Has anyone complained about their MOT test station?

[LarryH57]

Has anyone on here complained about their MOT test station?  My recent and previous MOT states as advisory that the brake pipes are corroded, covered with oil and dirt. The first time I saw this I was mystified as a) I could not see any signs and also b) because the brake lines were recently changed to copper and brake cylinders were checked. When I took the Landrover in for this years service I mentioned to the LR garage (that doesn't do MOTs) about the advisories on the MOT and they said that the MOT station puts this comment on EVERY MOT for the Landrovers they take there.  I'm thinking that this cannot be right as if an idiot crashed in to me, their legal team might claim I was not  road legal. Also putting such advisories on every MOT is not correct?

 

[Diana and Jackie]

Shock absorbers that didn't need changing which were "faulty",  steering that was showing signs of wear, which I couldn't find that passed on the following years test - explain that one?

If there's not an issue when a garage says there is that's plain and simple falsification - report them.

Most often people who have no idea get taken in and payout for repairs that don't exist or were not needed. Youtube is littered with examples, the bad reputation in general of garages continues.

Diana

[Surveyor]

I have been to a chain, wont mention the name and they did a service check of my car and gave me a list of things "needing to be done" refused and said to them the car had just been serviced and they couldn't do the work they wanted to, took the list to my local garage showed them and they went through it and couldn't find any of the work that was supposed to be needed, it turns out this national chain has a reputation for finding work that s is supposedly needed.

[LarryH57]

I think I will report them!

It is strange that the MOT station does not do any work on vehicles; just testing and if they were in league with the LR Garage up the road its odd that the LR garage dismisses such advisories, if they check each vehicle as part of the service they do, after getting the MOT beforehand. Could it be arse covering by the MOT station?

Edited October 26, 2020 by LarryH57

[Rootes75]

I had a Karrier Bantam truck for many years and she needed testing at the VOSA station due to her weight.

I had an issue one year with the test which led me to make a complaint. The Bantam obviously is an old truck and was pretty much dwarfed when lined up with the modern Volvos and Scanias etc. 

Well first check in the line is the cab and fittings etc, the young tester had a good look round and then came up to the cab and said just to let me know the lorry had already failed the test, before I had even started the engine or anything! When pressed on why he got out a measure and took it to the windscreen, he said the factory fitted 6" wiper blades did not clear enough of the screen so she didnt comply with the modern rules!?!?

Well, very angry by that point I continued with the test. Got to the end and was told that was all she failed on, bearing in mind this test cost over £200 with hiring the lane and ballast etc.

I went straight to his boss in the main office and told him what happened, I made the complaint and was told the young lad was too eager and should have known there were certain things old trucks can get away with as such. I was then told that because it had been entered on the system it could not be retracted. In the end they invited me back a week later and I had to pay for a re-test, this time the boss came out the office with the Pass certificate without even looking round the truck.

Waste of time and huge waste of money. Two 50 mile round trips and 2 test fees.

[10FM68]

1 hour ago, Rootes75 said:

I had a Karrier Bantam truck for many years and she needed testing at the VOSA station due to her weight.

I had an issue one year with the test which led me to make a complaint. The Bantam obviously is an old truck and was pretty much dwarfed when lined up with the modern Volvos and Scanias etc. 

Well first check in the line is the cab and fittings etc, the young tester had a good look round and then came up to the cab and said just to let me know the lorry had already failed the test, before I had even started the engine or anything! When pressed on why he got out a measure and took it to the windscreen, he said the factory fitted 6" wiper blades did not clear enough of the screen so she didnt comply with the modern rules!?!?

Well, very angry by that point I continued with the test. Got to the end and was told that was all she failed on, bearing in mind this test cost over £200 with hiring the lane and ballast etc.

I went straight to his boss in the main office and told him what happened, I made the complaint and was told the young lad was too eager and should have known there were certain things old trucks can get away with as such. I was then told that because it had been entered on the system it could not be retracted. In the end they invited me back a week later and I had to pay for a re-test, this time the boss came out the office with the Pass certificate without even looking round the truck.

Waste of time and huge waste of money. Two 50 mile round trips and 2 test fees.

