Triumph Torque Logo
 
Thursday, 24 May 2018 Register | Login

Message Board

NextRSSPreviousSocial Forums > The Hinckley Arms > New MOT rules
Info
.
Message
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon21 Mar 2018 22:43
Was just looking at the new MOT rules coming out on May 20th.
Basically instead of pass and fail there is , minor, major and dangerous.
At first sounds ok but reading into it they are opening up a can of worms with the repercussions of a vehicle getting a dangerous mark .
For instance , if you take a car for MOT (and even if that vehicle's MOT is still valid ) , and it receives a dangerous mark on the test , you are not allowed to take the vehicle away . It has to be repaired at the MOT station . I don't think the DVLA have thought this through , it is opening up a multitude of problems and is going to cost the poorer people a lot of money in the long run .
Bunch of arseholes :angry::angry:
-
Advertisement
Remove adverts by upgrading to a premier account
-
russ999rocket
Swine Town,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 2,581
Tiger Explorer


icon21 Mar 2018 23:55
Is it designed to actually make the roads safer by taking unroadworthy vehicles off the road or is it designed to just making it so expensive to run older cars that we are forced to buy new ones to prop up the economy?.
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon22 Mar 2018 08:42
I think there is a bit of truth in both reasons :thumbup:.
On a personal note I take quite a few cars for MOT ( 5 this week alone) and I basically take them for test and whatever needs to be done I carry out the work and take back for re-test. From 20/5 I won't be able to do that if something is deemed dangerous and I will also have to find a way to get home .And then I have the unenviable task of telling the punter that I haven't got his car and I can't do the work and I'll have to pick it up when the MOT station gets round to doing the work (assuming they are capable of doing the work ) . The other choice is to get it lifted from the MOT station and delivered back to my premises , technically if the work is carried out then I guess I should be able to drive it back to the MOT station as the vehicle is not in a dangerous condition any more but that remains to be seen if that is allowed . And all these costs will have to be passed on to the punter .
What happens if the punter can't afford the repairs for a few weeks . Is the MOT capable of storing extra cars waiting for jobs to start or are they going to charge for the storage ?
And to top it off the MOT will go up in price I'm sure and a re-test may not be free , as it is at the moment .
It's a f**kin joke
-
----KK----
West SX / London,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 41,380
Enthusiast


icon22 Mar 2018 09:05
To be fair, if someone took a car into an MOT place and they found it had no brakes then not letting them drive it away doesn't seem that unreasonable.

This actually happened to me, I took my Dad's old Renault Scenic into the local MOT place and while the bloke pushed hard on the brake pedal one of the rear metal pipes burst due to corrosion. He topped up the fluid bottle and allowed me to quickly drive it home (I'm about 1 mile away), I could then fix it at my leisure. I knew I was chancing it and wasn't comfortable about this. Had they said to me you can't take it on the public road until the brakes were repaired would have been a reasonable action, IMHO.
-
McWill
scotland,
United Kingdom

Sprint ST (05->)


icon22 Mar 2018 09:42
Great if it get scrap of the roads for the one's that actually get their cars MOTd. It opens the doors to the unscrupulously garage to shall we say to come up with a repair or two.80. Don't know how the new system will work at my old work garage very busy MOT station at present it's a pass or a fail you take it away if it needs something and bring it back they are not interested in doing repairs if it fails
-
TQ
OXFORDSHIRE,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 35,311
Speed Triple 1050


icon22 Mar 2018 09:59
Mach 1:
I think there is a bit of truth in both reasons :thumbup:.
On a personal note I take quite a few cars for MOT ( 5 this week alone) and I basically take them for test and whatever needs to be done I carry out the work and take back for re-test. From 20/5 I won't be able to do that if something is deemed dangerous and I will also have to find a way to get home .And then I have the unenviable task of telling the punter that I haven't got his car and I can't do the work and I'll have to pick it up when the MOT station gets round to doing the work (assuming they are capable of doing the work ) . The other choice is to get it lifted from the MOT station and delivered back to my premises , technically if the work is carried out then I guess I should be able to drive it back to the MOT station as the vehicle is not in a dangerous condition any more but that remains to be seen if that is allowed . And all these costs will have to be passed on to the punter .
What happens if the punter can't afford the repairs for a few weeks . Is the MOT capable of storing extra cars waiting for jobs to start or are they going to charge for the storage ?
And to top it off the MOT will go up in price I'm sure and a re-test may not be


free , as it is at the moment .
It's a f**kin joke



well look round them before you take to mot...in case its dangerouse
-
X-Man
North Lincs,
United Kingdom

Posts: 25,025
Enthusiast


icon22 Mar 2018 10:23
I guess the chancers will more and more not take it for a test and hope they can slip through the net. No tax/insurance/mot will become more prevalent and everyone might well suffer.

