New MOT , not impressed

[tantallon]

Mine passed today with an advisory ;Potential corrosion of brake pipes due to being covered in grease..I have always greased my brake pipes .Does that mean that all metal painted may be potentially corroded ?

[MSS]

Originally Posted by tantallon

Mine passed today with an advisory ;Potential corrosion of brake pipes due to being covered in grease..I have always greased my brake pipes .Does that mean that all metal painted may be potentially corroded ?

I would say no because it is usually very easy to see whether metal under a layer of paint is corroded. The same is not rue of grease.

I coat mine in clear Waxoyl so the tester can see the condition of the pipes yet the protection is there.

[kev-rev180]

just took my zt 190 passed nothing wrong at all it flew through it i was a bit concerned before she went for her heath check as it was the fist year in our relationship but she flew through it happy days

[Mgaz]

Originally Posted by Jim Jamieson

With the stricter regulations, not being able to see through the screen properly due to the bad blade would be considered a major fault.

Much as we don’t like it sometimes, the MOT system had to be given this neccesary overhaul.

Or.. looking at it another way, this is just another angle of attack for the government to remove more old cars off the road, by means of frightening joe public with a change of language on the test report and making it far more of a PITA for the owner to get the car home or to another garage to be repaired at a reasonable price.

Because once the vehicle is stuck at the test station, you are at the mercy of the garage as to the potential cost of repair. Even if your friend down the road from you could fix it for a pint and a favour.. You're basically held to ransom and I'd imagine there will be many owners who will now just turn around and say "scrap it" .

Plus, its empowering a dodgy garage to fail a perfectly good car and charge for unnecessary work, and use the new rules to effectively print money even easier than they did before!

[sworks]

Originally Posted by Mgaz

Or.. looking at it another way, this is just another angle of attack for the government to remove more old cars off the road, by means of frightening joe public with a change of language on the test report and making it far more of a PITA for the owner to get the car home or to another garage to be repaired at a reasonable price.

Because once the vehicle is stuck at the test station, you are at the mercy of the garage as to the potential cost of repair. Even if your friend down the road from you could fix it for a pint and a favour.. You're basically held to ransom and I'd imagine there will be many owners who will now just turn around and say "scrap it" .

Plus, its empowering a dodgy garage to fail a perfectly good car and charge for unnecessary work, and use the new rules to effectively print money even easier than they did before!

The MOT station can’t stop you from driving a failed car away.

[Mike Noc]

Originally Posted by Malc.

My wife's Mini required an MOT and I expected it to pass. However, it failed because I had overlooked that the driver side windscreen wiper missed a very small area in the middle.
But why it was considered to be a major fail, needing immediate attention, I just don't know! Rant over!

Malc it would have failed under the old MOT test as well.

[trikey]

I just wish they would align the MOT with construction & use, at least then it might make more sense.

[Mgaz]

Originally Posted by sworks

The MOT station can’t stop you from driving a failed car away.

Legally no.. but 'legally' I'm guessing you can't drive it either.

And I'd bet many people when told this fact with a low value car, on top of possible 'serious faults' and 'dangerous faults' thrown at them will consider the hassle not worth it. Thus, another old motor scratched off the gov list.

I just think the underlying tactic behind it is really just another way of scrapping low value vehicles. The fail sheet language certainly makes the vehicle look far worse than it is.. and to people who don't know there cars, they will be more pushed to ditch a 'dangerous' vehicle.

[trikey]

Originally Posted by Mgaz

Legally no.. but 'legally' I'm guessing you can't drive it either.

And I'd bet many people when told this fact with a low value car, on top of possible 'serious faults' and 'dangerous faults' thrown at them will consider the hassle not worth it. Thus, another old motor scratched off the gov list.

I just think the underlying tactic behind it is really just another way of scrapping low value vehicles. The fail sheet language certainly makes the vehicle look far worse than it is.. and to people who don't know there cars, they will be more pushed to ditch a 'dangerous' vehicle.

Exacctly the way I see it too, more government bull$hit to con joe public into buying whatever swells the coffers the most.

Advertise the 'green' benefits, hook everyone into pay monthly finace, keep the cash flowing...

Makes me want to build a V8 diesel with huge smoke stacks just to P them all off!

[Mike Noc]

Originally Posted by trikey

Makes me want to build a V8 diesel with huge smoke stacks just to P them all off!

Go the whole hog Andy and make it a two stroke.