should these mot historys concern me about what im about to buy ? ?

[Polly]

Personally I can only see a tester who is a bit of a prat, a tyre that is close to legal limit is still close to legal limit next year? What exactly does that mean? Other than "I would like to sell you some new tyres" now of course the owner may have fitted some used tyres, we have no way of knowing that, but then the lightly rusted brake pipes??? Try to find a 10 year old car that does not have lightly rusted brake pipes.
Certainly I would want to check for myself that the brake pipes were OK, but then again if they were not I'm sure the car would have failed.
The problem here is that many testers do not want to issue a pass certificate without further comment. They are of the opinion that a 10 year car must have faults, so these advisories will serve to convince the authorities that they have done there job properly. Something that I would have thought would be unnecessary if the test was done properly.

[Chilljohn]

Originally Posted by arnosvale65

How did you get all that info? Did you have the vin number? All I could get was whether it was taxed and MOT'd.

http://motinfo.direct.gov.uk

[mcd840]

Originally Posted by arnosvale65

How did you get all that info? Did you have the vin number? All I could get was whether it was taxed and MOT'd.

i had the cars reg and vin number, it was given to me before i went to see the car

[sworks]

Originally Posted by Polly

Personally I can only see a tester who is a bit of a prat, a tyre that is close to legal limit is still close to legal limit next year? What exactly does that mean? Other than "I would like to sell you some new tyres" now of course the owner may have fitted some used tyres, we have no way of knowing that, but then the lightly rusted brake pipes??? Try to find a 10 year old car that does not have lightly rusted brake pipes.
Certainly I would want to check for myself that the brake pipes were OK, but then again if they were not I'm sure the car would have failed.
The problem here is that many testers do not want to issue a pass certificate without further comment. They are of the opinion that a 10 year car must have faults, so these advisories will serve to convince the authorities that they have done there job properly. Something that I would have thought would be unnecessary if the test was done properly.

There is nothing better a tester likes than a nice simple pass with no advises. Issuing an advisable item can in some way be the tester covering their behind as the law states that the car must be tested as presented on that day, however, the owner has three months to complain about a decision? Not really fair is it you can not test a brake pipe correctly due to corrosion without cutting it in half so the tester has to point out that he has at least spotted it. If the brake pipe was corroded and passed and then breaks in the next three months would the owner take no further action or complain to Vosa? It is true also that some people advise things that others don't, some testers are strict and some lenient but both are technically correct as its how the law is interpreted, it's not black and white. It really is a no win situation for the tester, who would want that responsibility ?

[mcd840]

Originally Posted by sworks

There is nothing better a tester likes than a nice simple pass with no advises. Issuing an advisable item can in some way be the tester covering their behind as the law states that the car must be tested as presented on that day, however, the owner has three months to complain about a decision? Not really fair is it you can not test a brake pipe correctly due to corrosion without cutting it in half so the tester has to point out that he has at least spotted it. If the brake pipe was corroded and passed and then breaks in the next three months would the owner take no further action or complain to Vosa? It is true also that some people advise things that others don't, some testers are strict and some lenient but both are technically correct as its how the law is interpreted, it's not black and white. It really is a no win situation for the tester, who would want that responsibility ?

a good example of this is on my last car - 2001 vectra, went to the same tester 3 years in a row, every year same advisories, sill covers fiited to sills, grease on brake pipes (surely a good thing) braked pitted but not seriously weakened, damage to sills (where a trolley jack had been used and bent a tad)

went to a different local garage last year, flew straight through without a single advisory.

[sworks]

The mot is not a guide as to how good a car is, it is a check that the car Meets the minimum standard of road worthiness. A car that passes with three advises isn't worse than a car with no advises, it just means that in one testers opinion he thinks the owner should know about a potential issue. Also, whilst testing the tester is actually working on behalf of Vosa not the test station so there shouldn't be any 'upswell' motives. If the car passes an MOT and there is an issue it falls back to the tester not the garage, if somebody need up in court its the tester. MOT based threads come up all the time and the best advice is use a test station that you trust or when buying a car check the history like in this thread but ultimately have a good look at the car and trust your own instinct.

