|
| Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer | Page: 1 2   |
|
||||||||||
| items not tested box | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 07:46 am |
|
1st Post |
|
martins Administrator 
|
A lot of heat being generated here. While we have some differing views on how to interpret the guidance, the post has been answered.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 06:57 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Aylesbury Jock Member 
|
You the man mjk. You got all the answers. You know it all. I bow before your wisdom, and while you carry on and do things your way, the rest of us can be proper testers and do things properly. If washers not working, fail on washers, inform customer may be problem with wipers on retest. No vt20 issued to unroedworthy vehicle, everything relevant tested upon his return. that issue already been answered. may I suggest wake up, think, and behave. Yes I agree a special notice would have cleared matters definitively, but VOSA probably thought they were dealing with grown ups, who could act upon the information being passed to them from their instructors and VEs. Last edited on Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 07:07 am by Aylesbury Jock |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 11:49 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
mjk Trade Member
|
2 situations. 1. Freezing weather. Customer comes in for test. Washers frozen so complete test on assumption washers will thaw out. Doesn't happen so abandon test. 2. Freezing weather. customer comes in for test. Washers frozen so complete test on assumption washers will thaw out. Doesn't happen so fail on washers not working and item not tested on wipers. Give vt30 to customer who is p....d off but goes out to car and finds washers are working as they have now thawed out. If test abandoned, as you're busy, book him in for full retest tomorrow.. or if you failed on unable to test, get him back into bay and carry out fast pass retest. Customer happy, you dont waste time doing a full retest and no rules broken. The use of this function is hear say until a special notice states otherwise, or it is removed from the system.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 09:13 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
volksjim Trade Member
|
third facepalm jock i was only jokin about using it LESS OFTEN .just a pity this could have been cleared up ages ago via a special notice then no need to pay to have it removed..also there is no guidence in the user guide or manual hence me asking on here.. as said before i was getting conflicting information from various local VE's..we all should be singing from the same book shouldn't we???
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 07:34 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Aylesbury Jock Member
|
Second facepalm of the thread. I don't know why this function is there. We all know(all of us, because if we didn't before we have been told on this thread)that it was meant for V E use. I also don't know why it wasn't restricted to the appropriate smart cards,but it won't be now cos Siemens would charge a forune to change things. I don't actually care as much as it might seem whether people use it or not, but I'm confused. I can't understand why professional people, who I would think take pride in doing their job properly, pick one item and decide not to follow it because it's inconvenient, or some because 'I don't want to.' Guys carry on. I'm done. But if you can't be bothered with that one why bother with any of the others? You obviously know more about it than the people who developed the scheme.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 06:30 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
mjk Trade Member
|
PRS.. I can't see a reason why this function shouldn't be used - what are the negative consequenses to the effectiveness of the testing scheme. What abuse is it open to? As for the indicator bulb, technically, yes you cant assess the colour of the light emitted from a lamp that doesn't emit light, so it would be "an item not tested" - so by the rules test can't be completed so should be abandoned. In the real world though, until my local VE tells me (Site assessment due!) or its in a SN, I may still use it on the rare occasions it's appropriate. Love from David
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 05:52 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
KevG Super Moderator 
|
So MJK would you abandon the test if an indicator was not working as you are unable to test its colour?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 05:23 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
mjk Trade Member
|
Washers not working (sorry , provide insufficient liquid), Wipers can't be tested. Abandon Test?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 07:35 am |
|
9th Post |
|
Aylesbury Jock Member
|
Very true, but beyond the point I was trying to make to castrolrob that you don't need somebody to sit you down, hold your hand and tell you specifically every point in the manual(or on the computer) individually. The information has been given, he makes a choice to ignore it, through laziness it seems. Perhaps my point was not clear, but that was my intention.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 21st, 2011 10:19 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
RFR Member
|
Aylesbury Jock, I must say that what you have stated is in the manual, the manual clearly states the following also: When carrying out a partial retest the NT must examine · all the failed item(s) · any item(s) that may have been affected by the repairs · and any testable item that had been advised on at the time of the initial test So as emissions may be affected by the repair of the exhaust it must be retested. rfr
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 21st, 2011 08:24 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Aylesbury Jock Member
|
No castrolrob, you are missing the point. You have been told not to. Not in capital letters underlined in red, but you have been told. This next might seem to ramble a bit, but bear with me. When you fail an exhaust for a major leak,you have to do an emissions test for the re-test, yes? you will be told that on any refresher course etc, or by any V.E.(or guru). If you look for this instruction in the holy book however, it only tells you that you SHOULD do an emissions test, not that you HAVE TO. You get the similarity? Be assured though, that I'm not angry, just dissapointed. Can anybody say facepalm children?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 20th, 2011 05:46 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
castrolrob Trade Member
|
you miss the point,using that function can save untold grief/hassle with joe public,as such if we are"permitted" to use it then we will do so,as i mentioned below if NOT permitted then dont use it,as far as i i can see we are allowed and as such why not?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 19th, 2011 07:25 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Aylesbury Jock Member
|
Doh!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 19th, 2011 10:58 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator 
|
castrolrob wrote: didnt we do all this last year?think i mentioned guidance on refresher was along the lines of"we dont want you to use items not tested"are we allowed to use it or not yes or no?"we dont like you using it"none of the guidance/quotes below seem to build or improve on that so i will carry on using it as i have since it was installed We did cover this some time ago rob - and the guidance then, as now, is not to use it, so why are you determined to continue when there are other options available ? 