On a personal note there are too many ways for the unscrupulous to make money. Wouldn't be so bad if a proper system of checking using blind checks was put in to operation (see that pig flying overhead....).
-
GDCobra
North West,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,783
Thruxton (09->)


icon22 Mar 2018 12:35
Mach 1:
I think there is a bit of truth in both reasons :thumbup:.
On a personal note I take quite a few cars for MOT ( 5 this week alone) and I basically take them for test and whatever needs to be done I carry out the work and take back for re-test. From 20/5 I won't be able to do that if something is deemed dangerous and I will also have to find a way to get home .And then I have the unenviable task of telling the punter that I haven't got his car and I can't do the work and I'll have to pick it up when the MOT station gets round to doing the work (assuming they are capable of doing the work ) . The other choice is to get it lifted from the MOT station and delivered back to my premises , technically if the work is carried out then I guess I should be able to drive it back to the MOT station as the vehicle is not in a dangerous condition any more but that remains to be seen if that is allowed . And all these costs will have to be passed on to the punter .
What happens if the punter can't afford the repairs for a few weeks . Is the MOT capable of storing extra cars waiting for jobs to start or are they going to charge for the storage ?
And to top it off the MOT will go up in price I'm sure and a re-test may not be free , as it is at the moment .
It's a f**kin joke


Personally I think taking a potentially dangerous vehicle for someone else to debug for you instead of doing your job youself is a bit of a joke and I'm all for getting dangerous vehicles off the road so, struggling to see the problem here.
Personally I'd be gutted if a car of mine failed it's MOT on something minor let alone dangerous
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon22 Mar 2018 17:38
TQ:
Mach 1:
I think there is a bit of truth in both reasons :thumbup:.
On a personal note I take quite a few cars for MOT ( 5 this week alone) and I basically take them for test and whatever needs to be done I carry out the work and take back for re-test...................



well look round them before you take to mot...in case its dangerouse

I appreciate what you are saying TQ , but in reality what I will potentially have to do is do a full check of the vehicle similar to what is done at the MOT test , obviously lights wipers etc are unlikely to be construed to be dangerous. And then the vehicle still has to be taken for a MOT , so it's just an added cost to the punter .
GDCobra:
Personally I think taking a potentially dangerous vehicle for someone else to debug for you instead of doing your job youself is a bit of a joke and I'm all for getting dangerous vehicles off the road so, struggling to see the problem here.

The problem , or point , is that technically I will have to charge the customer for virtually two MOT's , what's the point in that ?
You have to appreciate what one MOT station fails something on , another may pass it , so it makes no sense to do what the MOT station is going to do anyway 44.

GDCobra:
Personally I'd be gutted if a car of mine failed it's MOT on something minor let alone dangerous

So would I but no-one can say 100% that their vehicle will pass on the day . A light bulb could blow just as you pull into the MOT station , that's a fail . If you haven't got brake testing equipment you may have a disparity of braking effort without even knowing it and thats a fail . Your emissions might be out of range , unless you have exhaust gas analysers you wouldn't know that either but that's another fail .
-
GDCobra
North West,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,783
Thruxton (09->)


icon22 Mar 2018 18:23
I hardly think a blown bulb or out of spec' emissions would put the car into the dangerous category. Likewise you may get a difference of opinion on some minor point but I would think something which is dangerous would be unequivocal.
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon22 Mar 2018 19:06
GDCobra:
I hardly think a blown bulb or out of spec' emissions would put the car into the dangerous category. .

I never said it was in the dangerous category , only that it was a fail :thumbup:

GDCobra:
Likewise you may get a difference of opinion on some minor point but I would think something which is dangerous would be unequivocal.

Again , I wasn't talking about dangerous points in general , only the fact that I take a vehicle for MOT without first checking it myself so that I know exactly what the MOT tester wants repaired if there are any failure points (and often advisories if the customer so wishes) . It saves time and money for the customer :thumbup:

But yes I would imagine that a component that is deemed dangerous should be marked the same at another MOT station , although in reality I think you will find it's not as black and white as you think .
It's not about letting cars drive around that are seriously and obviously dangerous , rather, it opens up a whole world of customers getting shafted by unscrupulous MOT stations imo .
-
GDCobra
North West,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,783
Thruxton (09->)


icon22 Mar 2018 19:33
Mach 1:
GDCobra:
I hardly think a blown bulb or out of spec' emissions would put the car into the dangerous category. .

