My MOT expired on 23rd November. The car gets garaged over winter so I took it for its MOT today. I know the car pretty well having done a fair bit of work on it myself but I knew the handbrake needed adjusted so I spoke to a local garage asked for the handbrake to be tightened then it needs MOT’d. He said he doesn’t do MOT’s but takes them around the corner to do it.
So I dropped it off, again discussed that the handbrake needs done then an MOT. I called this afternoon to see how it got on - it failed… on the handbrake!!! He said he sent it for it’s MOT to make sure that’s all it would fail on. He then adjusted the handbrake and sent it back and it passed. It’s frustrating that the fail now shows on the MOT history.
Also, there is an advisory for “car heavily corroded in parts”. I questioned this as there sills and arches were all replaced in late 2019 (with photo diary for proof) and the car has been most garaged and driven less than 2,000 miles since then. He explained that it was surface rust to components - suspension arms, anti-roll bar, etc. I don’t think he realises how damaging that could be to the resale of an otherwise very tidy car (45k on a 2005). I know a lot of people tend to check MOT history when they are looking at cars and a statement like that would be a red flag. As the car didn’t fail for this I don’t think I can appeal it - does anyone know if anything can be done? I was thinking about taking it for another MOT elsewhere in a few months, which I am positive will be a clear MOT. Any thoughts?
Sadly it’s true, most buyers now are aware of corrosion problems with MX5’s and would read the mot history and jump to conclusions.
Personally I would get some rust protection treatment done now and if you ever decide to sell then proof by way of an invoice and photos will go a long way.
As a tester You cover yourself as you have to
Advisories are the testers opinion
If theres corrosion thats worth a mention then it has to go down as an advisory
This has nothing to do with upsetting the vehicle presenter
In this case if there is corrosion to such things as subframes suspension components etc the tester is more than in his rights to mention it
What i will say thou is some testers do get a bit excited with there keyboards
Corrosion for me has to be quite bad for me to advise it as most cars have rust one way or another underneath so loads could get an advisory if you get to petty about it .
Personally i would not worry about it too much and certainly wouldnt get another test .
My garage would never carry work out prior to MOT even if they knew it would fail,just incase if failed on something else thus having to do job twice i.e shocker leaking then caliper failed MOT Wheel and parts would have to come off twice.Saving you money in long run.
I knew I needed new tyres to pass the MOT and arranged for the garage to sort it.
Strangely they put it in for the test first and, of course, it failed. So, new boots all round and a pass certificate. I don’t see why stuforrest33 is concerned about having a ‘fail’, I just threw mine away. Is there a MOT database where previous fails can be seen by a prospective buyer?
Yes there is a .gov website where the entire mot history of a car can be viewed, in fact in the early days of it the mot station details the tests were done at was also available, however this bit of information was removed some time ago.
It’s not foolproof, but anyone buying a used car over 3 years old needs to know about it, as it also gives mileage details.
Well yes, March, that is now very common knowledge. Just look up MOT history on google and all will be revealed.
‘car heavily corroded in parts’ sounds harsh if the description of the car is correct. surface rust should never be described as heavy corrosion.
I think this is very common practise now, I know I encountered it last year:
Dropped my ND off for a service and MOT having requested new tyres to be fitted as they were no longer legal (just)
They did the MOT first, failing it on one tyre before carrying out the tyre change as requested and passing it.
What @BRUCE225 said makes sense though as they also noted my brake pads were low so I had them replaced.
This would have no doubt doubled the labour costs if they had done tyres > MOT > anything else as the wheels would have been off twice etc.
I know @bally3 had a similar situation with one of his previous MOTs:
That’s amazing that was never mentioned, and great you are doing the work to repair it.
I am going to get an underseal treatment done in the next few weeks, I went back over the car last night and all the usual points are solid. A wire brush will tidy up the surface corrosion on the components.
I know how many people check the MOT history prior to buying a car, that’s why I was/am bothered about it. Lesson learned though - get the repair done elsewhere then MOT it.
I think it is about time that the MOT test defined surface corrosion/heavy corrosion instead of leaving it to the testers imagination and choice of vocabulary.
My car went for its test late last year and as usual I reminded them of the fact that it was a Eunos and had a limited slip differential.
When I saw it being brake tested on the rollers I objected, it failed! The reason a small hole in the bottom of the sill & headlight alignment.
The small hole was written up as a rotten floor!
Forgive me for thinking, food goes rotten, steel corrodes as far as I remember.
Hi Philip,
Not sure to be honest, I have read and been told that this is the case. Used this testing station for many years with no problems, but owner has retired and new management looks at old cars as ‘cash cows’.
Mentioned LSD when I went to new garage and he immediately said no roller test. They used to use a Tapley meter but now it is a small black box!
Dave
Might be the old school viscous diff? So who knows.even if the diff is still actually doing it’s job properly as they were known to return to open with age & wear and just carry on acting like an open diff.
However, 2003 Sport era Diffs of Cheese onwards were allegedly damaged by certain MOT ignorance.
Plenty on Googly about that.
Mine is supposed to be a Torsen, so the stronger type I think, one day I will pull a half shaft and investigate. As you say plenty on Google but until I know for certain I would prefer to play safe … they are not cheap to replace!
Dave
