Inconsistency in mot testing

[mthompo]

I have had one car fail in ards of all the cars I have put through (new it was going to fail as only looked at night before test new it needed brake pipes) and usually taking family and friends cars etc put around 3 cars through on average a month. If they are prepared properly they will pass. Simple.

Although think failing on a fog light etc is a bit silly

 

[Ben P]

I have never produced a v5 for an MOT.
I have never had an underbody wash carried out prior to an MOT.

I had an issue with the wife's Corsa a few years back....
Car went for MOT failed on rear springs.
MOT tester said the rear springs were too loose and could fall out in extreme conditions.
The car was fitted with 40mm springs and had been for the x2 previous MOT's without issue.

I queried this and was told, it was a definite fail.
I asked for the Centre manager to come out for a look, he said it was lowered and the lowering springs were too small, and backed up his tester stating that in extreme conditions they could fall out, I asked him how much more extreme could you get than this with the car on the ramp with suspension fully unloaded, shocks at full extent and you, him, me pulling on them and they arent comming out!!! LOL

I asked the Manager why is this now becoming an issue when there was no issue the past few years, I also asked why his same center passed my mothers car just 2 weeks previous with a broken rear coil spring (the tester mentioned it to her but still passed the car, I bought a new set off ebay next day and fitted them for her after).
He called me liar basically, and said impossible.
I said I was furious at letting a woman have an MOT with a broken coil, and yet I'm getting grief with a perfectly legal, secure set of springs, I actually asked him where is the consistency with his testers!?

He refused to back down, and said that I could either put standards back in, fit shortened shocks, or weld in a plate behind the spring to ensure no possible dislodgement.

I went to the spring manufacturer and got a letter stating that the springs were road legal, and were of a sufficient drop to be legal with standard shocks as they were only 40mm, it also stated in the letter that it seemed that 'I was victim of a OEM part supporting MOT center' and that most definitely shorter shock were not required for the springs.

Took it back to MOT centre and showed Manager, who was most unpleased, but passed it but told me not to bring the letter back in the future.
MOT'd it in a different centre for the past 2/3 years now with no issue.

 

[da.murf]

Never had any issues from Ards. Only last month the rx8 passed with a decat in, front no. plate fell off, loose tie rod end & high emissions lol. I think it must depend on the tester you get also.

 

[conan]

Complete lottery who you get. i had a galant fail because I had a flat and went to the test with a spare on and was told wheel diameters on the same axle must match, fair enough I thought so went got it repaired and when I went back 2hrs later he walked up to me and handed the pass cert he had already printed in the first place. The last time I brought a Supra the lad was so anal it was funny, sat and shook the steering wheel like he wanted to nick it and tested both sun visors???? and called me under the car to tell me that while not a fail he didnt like that the front brake lines on each side didnt match perfectly. In fairness I preferred the Supra tester as I was sure the car was in very good shape but the Galant tester was a bit of a knob for making me waste time when he already passed it.

 

[stevieturbo]

the brake pads thing annoys me a bit though, I should say that i have never had that happen to me but have discussed it with a friend before, if the computer says pass on the brake test and the pads are not metal on metal then thats a pass, for them to fail you due to the fact that they are nearly done is surely an irrelevance, its like them saying your washer bottle is nearly done, or your on the light there and nearly out of fuel, certainly he should let you know and issue an advisory or what ever but nearly done, while not desireable is still a bit better than done, and if its not done then its not done.

Well to be fair....if the brake pads were that badly worn....I'd say they should put an enforcement on the car that it cannot be driven away because it is potentially dangerous

Running out of brakes isnt quite the same as running out of some water for the windows. Bit daft to even suggest they are the same

They were not coming on at all so I assume they must have been removed(wasn't me this time though I have been known to bust a few bulbs/led's) Car was traded in by a friend that bought it from a car dealer she bought it when it had just passed its last mot and I'm sure as he'll she didn't remove any bulbs, though the car was taken to a bit of a butcher of a mechanic(again not me) to have a new ecu fitted when it came back from that the speedo wasn't working so I'm wondering if there was something happened there, god only knows.

