board_home 

Visit the
UK MOT Testing
Industry Website


Autotech Training Services


 Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
pass or fail  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 10:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
kit1958
Trade Member


Joined: Sat May 15th, 2010
Location: The Finest Country On Earth , United Kingdom
Posts: 1099
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
It doesn't fit with my understanding of "replaced" either. Maybe someone at the "help" desk got it wrong?

Has anyone seen the VOSA you tube video "commonly asked questions" Q4 that says only warning lamps fail, not info indicators.??
Only in vosaland can this be right.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 09:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Spunkymonkey
Member


Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Holyhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 246
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
kit1958 wrote: SM, I a few weeks ago I heard of an NT who failed a Renault because the steering lock didnt engage when the key card was removed, so far so good. A few days later it came back, the owner had been back to the dealer who told him that it should pass as it had an immobiliser fitted :shock:
The NT then rang the "help" line who also told him it should pass :shock::shock::shock:
The IM 2.1 says "It is acceptable for a steering lock to be removed if it has been replaced with another immobilisation device"
It all seems a little odd to me too, but we are given rules to work by, then told to ignore them !!
BTW remember VOSA has a mission to "reduce crime, protect the environment & improve road safety" or somesuch wording.

Saw the thread on that, Kit, and must admit it puzzled me.  I don't quite see how a factory-fitted immobiliser could be said to "replace" a factory-fitted  steering lock.  Doesn't replacing something generally mean putting something new in it's place?

How would VOSA react if I got pulled over with no rear brake pads fitted and tried to say I'd "replaced them" with the (separate drum) handbrake? :shock::shock::shock:

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 09:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Spunkymonkey
Member


Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Holyhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 246
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Ian Hutchinson wrote: would it be a case of if theres any doubt pass/advise. however ive had a renault scienic with a steering column control unit fault it caused the steering to engage while driving but would never do it standing still so if MOT'd it was pass without even noticing it. thats the danger bare in mind the malfunction light only came on when the fault occured.
And there lies the danger of things like "steering column control units" - a steering column is a rod with a wheel at one end, some switches bolted to it for convenience, and a rack (usually) at the other - it shouldn't need a computer ffs!!! :dude:

Last edited on Sun Apr 21st, 2013 09:30 pm by Spunkymonkey

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 02:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Ian Hutchinson
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 23rd, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
would it be a case of if theres any doubt pass/advise. however ive had a renault scienic with a steering column control unit fault it caused the steering to engage while driving but would never do it standing still so if MOT'd it was pass without even noticing it. thats the danger bare in mind the malfunction light only came on when the fault occured.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 12:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
kev1975
Trade Member
 

Joined: Wed Sep 5th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 912
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
DB9 wrote: VOSA are not yet up to speed on this subject;), the advanced criminals have no problems with immobilisers, electronic or otherwise:(, and this is how I know about it:)

Some time back as a qualified vehicle assessor/engineer I was invited to a police seminar to look into ways of solving crimes with regards getting round bypassing electronics devices, i.e. immobilisers, where the police showed us how the criminals steal the vehicles. 

Apparently they have a device that is similar to our scanners 16 Pin plugs, they just plug in and put any key in the slot, reset the code and drive off all in about a few seconds:shock:

My understanding is that NTs will never know whether a steering lock has been removed or not if it does not work, and how you would check the immobiliser is fitted etc at time of mot is beyond the scope of the test:D

So to my mind unless there is something there like "Inadvertently engaging" it all just becomes a "Pass and Advise":D

still should fail according to how I would interpret the manual anyway , the wording says the steering lock has been removed & been replaced with another immobilisation device .
the factory immobiliser works in conjunction with the steering lock so the immobiliser is not a replacement of the steering lock as it was present anyway & also the steering lock may well not have been removed but may actually be faulty .
really think a call to the help desk would be in order on this one .

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 09:59 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
DB9
Member
 

Joined: Sat Mar 2nd, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 377
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
VOSA are not yet up to speed on this subject;), the advanced criminals have no problems with immobilisers, electronic or otherwise:(, and this is how I know about it:)

Some time back as a qualified vehicle assessor/engineer I was invited to a police seminar to look into ways of solving crimes with regards getting round bypassing electronics devices, i.e. immobilisers, where the police showed us how the criminals steal the vehicles. 

Apparently they have a device that is similar to our scanners 16 Pin plugs, they just plug in and put any key in the slot, reset the code and drive off all in about a few seconds:shock:

My understanding is that NTs will never know whether a steering lock has been removed or not if it does not work, and how you would check the immobiliser is fitted etc at time of mot is beyond the scope of the test:D

So to my mind unless there is something there like "Inadvertently engaging" it all just becomes a "Pass and Advise":D

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 08:56 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
kev1975
Trade Member
 

Joined: Wed Sep 5th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 912
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
kit1958 wrote: SM, I a few weeks ago I heard of an NT who failed a Renault because the steering lock didnt engage when the key card was removed, so far so good. A few days later it came back, the owner had been back to the dealer who told him that it should pass as it had an immobiliser fitted :shock:
The NT then rang the "help" line who also told him it should pass :shock::shock::shock:
The IM 2.1 says "It is acceptable for a steering lock to be removed if it has been replaced with another immobilisation device"
It all seems a little odd to me too, but we are given rules to work by, then told to ignore them !!
BTW remember VOSA has a mission to "reduce crime, protect the environment & improve road safety" or somesuch wording.