That's a shocking experience and |I feel for you - it wou;d have been worth pursuing to get the money back.  The one time I took a vehicle for an SVA at a VOSA station was rather better.  I imported an Uaz 469.  I went along to Avonmouth, frankly expecting to have the tyres kicked and be told to bugger off.  Not a bit of it.  He went through it with a fine toothed comb and it failed on 22 different items.  I was amazed at just how much failed to comply with  (the then) EU conformity.  I thought I was going to be stuck with a pup which I couldn't use and wouldn't be able to sell.  But... the tester then took about half an hour telling me exactly how to go about fixing every one of the points he had identified to enable it to pass next time.  21 of them I was able to do myself, the only one I couldn't was to re-profile the front bumper - cost a fiver.  So I was lucky.  But, coming back to Lightweights and MOTs... I see that the last MoT mine got before I bought it advised that there were: 

"Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components

Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay". 

Somewhat unlikely, I think on a bog standard Lightweight!  The only other MoT annoyance has been on my car at a main dealer which caused a mighty row.  I asked the garage to replace some discs and pads and THEN give it an MoT.  So they gave it an MoT - failed it on discs and pads and then fitted the new ones.  When I blew up about having an MoT failure on the record the service manager justified it by explaining to me that, as an MoT centre they were expected to fail a certain proportion of cars they inspected and, not in so many words, that this was a perfect opportunity to keep their numbers up!  Needless to say, I now go elsewhere for all my MoTs - to a garage I know well and which is an expert on Land Rovers.

 

But, whether you, Larry,  have a case regarding "corroded, covered with oil and dirt" I'm not so sure as I think the wording is corroded and/or covered.... in which case, the likelihood is that, given the construction of a Land Rover, brake lines will nearly always be, at least part covered with oil or dirt.  The key, sadly will be the "and/or".

 

10 68

[ruxy]

It is just a standard phrase ,   example I have repeated annually  Focus now 18 years old.   AFAIK - the examiners test (if he suspects) - is to scratch the surface of the brake line - if it is shines - fine = PASS , however if it is BLACK  (corrosion) = fail.

Normally if the steel Bundy is not showing rust staining (that he needs to see) to justify scraping off the zinc coating) - then he would continue with the visual only.   Modern cars the plated Bundy is is given more protection that could be PVC , especially under the wheel-arches. 

OK  ,   I greased a brake line near the diesel tank , difficult to access  (for change), however I know it is still sound. If I had not applied grease several years ago then by now it would probable be a fail. 

The engine is now  140,000 miles +  ,  so as long as it holds up - I will keep putting it through the test - cheapest motoring for me - ever , period.  I did smash a spring , actually - the son's brake test following carrying 14 bags of cement 20 miles when other merchants were Covid closed.  So - new springs on each corner , the rears were a PITA as I had to chop through the well rusted lower wishbones (actually they should have been a MOT fail at previous test - but passed).  I also carried 12 bags of cement in the 18 year old Xsara Picasso - but the springs were all changed 4 years ago.   If I had not been working on the 109" , then I would have just put 30 to 40 bags of cement in the tub.

If he can't see for grease/grime then he needs a ar$e cover.   I knew a garage owner with MOT station , regular customers for service , he always misted with a light oil over brake lines, open handbrake Bowdens, and areas of body known for rust problems and MOT failures.  He was old skool mechanic , I often looked under cars on his ramps and was always impressed how he preserved his regular customers vehicles - most were probably never aware or bothered.

A car PASS , means nothing after you leave the MOT station , it is not like equipment covered by such as  LOLER Regs,  where a PASS means it has to be (in the opinion of the competent examiner) remaining "serviceable" until the next examination due date.

 

 

Wording is  :-

• Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both front to rear (1.1.11 (c))
• Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both front (1.1.11 (c))
• exhaust middle section deteriorated
•  

[10FM68]

36 minutes ago, ruxy said:

Wording is  :-

• Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both front to rear (1.1.11 (c))
• Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both front (1.1.11 (c))
• exhaust middle section deteriorated
•  

Thanks for that, Tony, you're quite right.  The and/or is implied rather than actually stated.

[LarryH57]

I still fail ( pardon the pun) why giving false warning helps the motorist ?

[ruxy]

I am very wary about causing damage by wire-brushing brake lines ,  how about this Patented Design & Exclusively to Sealey.    I don't think I would use one , managed the scratch test so far without.

