| Author | Post |
|---|
relisys
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 10:02 pm |
|
In this case the garage is owned by the NT.
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 755 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 09:59 pm |
|
castrolrob wrote:
we had a guy at our place do similar,nearly 600 points we ended up with.he only got banned for two years as well.shud have been banned for life.us?we spend the next 5 yrs treading on eggshells with vosa.wot a f***ed up system.how can someone screw up so badly,stick everyone elses job on the brink of the toilet seat and not get flushed down it themselves?
thankfully there is nowt like that goes on at my work , I am the main tester , the boss is AE & a tester ( hardly does any ) there is another lad who tests but doesn't do that many & also sticks to the rules , just the way it should be .
|
castrolrob
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 08:54 pm |
|
we had a guy at our place do similar,nearly 600 points we ended up with.he only got banned for two years as well.shud have been banned for life.us?we spend the next 5 yrs treading on eggshells with vosa.wot a f***ed up system.how can someone screw up so badly,stick everyone elses job on the brink of the toilet seat and not get flushed down it themselves?
|
relisys
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 07:46 pm |
|
I agree 100%. This is an example of a garage giving honest garages a bad name. You can not compete against people like this because for every 1 caught 100's get away with it.
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 755 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 07:41 pm |
|
relisys wrote:
A recent case – this information is in the public domain due to court proceedings.
An NT was presented with a vehicle for test by a local trader. The vehicle fails its test and the trader takes the vehicle back. It is not known whether repairs are carried out but it is not retested. The trader sells the car on to customer A and promises to post the MOT Certificate on. Some weeks later customer A calls the trader asking about the MOT Certificate. Trader sends certificate to Customer A. In the mean time and unknown to the trader or NT Customer A has sold the car on to person B in a different city. Customer A sends the MOT Certificate to person B who straightaway looks at the issue date. Certificate has been issued whilst vehicle is in the possession of person B so how could it have been tested? VOSA are informed and speak to NT who insists vehicle was tested at the test station. Person B provides a statement to VOSA saying vehicle could not have been tested and was in their possession at the time MOT Certificate issued. VOSA return to NT and present the evidence. NT maintains his story that the vehicle was tested at the premises and can only suggest that he was presented with a ringer so there must be 2 vehicles carrying the same identity. VOSA not being convinced and now being told about ringers involve the Police. As soon as the Police are involved NT admits he issued the MOT Certificate without the vehicle being on the premises. The VE and his manager recommend VOSA strip the NT’s garage of authority to test. The NT is also the AE in this case. VOSA disagree and instead suspend the NT from testing for 2 years, charge him with the fraudulent issue of a MOT Certificate and at court he is fined £2000.
Does the punishment fit the crime?
that is well out of order , he should have had his testing licence revoked forever , it's dodge pots like that giving others a bad name .
|
relisys
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 07:01 pm |
|
A recent case – this information is in the public domain due to court proceedings.
An NT was presented with a vehicle for test by a local trader. The vehicle fails its test and the trader takes the vehicle back. It is not known whether repairs are carried out but it is not retested. The trader sells the car on to customer A and promises to post the MOT Certificate on. Some weeks later customer A calls the trader asking about the MOT Certificate. Trader sends certificate to Customer A. In the mean time and unknown to the trader or NT Customer A has sold the car on to person B in a different city. Customer A sends the MOT Certificate to person B who straightaway looks at the issue date. Certificate has been issued whilst vehicle is in the possession of person B so how could it have been tested? VOSA are informed and speak to NT who insists vehicle was tested at the test station. Person B provides a statement to VOSA saying vehicle could not have been tested and was in their possession at the time MOT Certificate issued. VOSA return to NT and present the evidence. NT maintains his story that the vehicle was tested at the premises and can only suggest that he was presented with a ringer so there must be 2 vehicles carrying the same identity. VOSA not being convinced and now being told about ringers involve the Police. As soon as the Police are involved NT admits he issued the MOT Certificate without the vehicle being on the premises. The VE and his manager recommend VOSA strip the NT’s garage of authority to test. The NT is also the AE in this case. VOSA disagree and instead suspend the NT from testing for 2 years, charge him with the fraudulent issue of a MOT Certificate and at court he is fined £2000.
Does the punishment fit the crime?
|
Current time is 01:28 pm | |
|