if this is the case then the steering lock failure will not apply to about 95% of cars built on or after 1994 as they mostly have a factory immobiliser .
that kind of makes the steering lock RFR a bit pointless :shock:
If I get a vehicle in with a faulty steering lock I may well ring the help desk & ask them to decide if I should or shouldn't fail it :D

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Apr 21st, 2013 08:13 am
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
kit1958
Trade Member


Joined: Sat May 15th, 2010
Location: The Finest Country On Earth , United Kingdom
Posts: 1099
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
SM, I a few weeks ago I heard of an NT who failed a Renault because the steering lock didnt engage when the key card was removed, so far so good. A few days later it came back, the owner had been back to the dealer who told him that it should pass as it had an immobiliser fitted :shock:
The NT then rang the "help" line who also told him it should pass :shock::shock::shock:
The IM 2.1 says "It is acceptable for a steering lock to be removed if it has been replaced with another immobilisation device"
It all seems a little odd to me too, but we are given rules to work by, then told to ignore them !!
BTW remember VOSA has a mission to "reduce crime, protect the environment & improve road safety" or somesuch wording.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Apr 20th, 2013 07:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Spunkymonkey
Member


Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Holyhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 246
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
DB9 wrote: I'd of thought a steering lock is also considered a safety item, and I don't mean from a point of view of stealing the vehicle, but primarily from the experience of feeling steering locks inadvertently engaging in the column when turning the steering wheel leftwards and rightwards, surely you wouldn't be happy driving a vehicle in that condition would you?

And with regards emissions are you saying we should be like China and all wear masks in the streets?

If road side checks were left to do this with the amount of vehicles on the road, each year the NHS would seriously be overworked.

That argument would work for steering locks if removal was acceptable - no lock = no chance of it engaging inadvertently :D

Last edited on Sat Apr 20th, 2013 07:16 pm by Spunkymonkey

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Apr 20th, 2013 05:12 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Ian Hutchinson
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 23rd, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
yer ive heard of testers to be over the top and if there is any doubt they jsut fail wereas i tend to pass and advise if something is boarderline on the other hand there are testers that dont even jack the car up in the air which really grates on me.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Apr 20th, 2013 04:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
DB9
Member
 

Joined: Sat Mar 2nd, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 377
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I'd of thought a steering lock is also considered a safety item, and I don't mean from a point of view of stealing the vehicle, but primarily from the experience of feeling steering locks inadvertently engaging in the column when turning the steering wheel leftwards and rightwards, surely you wouldn't be happy driving a vehicle in that condition would you?

And with regards emissions are you saying we should be like China and all wear masks in the streets?

If road side checks were left to do this with the amount of vehicles on the road, each year the NHS would seriously be overworked.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Apr 20th, 2013 10:56 am
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Spunkymonkey
Member


Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Holyhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 246
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Ian Hutchinson wrote:
i get customers complaining about advisories too it is a bit annoying i tested a vehicle the other day for another garage and he rang up complaining about the advisories , my reply was you should have checked the vehicle before presenting it for test. the advisories were for anti-roll bar slight play and stuff that were worthy of an advisory. do you get people like that:X:X:X

I suffer from people like that and i'm not even a tester!

What happens is that, say, I fail for something I'm don't agree with - latest was handbrake below required efficiency when I KNOW it will lock both rear wheels at 20mph on a dry road (but you have to pull pretty hard to do it).

When I see the fail I'm likely to pull a face or mutter something under my breath because it's human nature to feel fed up with something like that.  But I understand that the tester is only doing his job, and he may not be willing to try and pull the lever out of the floor like I am on my own car, so I'll go away and sort whatever he's not happy with. 

Only, quite often, the guy will see the reaction on my face and get defensive even before I get a chance to not blame him because he's had a string of presenters that day who've got argumentative about perfectly valid fails and it's also human nature to get fed up when that happens!

I think it comes down to a mix of things.  There ARE testers out there who will fail unfairly and nothing can stop that completely.  That tends to make presenters believe that all testers are like that. 

There are also owners (especially the ones who think they know what they're doing and are happy to wrap brake lines in rubber tube) who treat the MOT as a game rather than a safety check and the aim is to "get the ticket" rather than "check it's safe". 

