MOT mishaps

[C.J.]

Carrying on from my 'vibration' thread, and the seemingly dangerous faults that my local mot tester that I use for mot'ing the rest of the C.J. fleet found after I took it in to try and locate the vibrations, the mot station concerned down in the Midlands, have now contacted me and have offered to pay for all of the required repairs to get it up to the standard required for a fresh mot, and are extremely apologetic.

A list of parts and labour is being compiled, (along with daming photographs and video footage) to rectify the components that should have been picked up during the test just 3 weeks ago.
Even I as a none mechanic could see the visible horrors once I got underneath it in dry bright conditions.
The possible consequences of failure on the journey home are too mind bogglingly horrible to contemplate tbh.

I await payment before repairs are to be carried out so as not to remove the evidence that I'm sure VOSA would be very interested to see unfortunately.
Really don't want to go down that route though, as it could apparently lead to them losing their licence to do MOT's IF deemed serious enough, and I really don't want to be part and parcel of potentially someone losing their livelyhood or worse still, closing a business down.

I was going to name and shame, but I really don't think that would be appropriate after the seemingly sincere apologies I've received from the owner opf the garage.

The car is now unfortunatly off the road, much to my daughters frustration, but she does understand why.

[bmcecosse]

Oh dear - well - it's your choice - but someone else could be killed due to a slap dash MOT. I think I would want to know that the person who did the MOT was at least taken off MOT duty - if not sent down the road with his P45 sticking out his ear........ Keep us informed how the repairs go - and how much they cost the dodgy MOT place...

[C.J.]

Oh dear - well - it's your choice - but someone else could be killed due to a slap dash MOT. I think I would want to know that the person who did the MOT was at least taken off MOT duty - if not sent down the road with his P45 sticking out his ear........ Keep us informed how the repairs go - and how much they cost the dodgy MOT place...

I know, and i had to think long and hard before deciding not to publicise the name of the garage.
In the end, i just couldn't do it,due to the reasons already mentioned above plus I did actually wonder if there was some sort of ruling in here about 'naming and shaming', like there is on some other forums.
One has to be extremely careful pointing accusing fingers anyway, because these things can sometimes go very pear shaped towards the accuser if the accused is very switched on with a red hot legal team backing him up, and I don't want to end up being done for slander.

My mot'er has spoken several times to the garage concerned now apparently, and has been told by the owner that the guy that did the mot is going to be disiplined...alledgedly.

I'll let you know whet the final outcome is.

Other than this sad and current scenario, my 'man' thinks the car is actually pretty good, but for the life of him, he really cannot understand why the split/crack on the front chassis leg wasn't repaired properly, as it is in fact a very simple and cheap job to execute.
Using body filler ANYWHERE on a chassis is totally inapropriate by whoever did this disgusting bodge, especially as it's right where the tie rod is fastened too.
The person unknown that did this will never be identified unfortunately, and is the real culprit here imo.

The other items are a different matter that are gong to involve purchasing of new parts.

[Trickydicky]

If it makes you feel any better I have been in the same situation only I discovered the problems when I took the car for its MOT the following year. I could not do anything about the garage as you get a "time limit" to report such matters.
If I could have though I would have reported him to VOSA.

[C.J.]

If it makes you feel any better I have been in the same situation only I discovered the problems when I took the car for its MOT the following year. I could not do anything about the garage as you get a "time limit" to report such matters.
If I could have though I would have reported him to VOSA.

Indeed. 3 months on 'rusty' related items iirc?

I feel stuck between a rock and a hard thing or whatever the phrase is over all this crap tbh.

Damned if i do, damned if I don't, BUT I really shouldn't have been placed in this situation in the first place!

Parts to the total cost of £132.65 have been orderd today anyway (plus labour obviously) , so it's not even as though it was going to cost an absolute fortune to get it 100% right for the mot in the first place.

I could SCREEEEAM with frustration.

[IaininTenbury]

I just had a Mk1 Golf in for repair with corrosion round a rear suspension area. The MOT'er said he had a similar modded Golf a few years back and failed to spot the lowered rear suspension beam had been fitted wrongly and made the car crab, ie not run in a straight line. The car was then sold and the fault came to light. Apparently he bought the car off the person who had purchased it to avoid a complaint to VOSA and risk to his licence and livelyhood. (He didn't tell me what he then did with it, probably on ebay in bits I suspect...).
Whilst rear suspension subframe alignment isnt a failure, it was still worth him buying the car to avoid the aggro. He also said he wouldn't retest this Golf as he had no wish to repeat the experience. I used to think MOT testing cars was easy.....

