Just had another call from MOT Station, the CV gators were temp repaired.

The Mad Hat Man said:

I disabled sigs on my usercp - after some peeps started having ridiculously long ones

Click to expand...

well just FYI then, yours takes up the ole screen.

TheVengefulElephant said:

well just FYI then, yours takes up the ole screen.

Click to expand...

yup - these Atari consoles with Philips CM8333 monitors are a bastard - aint they

jay140285 said:

Just had another call from MOT Station, the CV gators were temp repaired.

Click to expand...

Looks like one of them has wire around it. But the leak is good enough for a fail. The other one has nothing to temporary repair. There is not enough left of flange to fasten to anything. And no evidence of any fastening material. Grease left home months ago. This vehicle has done 100 miles since the test, the gaiter that has detached has been running free a lot longer than that in my view to have worn the rubber away to such an extent. We now know that CharlesY is a mate of Alan Mills the tester. That is how Alan Mills obtained my AOL AIM address. CharlesY came on demanding the testing station ID. You posted it and then it kicked off. You have compromised VOSAs station check, you should tell them this. Also demand that they inspect the vehicle. The brake pipes are a death trap. They must have been near that condition at time of test. Indeed they are listed as rusty in the advisory section of the fail sheet on the first test. They then miraculously derust themselves for the second pass test later in the day, as there are no advisories. Brake pipes do not go from light surface rust (passable) to hang your hat on rusticles in three months. It just does not happen. Those brake pipes in my view have been merrily rusting away since last years snow, after picking up road salt which has not been rinsed off. So they have been progressing to their present condition for nine to twelve months or longer. And in my view would not have been passable in an MOT three months ago. Mr Mills has dropped a bollock and is trying to wriggle out of it. He will be well aware of VOSAs rules on rust and unfortunatly will probably get away with it. At least this will keep him on his toes for a while. Now that is sorted get stuck into the dealer who may unfortunatly have been just as mislead by Mr Mills MOT as you were with the dealers description and claims of checks done to the the vehicle.

wammers said:

Looks like one of them has wire around it. But the leak is good enough for a fail. The other one has nothing to temporary repair. There is not enough left of flange to fasten to anything. And no evidence of any fastening material. Grease left home months ago. This vehicle has done 100 miles since the test, the gaiter that has detached has been running free a lot longer than that in my view to have worn the rubber away to such an extent. We now know that CharlesY is a mate of Alan Mills the tester. That is how Alan Mills obtained my AOL AIM address. CharlesY came on demanding the testing station ID. You posted it and then it kicked off. You have compromised VOSAs station check, you should tell them this. Also demand that they inspect the vehicle. The brake pipes are a death trap. They must have been near that condition at time of test. Indeed they are listed as rusty in the advisory section of the fail sheet on the first test. They then miraculously derust themselves for the second pass test later in the day, as there are no advisories. Brake pipes do not go from light surface rust (passable) to hang your hat on rusticles in three months. It just does not happen. Those brake pipes in my view have been merrily rusting away since last years snow, after picking up road salt which has not been rinsed off. So they have been progressing to their present condition for nine to twelve months or longer. And in my view would not have been passable in an MOT three months ago. Mr Mills has dropped a bollock and is trying to wriggle out of it. He will be well aware of VOSAs rules on rust and unfortunatly will probably get away with it. At least this will keep him on his toes for a while. Now that is sorted get stuck into the dealer who may unfortunatly have been just as mislead by Mr Mills MOT as you were with the dealers description and claims of checks done to the the vehicle.

Click to expand...

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

thats the long and the short of it where the mot is concerned.

as for the dealer if he advertised as " all vehicles are fully checked" then he has broken the law by false advertising and IMHO hasnt got a leg to stand on.

jay140285 said:

Well the tester has said that it failed on the CV gators, and all other items were advisories.

He said that the CV gators were replaced, but they still look like this:

He also said the Brake pipes had been an advisory for 2yrs,

My tester that viewed and inspected the car then said he would never have passed the car with brake pipes on that condition.

According to the tester, the previous owner part exchanged the car at a main dealer just after the MOT was carried out, given the amount of work required to get the car up to standard again.

This is likely I suppose, if anything it proves that all the issues were present back in July, before the Trader I got the car from brought it. Also as previously mentioned the Trader got the car for about 2k, this seems low to me for a car that he sold as been in excellent condition.

Click to expand...

What was the claimed mileage on the car? From your photo's it looks like it's been round the clock and it's on it' second pass
No such thing as a temporary repair on a CV gaiter, they are either good or they need replacing.