I never said it was in the dangerous category , only that it was a fail :thumbup:

GDCobra:
Likewise you may get a difference of opinion on some minor point but I would think something which is dangerous would be unequivocal.

Again , I wasn't talking about dangerous points in general , only the fact that I take a vehicle for MOT without first checking it myself so that I know exactly what the MOT tester wants repaired if there are any failure points (and often advisories if the customer so wishes) . It saves time and money for the customer :thumbup:

But yes I would imagine that a component that is deemed dangerous should be marked the same at another MOT station , although in reality I think you will find it's not as black and white as you think .
It's not about letting cars drive around that are seriously and obviously dangerous , rather, it opens up a whole world of customers getting shafted by unscrupulous MOT stations imo .


But from your original post it is only the cars which fail in the "dangerous" category which can't be driven away, Minor or Major fails are no different to now (it is not clear if these are now subject to a further cost for retesting).
I'm assuming "Dangerous" would be a failure of a component which would affect control of the vehicle (steering, brakes ETC), corrosion/failure of structural components in chassis or suspension or fuel and oil leaks. Can't say I disagree with those vehicles not being allowed back on the road
-
Fretmeister
The Aquaduct?,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 63,727
Tiger Explorer


icon22 Mar 2018 20:54
There has ALWAYS been the red ticket as far as I know. If you got one then the garage would not let you take it away, so no change really there.
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon22 Mar 2018 22:23
Fretmeister:
There has ALWAYS been the red ticket as far as I know. If you got one then the garage would not let you take it away, so no change really there.

Never heard of a red ticket let alone had one issued on a vehicle . The old fail certificate used to be red , maybe that is what you mean .
GDCobra:
But from your original post it is only the cars which fail in the "dangerous" category which can't be driven away, Minor or Major fails are no different to now (it is not clear if these are now subject to a further cost for retesting).
I'm assuming "Dangerous" would be a failure of a component which would affect control of the vehicle (steering, brakes ETC), corrosion/failure of structural components in chassis or suspension or fuel and oil leaks. Can't say I disagree with those vehicles not being allowed back on the road

Currently you can take a car for MOT and certain components may be listed as faulty followed by *dangerous* in the description . Generally this is pointing out that these items need to be looked at immediately . It could be items you mentioned above , tyres is another one . Imo though , it doesn't mean you aren't able to get the vehicle home or to another garage driving in a sensible manner .
I can't be arsed to give examples of every single component that could be construed as dangerous , but there are quite a few that wouldn't endanger the driver in driving the vehicle away .
Possibly some MOT stations will look at "dangerous" categories a bit more careful but I highly doubt it , but we'll see 30 .
-
Julestools
In my shed somewhere,
United Kingdom

Bonneville T100 (02-08)


icon22 Mar 2018 22:54
McWill:
Great if it gets scrap of the roads for the one's that actually get their cars MOTd.


Are you gettin’ at me Mc?

Both my Landys will be 40+..... and therefore tax and MOT exempt

/media/file/103421.aspx

I’ll be laughing for a change

And the Chevy has been tax and MOT exempt since I was a lad :blush:

/media/file/114250.aspx
-
McWill
scotland,
United Kingdom

Sprint ST (05->)


icon23 Mar 2018 08:05
Nope, I was thinking more like the rust bucket that parks in my street and leaves a pools of oil on the road and driven by a mouth breathing idiot that has no clue what makes the wheels go round and round hopefully it will seize solid soon:smile:
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon23 Mar 2018 09:03
McWill:
Nope, I was thinking more like the rust bucket that parks in my street and leaves a pools of oil on the road and driven by a mouth breathing idiot that has no clue what makes the wheels go round and round hopefully it will seize solid soon:smile:


I agree , vehicles like that shouldn't be on the road. You'll probably find people like that know someone who will get them a dodgy MOT So, in fact, if they went for a proper MOT their vehicle would fail anyway on current laws
-
Hairy
Worcestershire,
United Kingdom

Posts: 122
Enthusiast


icon23 Mar 2018 11:08
had my rocket MOTd earlier this month, and they said then they can-not now take the old MOT certificate for the frame number they have to check themselves incase it is a ringer
-
TQ
OXFORDSHIRE,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 35,311
Speed Triple 1050


icon23 Mar 2018 14:04
mach1 , i am a mot tester ...it would have to be f!$%ing deadly to say they couldn't drive it away:lol: very few occasions have i seen it that its like that ..bring it to me:lol::tongueout: also its pretty much always some clown whos done the work on the vehicle them selves thats ever been a dangerous problem...have you got a w!$%y mot place:lol:
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon23 Mar 2018 14:49
TQ:
have you got a w!$%y mot place:lol:

Far from it TQ , I've been using the same MOT station for the last 25 years and we have a good working relationship . I was playing a bit of devil's advocate in the further posts from the original , but just pointing out pitfalls that could happen with the new laws .