Having recounted that tale, I'd let them pay for the repairs to your car. At least you get a free repair and your car sorted out, rather than reporting them, they get into trouble with VOSA, your car has to be kept unrepaired as evidence, it'll probably drag on for ages and you'll end up with a refund of the test fee or something like.

[Trickydicky]

Whilst I have fallen foul with my own experience, I do think that there are a few issues to bear in mind here, for the record I am accusing nobody of devious methods.

One is that the seller and the garage work together to get the car through its mot as the seller wants to move the car on, knowing that the car is a failure. The punter who buys the car is then left with the bill.

The other is that the tester has little or no experience of testing old cars. They dont know what to look for to point out to the owner any corrosion problems, after all most of us rely on the mot to point out the problems that under normal everyday running we dont notice, we can check the obvious (lights, tyres etc) but we cant all check for corrosion around suspension locations and around the chassis etc.
Also, as time goes by the testers who know there way around classic cars are becoming few and far between.

One thing that does worry me though is the number of cars that will have had an mot this last year but under the new legislation now dont need one. Some owners may choose to ignor structural problems as they now dont need the certificate. Again I am not grouping everyone together, there are owners who go to great lengths to look after there cars. But as we are all aware it will only take one serious accident reported in the national press to tar everyone with the same brush.

[C.J.]

One thing that does worry me though is the number of cars that will have had an mot this last year but under the new legislation now dont need one. Some owners may choose to ignor structural problems as they now dont need the certificate. Again I am not grouping everyone together, there are owners who go to great lengths to look after there cars. But as we are all aware it will only take one serious accident reported in the national press to tar everyone with the same brush.

very valid point.

Not everyone is a mechanic, and so many in the future may possibly buy these pre 1960 cars with no required mot thinking they are perfectly ok and safe.
Bad enough post 1960's with a new mot, and as I've just found out, that is no guarantee of a clean bill of health either!

[IaininTenbury]

I've already been asked if I will sell a couple of my pre 1960 cars, which although runners need a certain amount of restoration work, purely because the propective buyers want a cheap motor with no MOT test to worry about. If I'd agreed they'd be on the road and in use now but I refused just on principle...

[C.J.]

I've already been asked if I will sell a couple of my pre 1960 cars, which although runners need a certain amount of restoration work, purely because the propective buyers want a cheap motor with no MOT test to worry about. If I'd agreed they'd be on the road and in use now but I refused just on principle...

Cans of worms spring to mind on this crazy legislation.

[ben-me-123]

this is funny, because I've just had an MOT failure on a list of things that half of them should have been seen a year ago... mostly rust that my mechanic says shouldn't have been passed a year ago... we had quite a good chat about what's "passable" and what can be let slip...

[C.J.]

Pleased to say that all ended well after this sorry tale.

The garage owner concerned was actually very concerned, and kept ringing for ptogress updates.

Job finally completed, and I was paid.
I was quite happy for him to pay for just the labour, but he insisted on paying for all the parts too

I genuinely believe there was much embarrasment and sorrow on his behalf and he was actually an absolute gent to deal with.

[bmcecosse]

Well done -be sure to give him your business in future.

[ASL642]

BMC that might be a little difficult as the MOT problems occured with a garage in the Midlands and the car now lives in Cheshire

Glad you got it all sorted at last

[bmcecosse]

Cheshire surely is 'midlands' of Great Britain...

[C.J.]

Cheshire surely is 'midlands' of Great Britain...

125 miles away.
Bit far for an mot.

This family run mot testing garage were almost 'fit to burn' initially, but the owner has been absolutely stupendous in all honesty.
He's apparently 'interviewed' the very long standing 'mature' mechanic concerned, and told me that he was both extremelly shocked disappointed and angry, as all of this could have put his whole business in jepordy of prosecution and even closure if I'd chosen (my right) to go down the VOSA route.
He claims that I have been most proffesional and underdsatnding in the whole matter, which I found somewhat confusing, but grateful all the same.

Tell you, he won me over with his genuine concern for my ultimate satisfaction and full acceptance his companies shoddy workmanship on this occassion.

He's even invited me to "pop in for a brew" if ever I'm passing.

[bmcecosse]