Today (20 April 2018) marks 1 month to go until the MOT changes come in on 20 May 2018.
I know most of you will be well prepared for the changes, and understand how they will work. However, there's been some misinterpretation in the media about how the new defect categories will work - particularly what will be classed as a dangerous defect.
So, I thought it would be helpful to give a bit more background on the defect categories – explaining what is and isn’t changing.
The legal requirements
For a vehicle to be driven on Great Britain’s roads there are 2 main legal safety requirements for the vehicle. It must be roadworthy and for most vehicles of a certain age, it must have a valid MOT. Whilst they're connected, they're not the same thing, and they both have to be met independently.
So, even if a vehicle is roadworthy, it may not necessarily have an MOT (it isn’t automatic – it needs to go to a garage and get one!). And similarly, just because a vehicle has an MOT, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s roadworthy. It may have a defect that has come about after the MOT.
I'd like to remind you that this won't be changing on 20 May 2018, vehicles will still need to meet these 2 requirements.
‘Major’ and ‘dangerous’ defects
Currently, a vehicle will either pass or fail its MOT. Testers can then mark defects they believe are dangerous, and make the vehicle owner aware.
From 20 May, the implementation of the new directive will pre-define what is considered as ‘dangerous’. Defects that are failure items but aren’t deemed as ‘dangerous’ will be called ‘major’ defects.
So, after 20 May, defects that are dangerous will be set out for you, and the new ‘major’ term introduced for all other failures.
What ‘dangerous’ defects will mean for motorists
Moving to pre-defined dangerous defects will bring consistency to what is recorded as dangerous. So, we’ve taken the opportunity to make the wording on the MOT failure documents clear in reminding motorists that driving a dangerous vehicle is illegal.
While the majority of your customers would never drive a dangerous vehicle until it’s made safe, we know not everyone will behave responsibly. And, while it isn’t your responsibility to try and physically stop them from driving the vehicle, it’s important you provide them with clear advice that they do have dangerous defects.
This all applies whether the vehicle has a current MOT or not. A dangerous vehicle should never be driven on the road.
An early MOT will still be sensible
Some people have interpreted the changes to mean that a vehicle shouldn’t be brought in for an MOT early. This isn’t true.
We’ll still encourage motorists to not leave their MOT until expiry, as leaving it late increases the risk of the vehicle being used without an MOT or being unroadworthy.
'Minor' defects and advisories
The other new category from 20 May is ‘minor’. This is where there’s a defect on the vehicle – but it isn’t serious enough for the vehicle to fail. Like the major and dangerous defects, they are also pre-defined for you.
And, like the current MOT test, we'll still have advisories. These are very similar to minor defects but rather than a component already being defective, they indicate a component will become defective soon.
Recording defects
We’ve also made changes to the online MOT testing service to try and make it simple for garages to record the new defect types after 20 May.
For most defect areas (for example tyre tread depth) the defect is considered as only one level of severity (major or dangerous). The tester will just pick that the defect is present, and the MOT testing service will automatically include the level (major or dangerous) in the result.
However, for some defect areas (for example, hydraulic brake fluid leaks) there might be defects at more than one level, based on the severity of the defect. Where that’s the case, the wording of the defect describes the difference between major or dangerous.
You should assess which set of words the defect on the vehicle best matches. Then, the MOT testing service will automatically include the level (major or dangerous) in the result.
Launching a training environment
As we mentioned in my previous blog post (Services we're working on), we’re launching a training environment (or prototype area) into the MOT testing service with the post 20 May changes in place. We'll let you know when it's available.
I’d encourage you to have a look at this when you’re logged into your profile before these changes come into effect.
Finally, if you do see any stories with incorrect information on the changes, please let us know in the comments below.
443 comments
Comment by Aj posted on
Because of all the confusion and mid information in the media, you should print an official poster so that we can display this in our waiting room so that this advise is clearly available for customers to read, rather than we try and fudge a response as to why a customer should not drive away a dangerous vehicle
Recovery companies will will be rubbing their hands with all the extra revenue !
Comment by Murray Snudge posted on
I don't see why a vehicle with a major defect should be allowed to be legally driven away from the test station? The article doesn't give any examples of what will be major defects.
Comment by Steve posted on
WHAT ABOUT THE AGE TYRES MY CAR TYRES R 6 YEARS OLD
Comment by Richard posted on
This is what happens when you try to fix something that isn't broken!
To a certain degree you've just dumped the whole lot on us & said here you go get on with it, as shown by the confusion from the media,us & customers.
Before, we would have the yearly mot seminars to get to grips with things.
It would be interesting to see how the other European member states are/& have implemented it. I can guess when we leave the European union it won't be reverting back to the old tried & tested working one.
It's a complete mess from the testers point of view & the customers.
Comment by Phil posted on
So DVSA think major, minor, dangerous faults less confusing than pass, fail, advise??? Time will tell. Sorry I'm old school, if it ain't broken then don't fix it, the testers manual could have been updated without all this upheaval.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
We needed to move to the minor, major, dangerous structure to implement the Directive from the 20 May. Sticking with what we had wasn't an option.