TQ:
mach1 , i am a mot tester ...it would have to be f!$%ing deadly to say they couldn't drive it away very few occasions have i seen it that its like that

I would agree ,but I have seen components deemed as *dangerous* because of the excessive wear damage etc . Never been told not to drive it away though . I don't know if you have marked a component as dangerous before though
TQ:
also its pretty much always some clown whos done the work on the vehicle them selves thats ever been a dangerous problem..

It could be , but I find now a lot of drivers know less than nothing about cars and maintenance and they end up buying a minger with all the problems associated with it . Obviously why some people end getting finance deals on new cars so they don't end forking out for unforseen costs .
I just believe that it will allow certain MOT stations free reign to hammer the customer , the likes of KwikFit are bad enough as it is without them soon being able to retain your vehicle and you have to use them for repairs no matter the cost.
-
Freck
Preston, Lancs,
United Kingdom

Posts: 297
Daytona 955i (99-01)


icon23 Mar 2018 16:30
Julestools:
McWill:
Great if it gets scrap of the roads for the one's that actually get their cars MOTd.


Are you gettin’ at me Mc?

Both my Landys will be 40+..... and therefore tax and MOT exempt

/media/file/103421.aspx

I’ll be laughing for a change

And the Chevy has been tax and MOT exempt since I was a lad :blush:

/media/file/114250.aspx

I’ve never understood this, why should a 40+ year old car not need an MOT? I’d have thought that it would be more likely to need a good dose of looking at. :lol:
-
TQ
OXFORDSHIRE,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 35,311
Speed Triple 1050


icon23 Mar 2018 17:28
mach..nope never pressed the dangerous button, we dont repair cars , so would not be in the business of getting work from customers who dont really know any better..i agree it will be open to these types of places that rip off old ladies!!! as i say few times people have came in with brakes pissing out fluid on unions( older motors) ooh i just repaired brakes and put new lines in25 really ever done this before? 03 and they do burst now n then on brake tester ...no body ever died yet going to a mechanic to repair them..duel brake system oh and a hand brake..stop f!$%ing over complicating things...EU and all the pricks changing things for no good reason03
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon23 Mar 2018 17:57
TQ:
mach..nope never pressed the dangerous button, we dont repair cars , so would not be in the business of getting work from customers who dont really know any better

That's fair enough :thumbup:
As far as the station I use is concerned , the reason they would (at present) state dangerous on the fail sheet , is as I have said , to let the customer know that the component needs attention straight away. Bearing in mind you can take a car 30 days before MOT runs out it safeguards themselves against compensation claims if something were to happen between time MOT test carried out and old MOT runs out .
-
Fretmeister
The Aquaduct?,
United Kingdom

Premier Member
Posts: 63,727
Tiger Explorer


icon23 Mar 2018 18:44
Mach 1.
Our band had a transit van, MK1, which we sold and they took it for MOT and the Mcpherson struts and other rust was so bad they gave it a red ticket and wouldn't allow then to take it away for repair. This was around 1991
The ticket even stated the fact they could not drive it. The MOT had expired too.

Footnote.
The van was seen driving around though and I got a call at 4am one morning from the old bill, so something dodgy went on
-
Mach 1
Durham,
United Kingdom

Posts: 1,113
Bonneville (01-08)


icon23 Mar 2018 19:28
Fretmeister:
Mach 1.
Our band had a transit van, MK1, which we sold and they took it for MOT and the Mcpherson struts and other rust was so bad they gave it a red ticket and wouldn't allow then to take it away for repair. This was around 1991
The ticket even stated the fact they could not drive it. The MOT had expired too.

Footnote.
The van was seen driving around though and I got a call at 4am one morning from the old bill, so something dodgy went on


I've never heard of it before tbh , but there you go , you learn something new every day :thumbup:
It does show that even in 1991 there was provisions for a MOT station to safeguard the public from vehicles in dangerous conditions .
-
NextRSSPreviousSocial Forums > The Hinckley Arms > New MOT rules
-
Forum Jump:
-
Moderators: ~Bluelabel~ Boycie Homertrix
Who's Online?
Guests:53
Members:2
Premiers:1

top
Triumph Torque
- About Us
- Community Guidelines
- Contact Us
- Statistics
Site Information
- Site Help
- Site Status
- Site Updates
Member Information
- Login / Register
- Merchandise
- Obituaries