Personally I don't believe the scheme helps that by loading the test with more and more obviously non-safety related items like number plate fonts, emissions and steering locks.  I'd rather see such things as advisory only during the test then, if they need enforcing, let that be done by the police or by VOSA roadside checks.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Apr 20th, 2013 09:39 am
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Ian Hutchinson
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 23rd, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
ive got a good idea who you talking about! how about this a y reg transit comes in that could potentially have bulges all round cords showing and corrosion issues let alone leaf spring fractures brake pipe corrosion. wheel bearings rough and have play there will be a list a mile long on the vehicle instead of 4 items for tyres there are 16 items that just means 4 tyres a u/s. personally i think its over the top and is over testing. i test in a closely nit village and most customers complain if it fails on one item so if i fail a brake pipe for leaking and he repairs it and it not sutable i will look at it before retesting and then say to the presenter it is not a suitable repair. i will have to fail it ive got no shame in telling them that. i deal with angry presenters on a daily basis. :D:D

i get customers complaining about advisories too it is a bit annoying i tested a vehicle the other day for another garage and he rang up complaining about the advisories , my reply was you should have checked the vehicle before presenting it for test. the advisories were for anti-roll bar slight play and stuff that were worthy of an advisory. do you get people like that:X:X:X

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Apr 19th, 2013 11:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
mick1960
Member
 

Joined: Wed Mar 7th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 102
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I was told a long time ago that  if for instance  a tyre fails for being below legal minimum, cords showing, cut to cords, bulges,lumps  etc etc PUT IT ALL DOWN.

If there is an appeal or just if Vosa walk in after the test you cannot be accused of missing anything.

As one old boy told me "Cover your a**e, there are youngsters coming in who want to get up the ladder, and they will use you to get there" he has subsequently retired.

And yes two or so years later I met one, not a pleasant experience...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Apr 19th, 2013 11:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
ivorbiggin
Member


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 55
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Ian Hutchinson wrote: i thought vosa didnt like it when you fail the same item more than once, lets fae it how could he have sorted that without changing the pipe

and looking at the picture how is the brake pipe inappropriatly repaired or modified how could you prove it was a repair just purly to stop it rubbing against the other pipe therefore i would pass and advise putting it back onto the customer as i have doubt in my mind. :P:P:P



Ive been told to the contrary, which if you think about it makes good sense.

Lets say you have a tyre with a bulge on the side wall and its below 1.6 mm across the central 3/4 of its width, you fail it on the bulged side wall thinking that the tyre will automatically be changed, and dont bother to fail it on tread depth

On retest you find a rubber patch with raised lettering has been stuck to the side wall and is masking the bulge. benefit of the doubt given to the vehicle, and prior knowledge is unacceptable, but oops its below the legal limit which you didnt fail in the original test.

Another scenerio

You find excessive play in a lower swivel joint, and the dust cover is missing, so you fail it on excessive play and dont bother failing the dust cover, "the joints going to be replaced anyway isnt it"!.

On retest you find that the bottom of the ball joint has been hammered to death, taking the play out of it, but oop's the dust covers still missing and guess what, you didnt fail the dust cover on the original test.

And theres lots more scenarios i can use, like you failed the 15mm stone chip in the windscreen zone A, but didnt fail the 55mm crack within the swept area on the nearside screen, the stone chip is invisibly repaired but the 55mm crack is still there.

Re the brake pipe in the OP,

I would need to see it for myself, it was leaking in the original test and i would assume thats a repair, If the pipes were all secure and clipped up properly then why would it need to be sheilded from chaffing?


 3.5 tonns of Iveco Dailey trundling down the motorway at 85 mph with obviously bodged up brake pipes, would i be happy passing it? Nahhhh

If you only fail an item on one account when there are more, you are heading towards an appeal. or a lot of free work to appease the disgruntled presenter. 

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Apr 19th, 2013 09:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Ian Hutchinson
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 23rd, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
i thought vosa didnt like it when you fail the same item more than once, lets fae it how could he have sorted that without changing the pipe

and looking at the picture how is the brake pipe inappropriatly repaired or modified how could you prove it was a repair just purly to stop it rubbing against the other pipe therefore i would pass and advise putting it back onto the customer as i have doubt in my mind. :P:P:P

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Apr 19th, 2013 08:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
ivorbiggin
Member


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 55
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When comming across an item such as this i read through all the fail criteria that comes up on the MOT computer, any RFR's that fits, gets clicked.

In this case i would have failed the same brake pipe twice, once for leaking and again for inadequate repair, maybe even a third time if it wasnt clipped up properly

Had the presenter taken the vehicle away and somehow managed to stop the bodge from leaking, you would have had to fail it again on the retest for an inadequate repair. And then the argument begins with a disgruntled presenter protesting," but you only failed it for leaking".

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Apr 18th, 2013 09:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Ian Hutchinson
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 23rd, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
true true its hard to remember everything tho isnt it and we are human we all make mistakes lol i tested a fine example of a vw lt28 camper van today k reg with 74000 mile on the clock

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Apr 18th, 2013 08:59 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
DB9
Member
 

Joined: Sat Mar 2nd, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 377
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
You will be surprised how good you get with regular use as it all ends up on the tip of your tonge and you just instantly know where to look fast:D:D

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Apr 18th, 2013 08:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Ian Hutchinson
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 23rd, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
yer but if you check manual before every test then MOT times will be an hour and a half and when there is 8 tests to do in one day you cant be looking at the manual everytime. :D:D:D:D

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 11:16 pm Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
MOT Forum - The MOT Testing Forum for the UK MOT Testing Industry > Public Category (Ask questions about your car and the MOT) > Pass or Fail? Ask about your car and the MOT | MOT Forum > pass or fail Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2011 Data 1 Systems