What we're trying to do is to implement this in a way that brings some benefit to the motorist. Trying to highlight better to motorists when a vehicle is dangerous is one of the areas we are trying to get the benefit. If we can minimise people driving dangerous vehicles then that would be a good thing!
Thanks.
Comment by Cheesed off with the mot posted on
This is madness. The problem with most cars are the drivers. When is the last time you seen an accident caused by total failure of a vehicle. The government are simply trying to push older vehicles and people in low incomes off the road. Will the automatic brake mechanisms and the automatic reverse parking functions on new cars be tested? Will electric cars be judged on how much pollution they have caused? What defines a dangerous fault? It's bad enough that the headlight test is conducted wrongly but how much light is being emitted by cars with led headlights? Certainly many times more that the equivalent 120 was of standard bulbs. Many cars now the indicators are all but invisible when the lights are on because they are housed in the same lamp unit, ut still they pass mot. The old regulations when I was an apprentice stated that headlights and indicators MUST be separate lamps. The whole thing is a joke.
Comment by Gallaway posted on
Well it's quite obvious to me, keep your car in good condition, simple,!! I maintain my own car and it passes every time no prob.
However if garages that do the repairs for people need to be tested as well! I've seen some right lash ups pass not that the same garage has done!!! VOSA start scrutenising the repair garages as well as the drivers!!!!
Comment by Andy posted on
why change something that works again
Comment by Jim Campbell posted on
I personally don't understand the need for all the changes as it's worked fine all my mot years and seems to be system outage after work being carried out on system also new layout has no station number like raj said
Comment by steve posted on
Like the explanations of categories on new fail certificates my customers find them easier to understand when explaining what needs doing
Comment by Clive posted on
I agree,I like the fact that details are in rich black
But the old sheets worked well
Six failures and a couple of advisorys and it creates two sheets.waist
Comment by Jamie posted on
Many of our customers have complained about the new pass certificates,even our secretary has managed to write the wrong mileage off the pass cert onto our invoices! Why change something that is clear to something thats now confusing for people! I guess thats how the pen pushers make their living ?????
Comment by simon posted on
Why change some thing that isnt broke looks like a change just to keep bods in jobs
Comment by N .SOMSHER posted on
Thanks for the Information.
Comment by Noel posted on
Now I appreciate the intention of improving the system, you have fundamental errors, as in the numerical sequence which jumps and is not logical please amend. As for the other we will adapt to the new system and implement as we see fit but clarity will be required on items that can harm environment marked as dangerous ( oil leaks ? Antifreeze? )
Comment by Garry posted on
New certificate looks a mess.
Comment by John posted on
Why has the mot price not gone up for 8 years.
Comment by Roger eastgate posted on
Ridiculous ideas especially in the respect older diesel can't be done away with make even more pollution and damage my breathing even more
Comment by Justin posted on
The new certificates are horrible. They look even less like a cert and they have no contact number for the mot station
Comment by john miller for leighpark service station posted on
try using the emissions print out on the back of the certificate that way they have everything on one sheet of paper
Comment by Doddsy posted on
No one likes change folks but in a few months time it’ll all make sense and become the norm like everything in life,but on a critics view of it there’s no test class on the failure which can put u in a predicament if you’ve told a customer to come in for retest and say you’re class 7 testers away and u couldn’t tell by looking at the failure
Comment by Chris Ives posted on
So just for clarification, can a vehicle with a major or dangerous fail item be driven to a place of repair or scrapyard?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Chris
A vehicle with a major fault can be driven to a place of repair. A vehicle with a dangerous fault should not be driven away so may need to be recovered.
Comment by Ian posted on
Ive just attentended a MOT course for the new updates and we were told that manual advisories was going to be removed?
I really hope not as its the only way we can manually put any thing down to cover ourselves any thing not listed ie "Exhaust Deterioted"
Comment by Aled posted on
He is right
Comment by Peter O posted on
This whole system is utter nonsense, over complicated and taking away judgement calls which we are experienced and skilled to make.
The new certificates are complete rubbish and customers (and I) hate them. change for no good reason I can see.
Comment by Neil Osman posted on
Totally agree that it should be the 'TRADING AS' name on the certificate.
Comment by Steve mansell posted on
I Mot a lot of classic cars and a majority of them will become Mot exempt on the 20th May. My question is if someone presents a 1968 car for a test and it fails on some major faults and they say ah well it doesn’t need a test after the 20th May are they committing an offence by using that vehicle knowing it has faults after the 20th. This is a real thing that’s happening by an old customer who thinks he can take the car off the road till 20th May. The car failed rather miserably. I really need to advise this old gentleman and the printed word of you guys just might do it. Thanks Steve.
Comment by steve posted on
Why don't you just get a slot on watchdog or a similar programme on the telly box and let the general public no about these things and here it from the horses mouth ?