I hope you are mistaken, Wammers, as CharlesY is a long established and respected member of LZ. That does not mean, of course, that he aint involved. We have had others on here before and, no doubt, will have in the future. Time will tell.

The car was sold as having 69400miles on the clock.

My old man had a 5series that was 10yrs when he sold it in 2007, it had covered 168,000 and was in excellent order compared to my Rangie with 100k less on the clock.

hmmmm - mite be worth looking further at directors ....

The Mad Hat Man said:

I hope you are mistaken, Wammers, as CharlesY is a long established and respected member of LZ. That does not mean, of course, that he aint involved. We have had others on here before and, no doubt, will have in the future. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

The only way Mr Mills could have gained my AIM address is from a member of this forum from my details. As far as i am aware CharlesY is the only person who is a member and in contact with Mr Mills. Form your own conclusions.

not completely true - if yu google a username and landyzone it will come up with yo profile. But wot do I know? Your speculum seems a distinct possibility.

Surely any visitor to the forum can get this information from your profile?

Barsman said:

Code:

The only way Mr Mills could have gained my AIM address is from a member of this forum from my details. As far as i am aware CharlesY is the only person who is a member and in contact with Mr Mills. Form your own conclusions.

Surely any visitor to the forum can get this information from your profile?

Click to expand...

Yes have just checked and you are correct, i thought you could only view if you were a member. But i will bet my assumption is correct never the less.

wammers said:

Looks like one of them has wire around it. But the leak is good enough for a fail. The other one has nothing to temporary repair. There is not enough left of flange to fasten to anything. And no evidence of any fastening material. Grease left home months ago. This vehicle has done 100 miles since the test, the gaiter that has detached has been running free a lot longer than that in my view to have worn the rubber away to such an extent. We now know that CharlesY is a mate of Alan Mills the tester. That is how Alan Mills obtained my AOL AIM address. CharlesY came on demanding the testing station ID. You posted it and then it kicked off. You have compromised VOSAs station check, you should tell them this. Also demand that they inspect the vehicle. The brake pipes are a death trap. They must have been near that condition at time of test. Indeed they are listed as rusty in the advisory section of the fail sheet on the first test. They then miraculously derust themselves for the second pass test later in the day, as there are no advisories. Brake pipes do not go from light surface rust (passable) to hang your hat on rusticles in three months. It just does not happen. Those brake pipes in my view have been merrily rusting away since last years snow, after picking up road salt which has not been rinsed off. So they have been progressing to their present condition for nine to twelve months or longer. And in my view would not have been passable in an MOT three months ago. Mr Mills has dropped a bollock and is trying to wriggle out of it. He will be well aware of VOSAs rules on rust and unfortunatly will probably get away with it. At least this will keep him on his toes for a while. Now that is sorted get stuck into the dealer who may unfortunatly have been just as mislead by Mr Mills MOT as you were with the dealers description and claims of checks done to the the vehicle.

Click to expand...

WAMMERS,

You completely fail to see the situation of an MoT Test.
To avoid a FAIL, the listed items must meet a basic MINIMUM STANDARD ON THE DAY OF THE TEST, no more that that.

The MoT testers have SOME discretion, but not a lot. ADVISORIES is their main way of telling an owner to get things done.

The MoT test is NOT a certificate saying the car was as good as new and will be for a year. That would be silly.

Take brake pipes that are rusty as an example - should every MoT tester fail every car if there is ANY rust on a pipe? Where is the line drawn? ALL steel brake pipes will be rusty on the outside. So if the tester thinks a pipe is dodgy, he gives the brake pedal an almighty push during the brake test. If the pipe fails (leaks, bursts), MoT FAIL there and then. If the pipe does NOT burst or leak, what grounds does the tester have to fail it? If he does he faces an immediate appeal to VOSA.

And believe me Mr Wammers, brakes pipes CAN go from OK to burst in a lot less than three months. However, the fact was ON THE DAY OF THE TEST, the pipes showed surface rust, the pipes PASSED a severe pressure test, and the MoT Tester listed an advisory. What more can he do?

Same with wiring on a CV gaiter. Question is this - YES or NO, when tested, was the CV gaiter securely in place? If the answer is YES, the tester must pass that item. It need NOT be secured with the same clip as original. A well fitted cable-tie or proper tying-wire well done MUST be treated as acceptable.

BASIC MINIMUM STANDARD ON THE DAY OF THE TEST, Mr Wammers, no more than that. BRAND NEW STANDARDS is NOT what the MoT requires.