So to be fair on Ards, it did deserve to fail and if you prepared the car, you would have been well aware of that. Really you have little reason to be pissed at Ards, only whoever prepared the car ( or didnt in this case )


And as for being asked for the V5. Yes I have been asked, but it has never been an issue the fact I dont have it with me, as I dont think Ive ever brought it.

 

[stevieturbo]

I have never produced a v5 for an MOT.
I have never had an underbody wash carried out prior to an MOT.

I had an issue with the wife's Corsa a few years back....
Car went for MOT failed on rear springs.
MOT tester said the rear springs were too loose and could fall out in extreme conditions.
The car was fitted with 40mm springs and had been for the x2 previous MOT's without issue.

I queried this and was told, it was a definite fail.
I asked for the Centre manager to come out for a look, he said it was lowered and the lowering springs were too small, and backed up his tester stating that in extreme conditions they could fall out, I asked him how much more extreme could you get than this with the car on the ramp with suspension fully unloaded, shocks at full extent and you, him, me pulling on them and they arent comming out!!! LOL

I asked the Manager why is this now becoming an issue when there was no issue the past few years, I also asked why his same center passed my mothers car just 2 weeks previous with a broken rear coil spring (the tester mentioned it to her but still passed the car, I bought a new set off ebay next day and fitted them for her after).
He called me liar basically, and said impossible.
I said I was furious at letting a woman have an MOT with a broken coil, and yet I'm getting grief with a perfectly legal, secure set of springs, I actually asked him where is the consistency with his testers!?

He refused to back down, and said that I could either put standards back in, fit shortened shocks, or weld in a plate behind the spring to ensure no possible dislodgement.

I went to the spring manufacturer and got a letter stating that the springs were road legal, and were of a sufficient drop to be legal with standard shocks as they were only 40mm, it also stated in the letter that it seemed that 'I was victim of a OEM part supporting MOT center' and that most definitely shorter shock were not required for the springs.

Took it back to MOT centre and showed Manager, who was most unpleased, but passed it but told me not to bring the letter back in the future.
MOT'd it in a different centre for the past 2/3 years now with no issue.

What happened at a year previous MOT is irrelevant to any current MOT.

Broken springs are not always a fail now, depends how much is broken. Some will be an advisory. But strange that you would be furious about the tester telling her about the broken spring. Surely that's a good thing, so it can be repaired ?

You should be furious at the moron who didnt prepare the car for MOT, spot the broken spring and have it replaced, to ensure the car was safe to drive.
That simply falls back to basic maintenance. Or dont you ensure this is carried out ? It isnt an MOT testers job to ensure your car is safe and roadworthy at all times.
That is the vehicle drivers responsibility at all times.

 

[Cartunes]

Quite a massive difference in brake test too

Those brake machines are dire. Don't get me started!

 

[davey21]

Took it back to MOT centre and showed Manager, who was most unpleased, but passed it but told me not to bring the letter back in the future.
MOT'd it in a different centre for the past 2/3 years now with no issue.[/quote]

I would have told him see you next year but then again im an annoying p***k like that, and I would have went back too

ards are arseh07es I only put my Passat through there this year as it s 4 years old.

 

[DC.]

I remember Ards failing a guy once for a defective wiper blade. rest of the car was perfect, might have been it's first MOT.

John Nelson is the man to avoid. He only works Mon-Fri 9/5. used to go to tech with my Dad many moons ago.

 

[Lyons]

I always use Ards too and I don't think Ive ever had a fail either. I still travel to it even since moving to Ballynahinch direction!

 

[pablo]

ok so is this a case of you got:

A) Stroked in Ards
or
B) Lucky in Mallusk?

I vote B. Tester A actually seems the better one.

 

[davey-dimples]

I thought you had clean lost your mind when I seen all this crap on Facebook! lol

 

[Ge0rge]

ok so is this a case of you got:

A) Stroked in Ards
or
B) Lucky in Mallusk?