Actually - I don't like these brake pipe replacement kits with copper lines & brass tubing nuts  (I have known brass tube nuts to split).  ISTR  years ago copper tube was banned because it was too inflexible and fatigue cracked.    I use Kunifer  (Cupro-Nickel)  - lasts for ever , but the BZP plated steel tubing nuts of course rust.   BUNDY does have a few advantages , the TERNE coated has a very long life , I have not used zinc coated for years ,  1976 when I re-piped a VW Beetle , I knew I was going to get shot of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_tube

 

I make up my own brake lines , I have a couple of Sykes-Pick. kits and another very similar that I purchased new 1970 , the tooling is identical but the vice is far superior (I think S-P copied).

Several years ago , I was in a LR franchise dealership at spares & they had loads of S3  11" front  cylinder(s)  + bent pipe to jump hose on a give away £ offer ,  so I purchased a stash.  Just out of interest I obtained some BRITPART ones for comparison.   ISTR that I came to the conclusion the BRITPART ones were better , they both seemed to be TERNE coated & IIRC the BRITPART ones were with that green coating , not plastic - seems more a heavy paint - you often see this now on many makes of car. I remember 1968 travelling home on the upstairs deck of a AEC double-decker with a genuine  MINI  front to rear brake pipe - it must have been at least 8ft long, the conductress would not permit me to travel downstairs , but I got it up the spiral stair OK  -  Mini pipes were the real rubbish , must have been zinc plated a few microns., 

 

----------------------

Since my last post here  DHL  delivered a package (tool)   with it was a Sealey Vehicle Service - Catalogue  2020  , so I had a thumb through it  (as you do).     Page 4  -  their  MOT  'compliant;   Brake & Fuel Pipe Inspection Tool -  watch the video     https://www.sealey.co.uk/product/5637204680/brake-fuel-pipe-inspection-tool

[ruxy]

2 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

I still fail ( pardon the pun) why giving false warning helps the motorist ?

My theory is that , the examiners don't have the time to check what the material of brake lines is.  Over the last few years they have included a few extra time consuming tasks , AFAIK the last being to check the DIN tow socket is working correct , using a special tester / trailer board adds time.  There is a bit of £ price competition for MOT 's locally.  The time they remain logged on to the HQ computer has not increased. They stay on for allocated time (inc. the guv. for tea break) - so they can't be accused of shoddy practices.

[johnwardle]

About 30 years ago I took my XJ6 for a  MOT to a garage (part of a big chain) near where I lived in  Bath, when I went to collect it I was handed a long fail sheet and an estimate for £1,000 for repairs. 1st item on the fail sheet was 'leaking rear shock absorber' when I asked which one, I was told "left hand" I again asked which one to which the manager rather annoyed repeated "left hand" I then informed him that XJ6s have 2 shock absorbers each side at the rear and all 4 were dry before I took it for the MOT.

I asked the manager to put my car back on the lift and went through the fail sheet with him, resulting in a fail only on hand brake adjustment which they adjusted while I watched.

Unfortunately for the garage the person who gave licences to MOT stations at that time was a good friend of mine, and when I told him of my experience he paid a visit to the said garage which ended up losing it's MOT licence, and ultimately closing as most of its business was 'repairing' cars that they had wrongly failed.

[johann morris]

I took a car for an MOT the examiner failed it for a rotten brake pipe, i told him that i had just replaced it prior to the MOT he said in his opinion it was rotten. I took it home replaced it and took the vehicle back, it passed. I showed him the brake pipe that i took off and it was obviously new, his reply "i don't care".

Took a land rover discovery to a different MOT station, it failed for a broken front spring. I replaced the front spring and returned the vehicle along with the unbroken front spring that i had taken off, the examiners reply, "well it looked like it".

The most annoying failure was for the round reflector on the rear of a series 3 Land Rover because it was upside down, even through the writing on it was the correct way up. I undid the nut rotated the reflector so that the writing was upside down and it passed.

You can't argue so why bother and i very much doubt if a complaint will help.

[onthecorner]

What about getting it done at a council depot? They aren't looking for work to add to your bill so you should get a fairer test.

[Packhow75]

On 10/26/2020 at 8:47 AM, Surveyor said:

I have been to a chain, wont mention the name and they did a service check of my car and gave me a list of things "needing to be done" refused and said to them the car had just been serviced and they couldn't do the work they wanted to, took the list to my local garage showed them and they went through it and couldn't find any of the work that was supposed to be needed, it turns out this national chain has a reputation for finding work that s is supposedly needed.

