|
| Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| MOT retest - question | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15th, 2014 03:36 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
golf Trade Member
|
just to point out the system doesnt tell you what failed on previous tests when you register a re-test. only tells you the advisories for some strange reason and thats on a seperate print out. full duplicate has to be printed to view failures wasting paper as vosa is now a paperless organisation i dont understand not being able to just view it on the system like anyone else can online hmm???
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2014 11:10 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
KevG Super Moderator 
|
Clifford pope Wrote; "I found there was a rubber seal between the two with a slight crack, which on replacement cured the problem. He tested again, nodded, and that was that. He hadn't done the work, he had no way of telling if I had really replaced a seal rather than just slapped some sealant on the two mating faces, and of course he didn't re-check the brakes to see whether I had messed anything up since the previous day's test.". Even if you had used sealant to do the job it couldnt be failed. As you say we have no way of telling whats been done. If it passes the servo test routine, and then the brake test we have to pass it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2014 08:56 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator 
|
aqua87 wrote:
 Does that makes it acceptable for the tester to clearly cut corners and do a sub- standard retetst ?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2014 09:05 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Spunkymonkey Member 
|
I've built up relationships like that with testers in the past, and I agree that it's not automatically a safety problem. But the rules (both test standards and testing methods) are aimed firmly at the lowest common denominator - in terms of vehicle condition, presenter and tester. I'd certainly never complain about a tester learning to trust me but I might well do if one gave me the same treatment on one of the first few cars I put in to them. I know my work is sound but, at that point, there's no way the tester can and the next guy he lets slide through could be one of two of my aquaintances who I wouldn't personally trust to adjust the heater controls!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2014 07:51 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Clifford Pope Member
|
Thanks everyone for some interesting observations. I'm not doubting he cut a lot of corners, but I'm not outraged or complaining because actually I know I did do the work. I found a fault (piston sticking) and as they were all a bit suspect I replaced all 4 wheel cylinders. I could immediately feel the difference. If the vehicle had been a few years older and exempt MOT testing I'd have felt experienced and confidant enough to then risk my life in it. I'm happy that he obviously appreciates that, and accords me the honour of judging my competence. Of course it's wrong, and if he did that for every ignorant or dodgy customer it would be criminal. He has over many years often picked up things that I have missed, and suggested ways of fixing them. A few days ago I took my Triumph 2000 in for a retest. It had failed on one thing - a tiny vacuum leakage between the brake cyinder and the servo. He spotted it because of a very slight lumpiness in the idle speed, which I had noticed but couldn't diagnose. He explored and said it was possibly the seal between the m/c and servo. I found there was a rubber seal between the two with a slight crack, which on replacement cured the problem. He tested again, nodded, and that was that. He hadn't done the work, he had no way of telling if I had really replaced a seal rather than just slapped some sealant on the two mating faces, and of course he didn't re-check the brakes to see whether I had messed anything up since the previous day's test. So that was for me a very satisfactory outcome. I was impressed that he had a better ear for engine tune than I had after owning the car for 10 years, and that he had so accurately pinpointed the cause. There had been nothing during the test to suggest anything wrong with the brakes at all.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2014 12:14 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
kit1958 Trade Member 
|
0 to 60 in an old landy is about 2 day's!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2014 12:11 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
DB9 wrote:
0 to 60 acceleration for a Series II landy extrapolated to give a time elapsed plus distance covered to achieve the required 20 mph for decel test. That should be right up your street Harry
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2014 01:58 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
billyloadsamud Member
|
What about the brake work being repaired away from test centre NO Inspection of work completed, that's the main problem here EVERY repaired item should be inspected on a retest that you as NT have not PRS'd, and brakes should be logged on and figures entered DECEL test in a 50mtr length(being generous to say very long workshop) I don't think so
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2014 05:56 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
DB9 Member
|
Stealth wrote:Fair points rob, but I can't see the tester acheiving the required 20mph for a decel test if he only drove it "a few yards across the yard" So that will be 13 yards equating to 4 car lengths to achieve 50% service brake efficiency lol  Don't agree as we could both be wrong again
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2014 03:27 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
aqua87 Member
|
Well said castrol rob, fact is no one here knows the facts so let's not right off a mot tester. Sounds like some of the people on here wants some training on the difference of a roller brake test or decel test. As for the paperwork as castrol said he printed it off as duplicate. Really some people on this site are a joke Last edited on Sat Nov 8th, 2014 03:28 pm by aqua87 |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2014 05:38 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
Fair points rob, but I can't see the tester acheiving the required 20mph for a decel test if he only drove it "a few yards across the yard"
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2014 04:01 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
castrolrob Trade Member