I vote B. Tester A actually seems the better one.

I wasn't complaining about getting failed in ards my point was it should have failed in mallusk too hence the mot really is a lottery....

Tester A was a bell3nd

 

[NI_Volvo_Nut]

View attachment 47710

Thats 2 different cars, one is a 206, other is a 206 cc, nice try though.

Details on the computer are identical for every centre.

Prove me wrong and PM me the reg of the 1st 206

 

[davey-dimples]

Complete lottery who you get. i had a galant fail because I had a flat and went to the test with a spare on and was told wheel diameters on the same axle must match, fair enough I thought so went got it repaired and when I went back 2hrs later he walked up to me and handed the pass cert he had already printed in the first place. The last time I brought a Supra the lad was so anal it was funny, sat and shook the steering wheel like he wanted to nick it and tested both sun visors???? and called me under the car to tell me that while not a fail he didnt like that the front brake lines on each side didnt match perfectly. In fairness I preferred the Supra tester as I was sure the car was in very good shape but the Galant tester was a bit of a knob for making me waste time when he already passed it.

Our Volvo passed before with 3 17s and 16 inch alloy

 

[Gaz]

My wife took her car to the MOT centre in Armagh a few weeks back. They failed it on track rod ends, and also a sqeaking noise coming from top mounts. She noted that the tester spent a fair bit of time going over the top mounts and subsequently describing the issue to her, and it was listed on the fail sheet.

Got the car back and we replaced the track rod ends. I was surprised by the squeaking noise as the top mounts had been replaced not so long ago, but in any event got them changed again. Re-tested the car in Mallusk, and the first thing the tester said when he looked at the original fail sheet was that squeaking noise should never have been taken into account as it wasn't a safety issue. He checked the track rod ends, passed the car and never even looked at the top mounts.

 

[NI_Volvo_Nut]

Our Volvo passed before with 3 17s and 16 inch alloy

Wouldn't fail for that alone

Same as the OP's car wouldn't have failed for a fog lamp alone. 206CC is a heavier car and usually has bigger brakes than a normal 206, which also explains the difference in brake readings.

I really can't wait to get a reg number, as IF (which I VERY much doubt)this is true, someone is going to have alot of explaining to do

 

[Ge0rge]

Thats 2 different cars, one is a 206, other is a 206 cc, nice try though.

Details on the computer are identical for every centre.

Prove me wrong and PM me the reg of the 1st 206

Do you want to put money on it? Here and now on rms with all to see put your money where your mouth is.....

 

[NI_Volvo_Nut]

Do you want to put money on it? Here and now on rms with all to see put your money where your mouth is.....

Just prove me wrong and PM me a reg, I'm in work on Thursday and I will check it out myself

 

[Ge0rge]

I won't be getting the second mot tester into bother he passed me and I'm no tout, I'm happy to pm pictures of both outcomes taken before I scribbled out the details to someone who can verify all the details are the same without them passing the info to you....

@pablo are you happy to view them without passing the details on and verify I am telling the truth or even @DAVY-dimples has seen them on my fb.

 

[Artoir]

 

[Ge0rge]

I won't be getting the second mot tester into bother he passed me, I'm happy to pm pictures of both outcomes taken before I scribbled out the details to someone who can verify all the details are the same without them passing the info to you....

@pablo are you happy to view them without passing the details on and verify I am telling the truth or even @DAVY-dimples has seen them on my fb.

 

[NI_Volvo_Nut]

I call BULL$4IT

Either the 2nd tester didn't see the ABS light not working or its 2 different cars, its that simple

Also, why would you take a pic, scribble out the details and take another pic?

 

[Ge0rge]

It will cost you a few quid to call bullsh1t, put your money where your mouth is and il post the pics up here, £30.50 to cover the cost of the first test.......

 

[pablo]

yeah mail them to me - pablo@reallymeansounds.com