| Author | Post |
|---|
volksjim
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 5th, 2010 05:34 pm |
|
hmmmmmmmmm!!
point took..now if only my ex-ve would have took the point i would listen to you
|
Macboydog
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:18 am |
|
Volksjim
You seriously need a refresher course.
Prescribed area means any supporting structure. Tin plate bolt on is NOT a supporting structure.
Townend
You got it in one. You are the fall guy here.
You can use your bosses escape in any subsequent appeal, because it brings the VE's report into dispute.
Ve's have to meet their targets, otherwise they get whined at. So some will always push the rules. They usually cop it eventually though.
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 10:30 pm |
|
Nope. Nothing. I think the reason being the VOSA guy thought we might have grounds for an appeal and if my boss was to get punished for his mistake, he'd be more likely to want to appeal. Whereas because it was just me that got hit, and they came across as being leniant towards him, he'd be less likely to want to ruffle any feathers. I might be wrong but that's how it seemed. Why else would someone get away with with missing a rotten (inadequately repaired) handbrake mounting crossmember?
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 10:31 pm by townend81
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Brussels |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:05 pm |
|
So did he get a formal warning ?
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 08:53 am |
|
volksjim wrote: feel for ya dude but rear panel although not being structural still lies within prescribed area of rear suspension a little quirk that catches a lot of us out sadly as for your boss he could argue he only tested the parts that you failed hence he might get less action taken against him
I know what your saying mate but not every piece of metal within a prescribed area is an automatic fail. It has to "actively" support the component related to the area in question. This is where VOSA said I went wrong, although I dont agree. I cant remember what appendix this is in the manual but it's clearly stated.
And my boss is having no action taken against him.
|
volksjim
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 01:11 am |
|
| feel for ya dude but rear panel although not being structural still lies within prescribed area of rear suspension a little quirk that catches a lot of us out sadly as for your boss he could argue he only tested the parts that you failed hence he might get less action taken against him
|
gaz657
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 09:14 am |
|
| Was any action taken against your boss as a tester? if not why not he issued the VT20? personnally I would write to the complaints department in Bristol. State that you were never given the oportunity to examine the vehicle, you could not be expected to assess the extent of the corrosion from the photographs to determine how much force was used to create the holes, how much time and miles from your examination. a whole load of other questions that could be asked. The reason the examiner has reduced the points and seemed to do his best for you is so you don't complain and he looks good in front of his boss.
|
Macboydog
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 02:12 pm |
|
How come you got 60 points for the sill, when the maximum points for that error would only be 40 (Testers Guide Appendix 8.2).
Also the rear panel defect seems a bit iffy.
You really need to get advice on this judgement.
Oh and by the way the nice VOSA man makes things "painless" because it saves having an argument with the offenders. Less stress you see...
Now then. Although this judgement cannot be appealed (only VOSA can get away with this).
The case can be brought up at any subsequent disciplinary action. So keep all the paperwork for future reference.
The real moral of the story is stand up for your rights and don't let them grind you down...
Still, I bet you you will be failing cars for full ashtrays now. lol.
Dave
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
Hi Wes.
Yeah, I've had the verdict back. 90 points in total. 60 for the drivers door sill (my bad) and 30 for the rear "crossmember". He said they grouped all the points related to the rear panel together for some unknown reason. I still dont agree with the rear panel verdict but I dont think I'm in the position to start arguing because they could've made it alot worse. I checked the manual after and it said the panel in question had to 'actively' support the components in question (rear shackle brackets and tow bar mounts) and I personally dont believe this panel did. It was held on to the end of the chassis with 6 spot welds on either side. I doubt thats going to support the stresses put on a towbar and suspension mounting. I mean, the towbar itself acted as a stronger crossmeber than the panel. But it's done now. And to be fair I think the VOSA inspector tried to make it as painless as possible for me. At the end of the day, I messed up and had to face the consequences.
The inadequate handbrake repair that my boss missed on the re-test....no action taken.
I now look at my job in a different light. I think the MOT scheme is excellent, but not all aspects of it are.