[Sector-9]

Advisories are things to keep an eye on - they still meet the legal requirements or aren't testable. Passing the MOT is the important thing - if the car's unsafe or in a seriously bad way then it'll fail. And as the youngest of the 75s are now ten years old or more, there's going to be deterioration especially underneath - apart from brake pipes everything listed is a service item and should be expected to need replacing/adjusting at some point. Brake pipe corrosion is a tester favourite because it's subjective - it passes or fails on their opinion of how it looks, not any actual test of the pipework strength and integrity. I've had advisories on every car I've owned for brake pipes and after taking a wire brush to them myself been satisfied that it's nothing more than easily-removed surface rust. Have you ever known a metal brake pipe fail due to rust?

If you don't want any advisories then buy brand new, though a growing number of those are now failing their first MOTs!

[Anon3]

Sworks,
You still won't convince me advisories in the way they are relayed these days are any better than the spoken word.
I mean, look at the previous example in "grease on brakepipes".
That's pathetic. How can that possibly be a problem?

And what ultimately sums up the whole situation is that even on the MOT cert it states that just because a car has a cert, it shouldn't be regarded as an indicator of the actual condition (or similar)!
Ok, perfectly understandable months after a test, but it applies as soon as the car has left the forecourt.

As for the customer having a 3 month comeback, I fail to see how a tester can lose with the "well it was ok imo, when I looked at it" comment.

No, these advisories are just people being seen to do their job thoroughly, imo.

The way I see it, there are those that want to know everything about their car, but will probably have done their own checks and already know any issues anyway.

And those who want the pass and couldn't give a stuff about anything else, as long as they can stay legal.

Ah, sorry, I'm just having a moan.
The whole setup is just a moneyspinner imo, when you consider the test fee was a tenner in the early eighties.
The standard fee is now £54.85; what a rip-off!

[sworks]

Originally Posted by Anon3

Sworks,
You still won't convince me advisories in the way they are relayed these days are any better than the spoken word.
I mean, look at the previous example in "grease on brakepipes".
That's pathetic. How can that possibly be a problem?

And what ultimately sums up the whole situation is that even on the MOT cert it states that just because a car has a cert, it shouldn't be regarded as an indicator of the actual condition (or similar)!
Ok, perfectly understandable months after a test, but it applies as soon as the car has left the forecourt.

As for the customer having a 3 month comeback, I fail to see how a tester can lose with the "well it was ok imo, when I looked at it" comment.

No, these advisories are just people being seen to do their job thoroughly, imo.

The way I see it, there are those that want to know everything about their car, but will probably have done their own checks and already know any issues anyway.

And those who want the pass and couldn't give a stuff about anything else, as long as they can stay legal.

Ah, sorry, I'm just having a moan.
The whole setup is just a moneyspinner imo, when you consider the test fee was a tenner in the early eighties.
The standard fee is now £54.85; what a rip-off!

Not a moan at all, all relevent comments the greased brake pipes could have been greased to hide corrosion as some people just want a pass verdict and have no concern as to the moral implications so a tester identifying as an advise proves that it was seen but he couldn't check properly. The three month comeback rule isn't a case of the tester spotted and advised an item so has no repercussions, it just proves it was seen. If an item is passed and advised then fails within 3 months Vosa will inspect and their job is to look at its current condition and try and then work back to how they think it was at the time of test. Another way of looking at it that if a tester makes an incorrect call and there is an incident ant it's thought the tester missed or made a bad call then ultimately the tester could potentially go to jail so a few advises to cover his / her behind that an issue was spotted doesn't seem too bad

[David Lawrence]

Originally Posted by mcd840

suppose the brake pipes dont bother me, after all its ten year old, as for the exhaust corrosion doesnt matter untill it blows, however, what does this mean ? - Slight unbonding and play to nearside rear shock absorber rear top mounting

It looks like its been needing brake pipes for years. Its all going to come down to price. Better to get the car cheap then get all the jobs done yourself that way you know for sure they are done. All those faults are normal for a car that age, they just need sorting. You could pay a lot more for a car that appears to be in better condition, but then you dont really know the full story behind some of the critical parts. Get it cheap then spend what you saved on all new parts.