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 18th, 2011 10:06 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
castrolrob Trade Member
|
didnt we do all this last year?think i mentioned guidance on refresher was along the lines of"we dont want you to use items not tested"are we allowed to use it or not yes or no?"we dont like you using it"none of the guidance/quotes below seem to build or improve on that so i will carry on using it as i have since it was installed
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 18th, 2011 07:52 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
volksjim wrote: Aylesbury Jock wrote:So you have just had the gospel, and you say you believe Stealth but you still plan to use it. ??????????? NOT AT ALL would be better 
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 18th, 2011 07:29 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
volksjim Trade Member
|
Aylesbury Jock wrote: So you have just had the gospel, and you say you believe Stealth but you still plan to use it. ??????????? LESS often
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 17th, 2011 09:21 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Aylesbury Jock Member
|
So you have just had the gospel, and you say you believe Stealth but you still plan to use it. ???????????
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 16th, 2011 08:12 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
volksjim Trade Member
|
hooray big thumbs up stealth instead of paying Siemens loads of money... issuing a special notice surely would suffice??? or is that too simple... but gotta love this bit..... The inspection manual however retains the old wording and tells the tester to fail the vehicle which is why they are using 'not tested'. so technically i still can fail for headlamp bulb out and headlamp aim not tested instead of stopping the test .if aim is out after replacing bulb i just do a PRS The whole issue of ‘not tested’ is subject to a review to evaluate the implications of allowing common use. In the meantime common sense should prevail and although it technically goes against the Guide we should not consider any disciplinary action against the use of ‘not tested’. but i WILL use it a lot less from now on though stealth
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 16th, 2011 04:51 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
volksjim wrote: i still believe "the guru"stealth. Blimey jim - I get called some names, but that's a new one I'm just lucky that I have a host of stuff saved on my laptop to refer to ... In February 2009 VOSA issued a 'Temporary Instruction' to enforcement staff on the subject of 'Items Not Tested' Apologies for the font size, I've copied & pasted the text. The gist is that VE's should be advising testers NOT to use it - but to take no action except giving advice if it IS used. It's there as a function on the VTS device so VOSA cannot be seen to penalise a tester for using it, but the correct procedure, as stated, is to abandon or abort the test. Reason for Rejection ‘Not Tested’ Currently, we are aware that the information available to testers regarding the use of 'not tested' is ambiguous. The ‘not tested’ option was originally designed for VOSA staff only, which is why the Guide states that once a test is registered, if it cannot be completed for one of the reasons given in Appendix 3, you should abandon or abort the test. The inspection manual however retains the old wording and tells the tester to fail the vehicle which is why they are using 'not tested'. The whole issue of ‘not tested’ is subject to a review to evaluate the implications of allowing common use. In the meantime common sense should prevail and although it technically goes against the Guide we should not consider any disciplinary action against the use of ‘not tested’. As KevG stated earlier - every time VOSA wants to change something on Comp, Siemens have to re - write the software so there's obviously a fee involved.!
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Current time is 08:40 pm | Page: 1 2 |
| MOT Forum - The MOT Testing Forum for the UK MOT Testing Industry > Trade Category (MOT Trade Discussions) > MOT Discipline and Compliance - Report problems (or solutions) here | MOT Forum > items not tested box | Top |
