective [3.6.F.3]



Did you ever maintain the brakes on your van ?

In message 13r07vkitou68d1@corp.supernews.com,
Andy Burns  Proclaimed from the tallest 
tower:

> On 11/02/2008 09:53, ChrisM wrote:
>
>> My Brother-in-law spoke to the issuing garage in an 'official'
>> capacity, and I think the words 'Ministry of Transport' and
>> 'operators licence' were mentioned, and well as probably 'fraud'
>> amongst others, and they kindly agreed to sort it all out and issue
>> a new certificate...  so all was well,
>
> How does issuing a second hooky certificate make anything all right?
> Did he have the cheek to flog it with "12months tax and mot"?

Sorry, my message was a bit unclear. By 'sort it all out' I meant that they 
fixed all the problems so that a PROPER MOT could be issued.
(I was exagerating a bit when I said EVERYTHING was wrong with it, but it 
was a couple of hundred quids worth to get it all above board again...)

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
> As some of you might know I sold the old van. The man who bought it was our 
> cleaner's husband.
[...]
> Perhaps that would have been for the best, because when he came on he said, 
> "Err well Bill, it didn't pass the MOT."
[snip long list of faults]

If it really accumulated that lot in only a year (or was the previous year's 
tester perhaps a little "lenient"?), you might do others a service by naming 
and shaming. So what make of van was it? Not Japanese I'd guess.

Rod.

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:Md$g5UM22AsHFwHI@bancom.co.uk...
> And you were running round in that death trap?!!....

Yep.

Bill

"Brian Gaff"  wrote in message 
news:FOUrj.5268$XI.3273@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Maybe you should have just flogged the Engine on its own?

Couldn't find a buyer.

Bill

<James> wrote in message news:xcWdnYRwzdpavS3anZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> Brakes Failures: RBT Park Brake Efficiency: 12%. RBT Front Brake 
>> Imbalance: 32%
>
>> 005 Nearside front brake pipe excessively corroded (3. 6.B. 2c1
>> 006 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
>> 007 Nearside rear brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
>> 008 Offside brake pipe excessively corroded [3.6.B.2c1
>> 009 (front to fear) brake pipe excessively corroded 13.6.B.2c]
>> 010 Rear parking brake mechanism/associated mounting prescribed area is 
>> excessively corroded [3. .
>> 018 Offside rear brake binding [3.7.A.5a]
>> 019 Nearside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
>> 020 Offside front brake disc excessively pitted [3.5.lh]
>> 021 Parking brake efficiency below requirements [3.7.A.9/10]
>> 022 Front wheels brakes unbalanced [3.7.A.2e]
>> 023 Rear brake load sensing valve linkage defective [3.6.F.3]
>
>
>
> Did you ever maintain the brakes on your van ?

The van was MOTed ten months ago and had a full service in August.

Bill

...snip...
>> ...snip...
>>
>> The worrying thing is it passed the year before.  I bought a car from
>> a friend...
>>
>> Paul DS.
>
> You said you bought it from friend, so probably not the same situation...

True.  Still friends ;-).

Paul DS.

Bill Wright wrote:

>> Did you ever maintain the brakes on your van ?
> 
> The van was MOTed ten months ago and had a full service in August.
> 
> Bill 
> 
> 

And the garage (s) concerned didn't mention that it was falling to pieces?

I'm surprised at you, Bill, why aren't you after their blood!

Richard

Andy Burns wrote:
> On 11/02/2008 09:53, ChrisM wrote:
>
>> My Brother-in-law spoke to the issuing garage in an 'official'
>> capacity, and I think the words 'Ministry of Transport' and
>> 'operators licence' were mentioned, and well as probably 'fraud'
>> amongst others, and they kindly agreed to sort it all out and issue
>> a new certificate...  so all was well,
>
> How does issuing a second hooky certificate make anything all right?
> Did he have the cheek to flog it with "12months tax and mot"?

Chris wrote, "they kindly agreed to sort it all out and issue a new 
certificate" so presumably all nescessary work was done.

In article , Bill Wright
 scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
>news:Md$g5UM22AsHFwHI@bancom.co.uk...
>> And you were running round in that death trap?!!....
>
>Yep.
>
>Bill 
>
>

(Visions of Fred Flintstone with his baff's through the floor;),,,
-- 
Tony Sayer

On 11 Feb,  
     "Adrian"  wrote:

> I've never understood how headlamps aiming low would be dangerous, too high
> I could at you may dazzle other drivers.

I find (unless I set the adjusting knob down to 3 beforehand) that the
garage,when servicing and MOTing the car, *always* return it with the
headlights adjusted so you can hardly see past the bonnet.

-- 
  BD
  Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Bill Wright wrote:
> ... Although I felt it was worth much more 
> I let it go for £100. ......
> Needless to say I gave Rick his money back.


At least for that price giving the money back wasn't so hard and you 
coped with the disappointment up front. If you'd sold the van for £5000 
it would have been much more painful giving the money back.

Owain