wammers said:
Not in my opinion, if the joints are otherwise sound no it doesn't. But the dickheads at VOSA say it does. Totally bloody ridiculous but sadly i don't make the rules.
Click to expand...
The problem comes when the current perfect ball joint boot allows 12 months worth of dirt and water in before the next MOT. The joint will be worn out, possibly dangerously so by then. This is why it's a failure for the boot to be split. In the same way that a split rack gaiter or CV joint gaiter is a fail.
 
Nodge68 said:
The problem comes when the current perfect ball joint boot allows 12 months worth of dirt and water in before the next MOT. The joint will be worn out, possibly dangerously so by then. This is why it's a failure for the boot to be split. In the same way that a split rack gaiter or CV joint gaiter is a fail.
Click to expand...

There is no consideration to how long something will last in the MOT it is at time of test only. A totally knackered dust cover i can live with, but a slight nick is a ridiculous fail as long as the ball joint is in otherwise good condition. Advisory yes but a fail is stupid.
 
wammers said:
There is no consideration to how long something will last in the MOT it is at time of test only. A totally knackered dust cover i can live with, but a slight nick is a ridiculous fail as long as the ball joint is in otherwise good condition. Advisory yes but a fail is stupid.
Click to expand...
I know it seems ridiculous to you as well as me but someone somewhere says it's a failure. The fact that it might be of no consequence for a tiny nick to be in the boot is irrelevant. VOSA says it's a failure, so it is ;)
 
Not sure what the OP wants us to say. It's a fail. It's not like we made the rules. I get it that it's frustrating but there you go.
 
Nodge68 said:
I know it seems ridiculous to you as well as me but someone somewhere says it's a failure. The fact that it might be of no consequence for a tiny nick to be in the boot is irrelevant. VOSA says it's a failure, so it is ;)
Click to expand...

That is just the point they don't. They say excessively damaged so as not to prevent the ingress of dirt. Therefore a slight nick or crack is not a fail. Bet there are a lot of testers that say it is though to get the work. A slight nick providing the joint is otherwise sound should be an advisory and not a direct fail, bloody stupid. The MOT is getting ridiculous. Steering lock not working or removed is a fail. Why?
 
Did the mot testers course in Jan. ....straight from the horses mouth. :)

When your car passes a MOT the expiry date is the expiry date. THE END :) Its a legal doc and can only be revoked by the Queen.
You can have as many MOTs as you like and your car can fail everytime....it does NOT cancel the unexpired MOT. In the eyes of the law you have a valid MOT.

A valid MOT does not mean your car is fit for the road. It means it passed the MOT on the date of the test.

A car can fail on a 1000 items and be declared dangerous to drive at a MOT but you can still drive it away if you like. No MOT station can stop you from driving away if you pay for the test even if your car as broken in half and has 1 wheel :)
 
EeEk said:
Did the mot testers course in Jan. ....straight from the horses mouth. :)

When your car passes a MOT the expiry date is the expiry date. THE END :) Its a legal doc and can only be revoked by the Queen.
You can have as many MOTs as you like and your car can fail everytime....it does NOT cancel the unexpired MOT. In the eyes of the law you have a valid MOT.

A valid MOT does not mean your car is fit for the road. It means it passed the MOT on the date of the test.

A car can fail on a 1000 items and be declared dangerous to drive at a MOT but you can still drive it away if you like. No MOT station can stop you from driving away if you pay for the test even if your car as broken in half and has 1 wheel :)
Click to expand...

Think you need to take that up with VOSA they seem to think differently according to all reports.
 
wammers said:
That is just the point they don't. They say excessively damaged so as not to prevent the ingress of dirt. Therefore a slight nick or crack is not a fail. Bet there are a lot of testers that say it is though to get the work. A slight nick providing the joint is otherwise sound should be an advisory and not a direct fail, bloody stupid. The MOT is getting ridiculous. Steering lock not working or removed is a fail. Why?
Click to expand...

Yip Id agree thats only 2 items that are pointless.....theres more than that. :) Depends if your tester is an arse or not. The guy on my MOT course stated more than once "theres a well know technical term to decide if an item should fail....it has to be ****ED to fail....everything else is pass and advise"
 
EeEk said:
Yip Id agree thats only 2 items that are pointless.....theres more than that. :) Depends if your tester is an arse or not. The guy on my MOT course stated more than once "theres a well know technical term to decide if an item should fail....it has to be ****ED to fail....everything else is pass and advise"
Click to expand...

Yes that is the correct outlook. Also down to experience, in my day you had to have done a five year apprenticeship then two years on the tools to be considered as a tester. Now you only need to have swept the garage floor a bit and have an NVQ. :D:D
 
EeEk said:
He was VOSA or DVSA as they are known now.

He also said the internet was full of lies :)
Click to expand...

A lot of the people from VOSA wouldn't know a fail if they fell over one. They are just classroom mechanics. :D
 
wammers said:
Yes that is the correct outlook. Also down to experience, in my day you had to have done a five year apprenticeship then two years on the tools to be considered as a tester. Now you only need to have swept the garage floor a bit and have an NVQ. :D:D
Click to expand...
Thats about to change :)
Its going to change to accreditation by a list of various organisations.....no more 3 months in Kwikfit and your an MOT tester.
 
I agree this is a ridiculous situation.

The vast majority of people consider (rightly or wrongly) the MOT to be an examination of their car to ensure its safe to drive until the next MOT. As such, if it is to have a real purpose, that is what it should aim to achieve. Therefore, serious problems that are a danger now should result in the car being classified unroadworthy at that point, but all other fails (ie problems with a high likelyhood of creating an issue to make the car unroadworthy in the next 12 months) should get a grace period of (something like) 2 weeks to be fixed.

When a car goes in for a MOT the previous MOT (if it has not expired) should automatically be cancelled. The test at that date should be the only thing that matters going forward and if should be a Pass, Fail Unroadworthy or Temporary Pass (for the grace period).

That's my simple man's perspective!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
New MOT regs re diesels?
2
Replies
20
Views
980
lrmonks
L
cjbroaders
L322 Rusty Sills (2006 L322) Repair Yorkshire
Replies
0
Views
272
cjbroaders
cjbroaders
F
Where to sell FL1 if I don’t have sufficient posts?
Replies
13
Views
856
Dar ran Dar ran
Dar ran Dar ran
S
Chassis change out
Replies
4
Views
144
Stu@69
S
Radar1946
P38A Mobile mechanic near Lichfield, Staffs.
Replies
6
Views
252
Radar1946
Radar1946