Should I repair, or get rid of it?

[SiC]

I beg to disagree entirely.
I test 40 - 50 cars a week. If something deserves an advisory it gets one. The "free text" as you put it is entirely discretionary and you can put what you like. The only communication ive had through the "special notices" procedure is a reminder that the MOT is an official document and any silly or offensive remarks may result in disciplinary action. "Various oil leaks" is fine. Its not going to be possible to determine where they are coming from in a 40 minute MOT. You are merely advising that you have seen them. What happens if, for example, a week down the line the power steering fails due to a fluid leak that was not noted on the MOT and was masked by general oil leaks from the engine? You will have no defence as a tester if you have not advised that its generally oily and harder to examine fully. Sadly, its all arse covering because thats what you have to do.

My last response on this as it's diverting the thread away from the original track.

Please have a read through the DVSA Matters of Testing for the DVSA current positions on such things.

On advisories, these will be of note:
https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/wh ... dvisories/
And
https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/gi ... ht-advice/

To quote directly:

Extra service
Another thing we noticed is that you like to provide your customers with a great service. If you spot a problem that isn’t part of the MOT, lots of you still want to tell them about it. This is because you take pride in your work and want to do a proper job. That’s great and we absolutely encourage you do that.

We just don’t need to see it on the MOT. It’s a structured test and only things that belong in the MOT should be included.

If you want to tell your customers about additional issues you find out while conducting an MOT, please do so. You can just do it in the same way you tell them about issues you find while servicing their vehicle. Consider it part of your customer service, not part of the MOT.

Also:

As pointed out in the MOT Inspection Manual, it’s considered best practice to advise the presenter about:

- any items which are near to, but which have not yet reached the point of test failure
- any peculiarities of the vehicle identified during the inspection
- any defects on non-testable items which are found during the inspection procedure

But yes I'm just a random internet bloke on a forum. So yes feel free to disregard everything if you so wish, makes no difference to me.

Just make sure you have a read up of the above, directly from the horses mouth on those (and other) DVSA posts and make your own mind up...

[Carledo]

My last post on this subject too.

I've seen the MOT business from both sides, as a tester for many years, then a regular test station customer (regular being several times a WEEK) for even more years.

As a tester, you are under the cosh from DVSA (or VOSA or whatever they call themselves this week) They like to make out they are on your side, but it's rubbish! The slightest slip and you are facing disciplinary action that can even result in your testing station being fined or struck off as well as yourself. Bosses don't like this, so "cover your arse" is the 11th commandment. (Probably the other 10 as well!)

I just read ALL of those articles suggested by SiC and in one of them the advice was to advise if someone had "for example" removed a passenger seat or fitted a sump guard (not the factory fit plastic undertrays so common these days, which is different can of worms altogether) As a customer I don't think I need to be told that i've fitted a sumpguard or removed a seat, I rather suspect i'd KNOW that already! The Carledo is missing it's back seat, but my (sensible) tester is not daft or insecure enough to feel the need to tell me so in writing! Which, IMO, is how it SHOULD be, but all too often isn't. I'd LIKE to know if a balljoint has bit of play or my brake pads are thin. Or if a small hole has grown somewhere vital without me noticing. I DON'T need to know that my car has factory sideskirts fitted. But those sideskirts can hide rotten sills, so in the spirit of CYA, a tester is almost obliged to point out the obvious!

This is even more of a problem for owners now the advisories are listed on a pass cert, not on a separate sheet that could (and mostly did) get binned. It's now also on a permanent computer record that ANYONE can access

As a mechanic, It was my unfortunate lot to have to take a lot of "near end of life" cars for MOT. Many of these I only saw once a year at MOT time and only a few got serviced even that once a year. Yet these are the cars that are MOST likely to have dangerous defects that a tester isn't allowed to find by dismantling anything. There is a common misconception that if a car has an MOT is must be spot on and nothing is further from the truth. The MOT is only a (very low) minimum standard on certain tested items. Not a substitute for proper maintainance. The general public however seem to think otherwise, whether from ignorance or sheer skinflintedness I don't know.

What I DO know, is that MOT testers walk a constant tightrope whilst being buffeted by gale force winds from 3 different directions, VOSA, (who want everything done by their illogical and often contradictory book) their bosses (who want the work) and the customers, (who don't want to spend ANY money)

So cut them a bit of slack, they are only, for the most part, trying to do a difficult and responsible job!

Steve

[matt of the vivas]

As pointed out in the MOT Inspection Manual, it’s considered best practice to advise the presenter about:

- any items which are near to, but which have not yet reached the point of test failure

Like... an oil leak?

- any peculiarities of the vehicle identified during the inspection

Like... an oil leak?

- any defects on non-testable items which are found

Oooh. Like..... an oil leak?

Are you a tester SiC? Just curious.

[matt of the vivas]

So cut them a bit of slack, they are only, for the most part, trying to do a difficult and responsible job!

Steve

Thanks Steve... appreciate it.

[colinwoods_uk]

Hi All,

So, I have been busy going through the MOT and repairing it all... had the welding done, ball joints etc changed... im nearly there, just having trouble with excessive play where the steering column goes through the bulk head. It seems their is no (rubber?) surround where the column goes through the bulk head. when i push the steering wheel up and down you can see it moving in the hole and a gap. I can see there is a plate with 4 bolts on Bulkhead - might i assume i need to replace this? Problem is, the Haines manual dosent have a name for this - it just shows a picture of it as part of the Steering column/rack.

Any thoughts on where i can get a new one or at least a replacement rubber seal surround that goes in it.

(Hope this makes some sense)

Thanks

[SprintMWU773V]

Get yourself a Superflex column bush to solve the issue.

[tinweevil]

This is what you need:
https://www.chriswitor.com/proddetail.php?prod=153868P

[colinwoods_uk]

This is what you need:
https://www.chriswitor.com/proddetail.php?prod=153868P

Thank you, and TinWeevil - I have ordered a while bunch, including your recommendation so I should be good to go.

Will keep you posted, with pictures etc.

[xvivalve]

If the bush has been missing for a while, you may find the column has turned the circular hole that the bush sits in on the plate has become keyhole shaped, in which case you'll need to replace the plate too. I have a few used ones here if that proves to be the case.