This is the sort of Posting Series that causes decent people to wonder about the type of people they are mixing with on a forum.

Meantime, Mr Mills and Jay the buyer of the RR P-38 are in touch, and Jay is now beginning to realise just how things might have gone wrong here, like the bent Panhard Rod .... probably a ratchet strap over it on a transporter, happens a lot. Mr Mills may soon be able to provide significant information about this case, so best not upset him Mr Wammers or he can just walk away.

Mr Wammers, your final remarks are a disgrace. You wouldn't be making comments like that to Mr Mills's face I think. You bravely do it from hundreds of miles away, because you are a big expert.

CharlesY

Ok Fellas ..I've just sat back here & watched all this **** flyin around & I would say this .........................

All this **** about the MOT is COMPLETELY IRRELIVENT WHY????? coz the "Dealer" who Jay bought the P38 off clearly advertised it as "FULLY INSPECTED BEFORE SALE" VEHICLE...Which quite clearly IT WASN'T...

Jay has NO CONNECTION to the MOT station it was THE DEALER that bought it & therefore HIS responsibility to "Take to Task" the MOT station (Now he has been "Made Aware" of the faults.)

If I bought a car from a local dealer Advertised as "Fully Inspected before sale" & 2 days later the ****in wheels fall off do you think I'd be persuin the guy the dealer got it from ???? NOT ****IN LIKELY!!! I'd be srtaight round to THE GUY I BOUGHT IT FROM askin fer me money back its then HIS PIGEON to "Take to task" the PERSON HE BOUGHT IT FROM.


Bottom line is ... it was (& STILL IS) an "Unsalable Vehicle" the fact that the "dealer" Jay bought it from TRUSTED the person HE bought it from was HIS first mistake, HIS second was NOT CHECKING IT HIMSELF & HIS third & final mistake was tryin to Wriggkle out of his responsibilities.


All this MOT **** is just cloudin Jay's judgement he DOES NOT need to know the in's & out's of a P38's cats arse He DOES NOT need to know who, what, why or when the MOT was done/not done THATS THE DEALERS PIGEON NOT JAY'S ....

Jay's "Contract of Sale" is with the DEALER NOT some MOT station 400 miles away .....What this "Mr Mills" tells Jay about said MOT DOES NOT alter the fact that the dealer Jay bought it from IS RESPONSIBLE for THAT VEHICLE AT TIME OF SALE TO JAY!!!!

the hooded claw said:

Ok Fellas ..I've just sat back here & watched all this **** flyin around & I would say this .........................

All this **** about the MOT is COMPLETELY IRRELIVENT WHY????? coz the "Dealer" who Jay bought the P38 off clearly advertised it as "FULLY INSPECTED BEFORE SALE" VEHICLE...Which quite clearly IT WASN'T...

Jay has NO CONNECTION to the MOT station it was THE DEALER that bought it & therefore HIS responsibility to "Take to Task" the MOT station (Now he has been "Made Aware" of the faults.)

If I bought a car from a local dealer Advertised as "Fully Inspected before sale" & 2 days later the ****in wheels fall off do you think I'd be persuin the guy the dealer got it from ???? NOT ****IN LIKELY!!! I'd be srtaight round to THE GUY I BOUGHT IT FROM askin fer me money back its then HIS PIGEON to "Take to task" the PERSON HE BOUGHT IT FROM.


Bottom line is ... it was (& STILL IS) an "Unsalable Vehicle" the fact that the "dealer" Jay bought it from TRUSTED the person HE bought it from was HIS first mistake, HIS second was NOT CHECKING IT HIMSELF & HIS third & final mistake was tryin to Wriggkle out of his responsibilities.


All this MOT **** is just cloudin Jay's judgement he DOES NOT need to know the in's & out's of a P38's cats arse He DOES NOT need to know who, what, why or when the MOT was done/not done THATS THE DEALERS PIGEON NOT JAY'S ....

Jay's "Contract of Sale" is with the DEALER NOT some MOT station 400 miles away .....What this "Mr Mills" tells Jay about said MOT DOES NOT alter the fact that the dealer Jay bought it from IS RESPONSIBLE for THAT VEHICLE AT TIME OF SALE TO JAY!!!!

Click to expand...

That is absolutely right. The MOT is a side issue.

CharlesY said:

WAMMERS,

You completely fail to see the situation of an MoT Test.
To avoid a FAIL, the listed items must meet a basic MINIMUM STANDARD ON THE DAY OF THE TEST, no more that that.