I can imagine... perhaps "not-so-fast-install"... I had an MOT fail... broken pin on the hand-brake (which worked fine when I took it into the MOT station, but failed on the test)... the MOT station said "Simple fix", but unfortunately we dont have the part.

Just down the road was nnnn... I stopped, told them what the issue was... though I didnt tell them I'd just come out of the MOT test at this point... they said they needed to put the car on the jacks, then pulled the wheels off... then left me waiting for 45 mins and then presented me with a bill for £650 (in 1992) for a whole string of stuff which made the car illegal to drive. They then told me they couldnt let me go back on the road without notifying the police.

I then presented them with the MOT fail paper which had come from the garage 1/2 mile away and asked them who was wrong... them or the MOT test station, because clearly someone was and it was definitely a matter for the police... and that I would be grateful if they could call them immediately (no mobile phones back then)

They scurried off... a manager appeared, who apologised profusely that their engineer had given me the wrong quote and that mine indeed should have just been for a pin... which they didnt have (!!!) and therefore couldnt help me... though had I spent £650 with them, somehow they would have had the pin.

I took the car to another garage, they confirmed it was just a snapped pin... and didnt bother charging me for it.

I made a formal written complaint to the national chain involved and got a response to say it was a "genuine mistake" on behalf of a trainee employee and they had taken measures to ensure it would not happen again.

I have never been back - they are a bunch of crooks - and I will never ever recommend them to anyone - even after all these years.

Likely this is the same chain you have had your experience with and they havent changed.

 

 

[ruxy]

I can imagine the name of the firm ,  the one who offers  "offers a free wheel alignment  check"   ,   that is - providing it is all OK to their satisfaction  LoL.    This time last year , if they found even the slightest misalignment - the fee started at  £40.   I took the car to another 'national chain'  -  Same laser check on a 4-post , and simple spannering tie-rod end adjustment was only  £20  .   As soon as I finished my coffee at McDonalds , I collected and immediately knew it was £20 well spent.

[LarryH57]

With computerised MOTs and sales data you cannot escape the details as in days of old, such as the time, I took my Morris Ital for a tyre change at Flit Quick, and in the process was told my shock absorbers were shot. Are you sure I said, so the manager was summoned for a second opinion. Yes they are he said, so I wipped my guarantee of 10 months ago and had them changed for free. Roll on 30 years and took a VCR for repair and repair man said it was under 5 year guarantee from Argos, who gave me £400 to spend in store as VCRS  no longer available! Well done Argos.

Sorry a bit off topic. I will share the response to my MOT complaint once I get it.

As for the MOT station in question, despite having done loads of landrovers, I have suffered from testers unable to turn the lights on and a few years back they were to fail the Lwt as they could not find how the horn worked. Luckily I was on hand on both occasions to stop them getting to their online system!

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by LarryH57
Info

[Tony B]

Sounds like I'm lucky. My MOT place is honest. If there is a fail they tell me, and its genuine. Plus most importantly , they don't let something sllde for a mate. The idea is that the vehicle is safe , at the time of examination. Though I did give them some grief with my LPG Discovery, it was a pain working out how the emissions were done on that.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Tony B

[Duncan76]

Funny - many years ago I took my Peugeot 406 (what a cracking car!!) to a mainstream chain for some work though not an MOT. I was told that the rear shock absorbers were leaking and would need changing. I declined the offer and I chuckled on my way home knowing that at that stage Peugeot still made their own shock absorbers - and they were gas filled....

Duncan.

[david1212]

On 10/26/2020 at 8:47 AM, Surveyor said:

I have been to a chain, wont mention the name and they did a service check of my car and gave me a list of things "needing to be done" refused and said to them the car had just been serviced and they couldn't do the work they wanted to, took the list to my local garage showed them and they went through it and couldn't find any of the work that was supposed to be needed, it turns out this national chain has a reputation for finding work that s is supposedly needed.

Been there, done that, got T-shirt.

On return all wheels off and told need new brake disc, pads, drums, shoes & wheel cylinders. Yes a very slight leak from one wheel cylinder but fluid had not contaminated the shoe. They were told to reassemble " as is ".

Next week inspected by recommended reputable independent. Only work needed one wheel cylinder and for good measure a fluid change. Plenty of life on discs, pads, drums and shoes.

Later a friend told me the same site gave them a MOT failure every year. Once instead MOT's done by a different local independent that I subsequently used never another MOT failure.

The site still operates with various name changes over the years. However a different chain to "not-so-fast-install".