Moral of the story, If you get a rusty old shed in, ignore your boss and spend as much time MOT'ing it as you need. Just get it right.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 09:43 pm |
|
townend81 wrote: Ok, thanks everyone. I'll bear everything in mind and wait for the letter and decide from there. There was definately some dubious goings on involved but whether that'll matter now i've had the formal interview is another matter. I'll let you know what the letter says when it arrives.
Hi,
Any news or update?
wes.
|
castrolrob
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 09:31 pm |
|
good luck guy,dont stress too much,difference of opinion is pretty minor as regards discipliniary action,you really gotta f*** up big time before anything major happens to you,let us know how it lands.
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 09:49 pm |
|
As will I and anyone else thats read this thread from now on.
I suppose it was just a series of unfortunate events and a lack of time that led to the mistake.
hey ho, life will go on.Last edited on Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 09:49 pm by townend81
|
castrolrob
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 3rd, 2009 07:57 pm |
|
have had similar,the board concerned is normally welded on with the seperate chassis variants.i asked this question of a vosa examiner 4 yrs ago who was watching me test it in our gaff,pointed out to him that although it obviously wasnt supporting any weight by their regs it was a prescribed area and asked for his opinion on whether i would receive points for passing it.his exact reply was "i agree with you,its obviously not structural"i asked again whether this this meant i would get points in the event of an appeal or not.in the absence of an answer that he was willing to sign off on that indicated i could pass it i failed it instead and have done so ever since.
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 11:59 pm |
|
| Ok, thanks everyone. I'll bear everything in mind and wait for the letter and decide from there. There was definately some dubious goings on involved but whether that'll matter now i've had the formal interview is another matter. I'll let you know what the letter says when it arrives.
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
Martins advice is excellent, Townend. I found myself taking a look at the VOSA procedures after reading this thread earlier and, in typical Govt Agency fashion, they seem to like playing God.
Their whole disciplinary and appeal procedure is legally flawed because there is no independent appeal. Please don't get me into the case law here but a final appeal to the Secretary of State, which he delegates back to a department within the Agency, is legally not an independent appeal no matter what they say.
Now, I'd suggest you don't go shouting that at them yourself, but a professional MOT consultant will be well aware of those issues as well as some of the dubious (by your report) matters in the hearing today.
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
removalizer wrote: Shouldnt worry VOSA aint daft they will realise the van is a shed and you did all you could, they would find it hard pushed to argue the light board as structural
It's funny you should say that removalizer, I'm pretty sure those words are pretty close to what came out of the guys mouth....
"The vans a shed and should be in the scrap heap, doesn't matter how many times you patch it, it'll always rust before it's next MOT"
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 10:53 pm |
|
| Thanks Martins. I'll mention it to my boss.
|
martins
Administrator
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 09:40 pm |
|
| I know I always say this, but you should always contact a specialist MOT consultant in these cases - they will know what your options are.
|
townend81
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 07:36 pm |
|
Ok thanks nicknak.
I'll tell you exactly how that part of the conversation went.
He asked me the question...Do you see now after looking at the photos how the panel in question could be considered a supporting panel?
My answer...Yes
Later on in the interview when he was reviewing the questions he stopped at the question and said he wanted to change it. He added a part that made it say...Do you see now after looking at the photos that the panel in question is welded on and that it is a supporting panel?
Naturally I changed my answer. I immediately replied...No, I came to the decision I did because if I remember correctly the panel in question was bolted on. I can understand how it 'might' be considered a supporting panel but dont fully agree otherwise I would have failed it. If I could see the panel in person I would remember how I came to that decision.
And then he stopped and had a think to himself. I reckon he thought how my answer might cause a bit of bother because I wasn't there when he conducted the test and also I couldn't see it in person on the day. so after a long pause he said he had decided to change his question back to how it was originally saying to me that my boss probably has the guys phone number and that I'd probably get to see the van at a later date back at the test station. His whole attitude changed during this question and he looked uneasy and kept trying to change the subject. I didn't think I was in the best position to argue at the time so left it how it was.
Last edited on Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 07:39 pm by townend81
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Brussels |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 07:32 pm |
|
Shouldnt worry VOSA aint daft they will realise the van is a shed and you did all you could, they would find it hard pushed to argue the light board as structural
|
Current time is 08:29 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