The MoT testers have SOME discretion, but not a lot. ADVISORIES is their main way of telling an owner to get things done.

The MoT test is NOT a certificate saying the car was as good as new and will be for a year. That would be silly.

Take brake pipes that are rusty as an example - should every MoT tester fail every car if there is ANY rust on a pipe? Where is the line drawn? ALL steel brake pipes will be rusty on the outside. So if the tester thinks a pipe is dodgy, he gives the brake pedal an almighty push during the brake test. If the pipe fails (leaks, bursts), MoT FAIL there and then. If the pipe does NOT burst or leak, what grounds does the tester have to fail it? If he does he faces an immediate appeal to VOSA.

And believe me Mr Wammers, brakes pipes CAN go from OK to burst in a lot less than three months. However, the fact was ON THE DAY OF THE TEST, the pipes showed surface rust, the pipes PASSED a severe pressure test, and the MoT Tester listed an advisory. What more can he do?

Same with wiring on a CV gaiter. Question is this - YES or NO, when tested, was the CV gaiter securely in place? If the answer is YES, the tester must pass that item. It need NOT be secured with the same clip as original. A well fitted cable-tie or proper tying-wire well done MUST be treated as acceptable.

BASIC MINIMUM STANDARD ON THE DAY OF THE TEST, Mr Wammers, no more than that. BRAND NEW STANDARDS is NOT what the MoT requires.

This is the sort of Posting Series that causes decent people to wonder about the type of people they are mixing with on a forum.

Meantime, Mr Mills and Jay the buyer of the RR P-38 are in touch, and Jay is now beginning to realise just how things might have gone wrong here, like the bent Panhard Rod .... probably a ratchet strap over it on a transporter, happens a lot. Mr Mills may soon be able to provide significant information about this case, so best not upset him Mr Wammers or he can just walk away.

Mr Wammers, your final remarks are a disgrace. You wouldn't be making comments like that to Mr Mills's face I think. You bravely do it from hundreds of miles away, because you are a big expert.

CharlesY

Click to expand...

Dear Mr CharlesY. Brake pipes do not go from surface rust without major pitting (passable) to the condition of those in three months. Don't try to teach your granny to suck eggs. You can pull the wool over a lot of peoples eyes on here but not mine mate. I have been in this game 50 years you are talking through your arse. In my opinion the brake pipes were in or very close to the condition in the photograph at the time of test and should have been failed, simple as that. If you have someone who is willing to put a life at risk by passing them that is their problem. It is my view that whomsoever signed them off should have his ticket revoked. I have never mentioned a panard rod but seeing as you did, yes it does look like it has been heated to straighten it. As for not saying these things to someones face. You bet i would.

wammers said:

Looks like one of them has wire around it. But the leak is good enough for a fail. The other one has nothing to temporary repair. There is not enough left of flange to fasten to anything. And no evidence of any fastening material. Grease left home months ago. This vehicle has done 100 miles since the test, the gaiter that has detached has been running free a lot longer than that in my view to have worn the rubber away to such an extent. We now know that CharlesY is a mate of Alan Mills the tester. That is how Alan Mills obtained my AOL AIM address. CharlesY came on demanding the testing station ID. You posted it and then it kicked off. You have compromised VOSAs station check, you should tell them this. Also demand that they inspect the vehicle. The brake pipes are a death trap. They must have been near that condition at time of test. Indeed they are listed as rusty in the advisory section of the fail sheet on the first test. They then miraculously derust themselves for the second pass test later in the day, as there are no advisories. Brake pipes do not go from light surface rust (passable) to hang your hat on rusticles in three months. It just does not happen. Those brake pipes in my view have been merrily rusting away since last years snow, after picking up road salt which has not been rinsed off. So they have been progressing to their present condition for nine to twelve months or longer. And in my view would not have been passable in an MOT three months ago. Mr Mills has dropped a bollock and is trying to wriggle out of it. He will be well aware of VOSAs rules on rust and unfortunatly will probably get away with it. At least this will keep him on his toes for a while. Now that is sorted get stuck into the dealer who may unfortunatly have been just as mislead by Mr Mills MOT as you were with the dealers description and claims of checks done to the the vehicle.

Click to expand...

I was going to say how do you know Alan Mills was the tester until I seen Dafts post.

Lost all respect for CharlesY.

Datatek said:

That is absolutely right. The MOT is a side issue.

Click to expand...

A side issue that could have killed someone.

oh ffs P shut u here will ya