Hi, I was just doing an MOT History check on a vehicle, just being nosey to be honest, and it had an advisory on a couple of entries for " Underbody is undersealed ". Given a lot of people get their cars undersealed, my mk1 included, I was supprised to see this as an advisory. I can kinda see why, as a good coating of underseal could hide all sorts of issues, but then it was not mentioned on the next two MOTs.
Any thoughts?
D.
A lot of MOT advisories seem to be a matter of opinion. One of my MX5s has only has 1 advisory for a dodgy tyre several years ago. The other has had the fact that it has plastic under shields fitted on several MOTs. But both have the plastic under trays? The only difference being that they have been Tested at different locations. I have also had an oil leak advised one year but not the next, despite never fixing it?
I think it’s an ‘a**e covering’ statement - they can’t see what the condition of the floor is in because of the underseal (nothing to stop them tapping/prodding with their MoT testers tool though).
I frequently gat a ‘body kit fitted’ advisory on the 145, as it has sill covers so the condition of the sills cannot be assessed.
I’ve also had it with brakes where they have said pads were low, so I got new ones and found the difference was 0.5mm! Wasn’t happy! They passed it with original pads - I left new ones in the car!
Were low pads actually listed as an advisory, or was it mentioned in passing? I didn’t think pad measurement was an mot issue, just brake efficiency. I can’t remember anyone ever checking my brake pads on an mot, but I have had garages who do a cut price mot, fishing for work with comments about what looks like it might need sometime soon. It’s the reason I try to use a dedicated mot station rather than a working mechanics garage.
Fuzz Townsend on Car SOS has commented a number of times that the car has been “undersealed” and inferred that this in a lot of cases is there to cover problems rather than stop rust on non problematical cars.
The MOT tester is inferring that they could not completely check for condition due to the underseal as the similar statement mentioned about plastic under covers being in place also infer that they cannot view all the structure of the car.
An MOT tester was saying to me the other day, that if you have a car in for MOT with hub caps. The car only has one wheel nut on out of 4 nuts on a wheel, he cannot take the hub cap off to check. On the other hand if you present a car with no hub caps and one wheel only has one nut on a particular wheel, as he can see the lack of wheel nuts, he can fail the car due to insufficient fixings in place.
If an undertray is standard fitment, then there is no legitimate reason for its presence to be noted on an MOT test certificate.
I once owned a 12 year old Peugeot 106. It was a reliable, well maintained old car.
When I moved to a new area, I didn’t know anything about the local garages.
I took the 106 into a Ford new car dealer for its MOT. The car passed, but the advisory list was a mile long.
About the only thing that didn’t have an advisory was the the rear silencer that I’d fitted 2 weeks previously.
After that, I worked out the local garages that took a more reasonable attitude to older cars, than looking at them
through ‘new car’ eyes.
In these litigious days, an MOT tester might well feel he needs to protect his own interests. If under seal is hiding something such as a corroded brake pipe which fails shortly after the test and an accident results, there might be legal implications for the MOT tester, so an advisory would be logged.
I know this sounds daft but I take great pride in my car coming through its MOT without any advisories? Its in the hands of the tester obviously though when folk look through the .gov.uk mot history check, advisories can be interpreted as poor maintenance etc My own NC1 ( though not in my hands at the time) shows its first MOT with front brake imbalance and a subsequent one with tyres near legal limit. Both, to me at least, are things that should have been sorted prior to presentation for testing? Every other test has a clear sheet
so I’m trying to redress the balance a bit. They are marked indelibly though in the cars history? Regarding undertrays etc, why should a factory fit item be marked down as an advisory? As said I guess, it’s to avoid potential problems for the tester? They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Barrie
You are making things up here and inferring conclusions that are not based on fact.
The vast majority of people use a garage to fix there car and have no interest at all in preparing their car for the MOT. That is what the garage is there for.
Anybody that reads an MOT certificate and say that was a badly maintained car is whistling in the wind.
The have no idea at all if the brakes were like that for 3 days or 9 months and the tyre was “not illegal”. If you lease a car with tyre replacement included in the maintenance package, a leasing company will not change a tyre until it is “near the legal limit” again the advisory as usual on tyre condition does not give a tread depth.
Do not infer facts unless you have the facts!
How negative you sound? Just stick to whatever you do in your neck of the woods. Don’t try and force your rather poor opinions on others? You don’t even know me? My comments were not intended for you to have a pop at so PLEASE STOP! Are you coming to the national rally, would love to meet you rather than you hiding behind a keyboard! Pathetic
Barrie
The vast majority of people use a garage to fix there car and have no interest at all in preparing their car for the MOT. That is what the garage is there for.
Anybody that reads an MOT certificate and say that was a badly maintained car is whistling in the wind.
where have you got THESE facts from?..
All MOT Stations have a little toffee hammer nothing stopping them from using it they also have a rubber edge to them as not to cause any damage.