|
a couple of points of order,he drove it to test the brakes,did he have the decelerometer with him?the owner probably doesnt know what he did or did not enter into the computer.washers not working?dont land rovers of that vintage have the capability of folding down the screen?washers+wipers not a valid fail if that is the case.he didnt have the paperwork?then he has a f***ing good memory to remember a 12 digit number from a random test,he MUST have printed off a copy or had the original checklist.dont get me wrong,he should have checked wheels/fluid levels/leaks etc and as such it should have gone in the air at the very least but playing devils advocate i can see a few loopholes here.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 6th, 2014 02:23 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
DB9 Member
|
Stealth wrote:DB9 wrote: If I were to agree with you that would make us both wrong?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2014 02:18 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
afiafi1 Member
|
its bad enough when we testers make a mistake,(dont happen very often), but this retest was a p### take.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2014 02:16 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
afiafi1 Member
|
i woudnt even give him notice, fired. even if it was a bulb and tester couldnt be bothered to check it proper, i wouldnt whant him testing my car , so how could i let him test anyone elses car.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2014 07:41 am |
|
16th Post |
|
kit1958 Trade Member
|
Errm not quite, any brake work that gets done has a check on the brake tester before the car is handed over to get customer.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2014 06:50 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Clifford Pope Member
|
''That's true of course, up to a point. But we are only talking about the advisability of a roller check because of the coincidence of the work with the MOT.'' It's not 'advisability' following repairs to the braking system, it's MANDATORY for an MOT retest. ''It would be unrealistic to take a car for mid-term voluntary MOTs after every safety-related piece of work.'' Agreed up to a point. One benefit of the MOT is to guarantee that the vehicle meets a minimum safety standard. There are vast differences in skills and abilities between DIY 'mechanics' doing repairs on the driveway on a weekend and skilled technicians in modern workshops. An annual inspection at least prevents some of the horror repairs from remaining on the road.  ''And of course as we keep being reminded, an MOT only guarantees the car's state at the time of the MOT.'' And in your case even that has been rendered ineffective by a lazy tester who couldn't be bothered to ensure that the defects which were initially failed had been properly rectified. I'm sorry Clifford, but you got an 'easy' retest in my opinion. As a regular contributor to this forum you should know better.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2014 05:21 am |
|
18th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
Clifford Pope wrote: Interesting. Thank you for those replies. I'm not questioning your capabilities with regard to the repairs Clifford, but... New wheel cylinders all round means that the tester should be conducting pressure checks on the system to ensure that there are no fluid leaks and that there is no air in the system, defects which CAN compromise safety. A roller brake test is a NECESSITY in my opinion following the kind of repairs you have described. the brakes may feel ok to you but would they be able to perform an adequate emergency stop when the proverbial toddler appears in front of you at 40mph? Without a roller brake test there's no knowing the system has met the MINIMUM performance requirements, imbalance or not. Again, that IS a safety compromise. My fears are that this tester will take shortcuts with other customers vehicles which could ultimately result in serious consequences. His laziness is also tarring the reputation of the MOT scheme. We've all heard the story of the 'friendly tester' who doesn't look too hard. YOUR tester is one of them. 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2014 03:33 am |
|
19th Post |
|
Clifford Pope Member
|
Interesting. Thank you for those replies. I suspected something was not right about the procedure, if only from the inconsistencies in the process. I'm not complaining - after all, I got the pass - but I have to say I don't think safety was compromised despite breaking the rules. He is the manager, and to my knowledge has been carrying out MOTs for at least 20 years. I have taken my 2, and more recently 4, cars in every year to be tested, and they have on occasions failed. He has always explained carefully what was wrong, why it mattered, given tips on what needed doing, and then done a retest in a way that appeared to establish that I had rectified the fault. On each occasion I have fully conceeded that something I had missed was nonetheless a shortcoming, and I have always meticulously replaced the component or made the adjustments. The landrover drum brakes are quite adequate in stopping power, but are notoriously difficult to balance properly, having a rather primitive kind of adjustment acting only on the leading shoes. The trailing shoe movement seems critically dependent on the relative and balancing forces in the return spring, the internal cylinder spring, and the friction of the piston seals. The imbalance was apparent on sharp braking before, the new cylinders and springs had demonstrably cured this. So I am happy with the end result and that safety has not been compromised. PS. I did of course fix the washer. The pump needed longer priming because of the long pipe run.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2014 06:29 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Stealth Super Moderator
|
DB9 wrote:If a tester has been on a government training course at some previous time, thus completed the three day course, been shown how to do a test, advised about defects that fall within the retest criteria, has an online manual, a national helpline, and experience using the VTS device, then carries out a retest to such a substandard, then training is not what the tester needs, the tester needs banning from the scheme as that tester is bringing the scheme into disrepute and putting innocent peoples lives in danger on public roads. Agreed
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:22 am | Page: 1 2 |
| 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 > MOT retest - question | Top |
