| Author | Post |
|---|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13th, 2010 06:01 pm |
|
| Thanks Bimmer.
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13th, 2010 05:35 pm |
|
good point, and i assume there was no emissions printout.
Last edited on Sat Mar 13th, 2010 05:39 pm by bimmer
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13th, 2010 05:29 pm |
|
p.s. the 1992 Car did not "pass" its MOT as it was tested incorrectly!
Kev
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13th, 2010 05:22 pm |
|
it may cost you another test fee, but what price do you put on peace of mind.
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13th, 2010 04:13 pm |
|
Are you satisfied the rest of the test was completed correctly? It is a Safety test after all!
Kev.
|
Clifford Pope
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 11th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12th, 2010 08:02 am |
|
Thanks Kev.
As it obviously worked in my favour I'm not particularly worried about querying it. It just seemed odd that the same tester, who had himself joked about just how many white Volvo estates I was going to bring in, should see nothing odd in applying such different standards.
It was a cut-price KwikFit MOT, but otherwise seemed very thorough. One car failed on a worn anti roll bar bush, and on retest he put it back up on the lift and switched on the joggler machine. If he had felt lazy one glance underneath would have shown the clean rubber bush and its new uncorroded metal clamp.
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11th, 2010 10:13 pm |
|
Hi Again.
The tester does NOT do what the computer tells him.
He would certainly know it was not a pre 75 car!
Its normally down to laziness.
Has the rest of the test been carried out OK?
Contact the garage concerned and ask for their view.
Kev
|
Clifford Pope
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 11th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11th, 2010 09:19 pm |
|
That's what I thought from reading the rules. The Visual test on the 1992 car was clearly a mistake somewhere.
Is it correct procedure for a tester to ignore a mistake and carry on regardless, or is he supposed to query the computer record with VOSA?
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11th, 2010 04:20 pm |
|
Hi Clifford POPE.
I dont wish to Pontificate (I bet youve heard that one before!)
However both your Volvos are required to be connected to the emmisions machine.. Visual checks only appy to cars first used before august the first 1975.
Kev
Sorry about the joke!
|
bimmer
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 478 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11th, 2010 04:06 pm |
|
hi clifford
have a look at this link. http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m3s07000305.htm
|
Clifford Pope
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 11th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 11th, 2010 09:25 am |
|
I took my two almost identical Volvo 240s to the same MOT tester recently, and they were tested as follows;
1989 - Given a non-CAT test and passed at < 3.5% CO
1992 - Given a Visual exhaust check only - passed.
I asked the tester out of curiosity why they had been tested differently, and he said it's nothing to do with him, he just does what the computer tells him.
I'm not complaining, just puzzled. Is one of these a mistake?
|
Current time is 07:44 pm | |
|