Comment by steve posted on
GOOD INFO FOR US TESTERS THOUGH ! GOOD JOB
Comment by Gary posted on
Truth is the mot station and tester will still be held responsible for the public that buy a cheap banger and when anything goes wrong and the seller can’t be found they will as always blame the test the guide says”minimum standard” yet quick fit and other large companies self regulate and don’t even come under the same guidelines as any other mot station it will give them a monopoly to print invoices in their favour dvsa need to check them example tyre with 3mm tread “dangerous” yet legal for mot they will make thousands of extra £££
Comment by murray posted on
The motor traders will soon have it changed again they are realy wild.
Comment by Jamie posted on
Day two of issuing new style certificates and no one likes them... the general public think they look a mess and too cluttered and the office staff dont like them as you have done away with what class the vehicle is therefore meaning they are unsure when it comes to invoicing. Instead we have this silly 'category' thing
Comment by Steve posted on
Where is the incentive to bring your car in early for an MOT? If there is, surely they should just bring it in every month just to check they are not going to loose their life over excessive play in a track rod end, (but if it’s in the rack it’s totally ok to drive with only a minor defect)
Come on DVSA if you have play in any ball joint in the steering system resulting in excessive play does it matter if it’s in the end or the middle joint, total farce! Sometimes I can’t even justify it to myself let alone my customers. Yes I know what you’d say, you can’t tell if the play is in the rack or the joint because you can’t actually see it but the rack is a solid object on ALL vehicles so if you have play one side and not the other it has to be in the joint not the rack
Comment by Mick posted on
The new certificates look like a letter , I think the pass / fail part should have a box around it . It does not stand out , customers are not going to be bothered to read the whole thing
Comment by Nail posted on
This new system and changes should have been brought in gradually in stages, its all to much to quickly.
Comment by Matthew posted on
In the case of a sole trader or partnership the business or garage name isn’t shown on the new failure or pass certificate and in a lot of cases makes the address incomplete which I think is a mistake as most people won’t know where the mot was performed and just looks less professional
Comment by Wayne posted on
Why can't they just leave things alone ......nothing wrong with the MOT as it is......
Comment by Julian posted on
In addition to my earlier comments , with a van being N1 for class 4 and 7 there can be confusion between the type of test being charged for !
Comment by Julian posted on
My customers are confused with the new paperwork as the areas are not boxed and segregated it is not as clear as the old certificates . As noted above lots of my tests are two pages with a few advisories I estimate I will use at least an extra box of paper and one to two extra toner cartridges over the 2500 tests I carry out per year .
Comment by Steve posted on
This is a complete load of rubbish! Far as I’m concerned nothing needed fixing! The new certificate looks unofficial and as above loads more paper and ink used. Another concern is if you do anything wrong/mistake we have to put up with it and suffer the consequences and if we make a mistake you come down on us seriously hard. Also why can’t the mot fee be set at one rate and not allowed to be any lower?
Comment by Colin posted on
Totally agree the new certificates look like something found on Google not very well set out already had 3 customers come back and had to go through the details with them not impressed with it at all .I know things have to change but this is a total mess
Comment by Alan posted on
Just a shame we can’t use the training section because of a system failure. Hopefully we will be able to use it before the start date. Fingers crossed.
Comment by john leslie atkinson posted on
What would be 1 page is now 2 ,more paper
Comment by Richard posted on
I agree - Please redesign the new certificates to show the garage name and phone number - NOT the authorised examiner's personal name - It looks silly.
Comment by Lee Heywood posted on
) posted on on 20 April 2018
Hi,
If a vehicle has it's MOT early and fails the test with a dangerous defect, the vehicle is dangerous and unroadworthy and therefore should not be driven. If the vehicle fails with a major defect, it can be driven away from the test station to be repaired.
Kind regards,
Olivia
Does this mean a car with a Major defect is still roadworthy ?
Will all major defects still deam the car roadworthy ?
This doesn’t sound correct to me. Please clarify. Thanks Lee
Comment by Twiggle head posted on
Bring back the old way.
Simple is best.
Comment by Kirk posted on
Will this not be a way for some garages to tout for extra work for them ?
Comment by phil starkey posted on
we still need clear information on how to fail a fluid leak as it is so open for misinterpretation does it have to be dripping on the floor or slightly wet around a seal
Comment by Peter Cooper posted on
Well said Raj
I was going to make the exact same comment.
We need the garage name and ideally the phone number on the certificate.
Comment by S. terry posted on
No garage name and no phone number on the certificate is ridiculous
Comment by greg caira posted on
When will the final version of the Inspection Manual be available rather than the Draft?
Comment by Alan fox posted on
Also there is no box for signatures , is this now redundant?
Comment by Colin Viner posted on
The new certificate looks ok to me. As with any change people will get used to it. As for the rest of the new regulations we will see what happens once they come into effect. I have been warning those customers with engine warning lights that have been on for years that they will have a problem in the future.
Comment by DAREN RODGERS posted on
THANKS FOR THE INFO
Comment by phil cutler posted on
mot failure how much paper do we need to use page one of two really government go on about reduce packaging and waste seem we need more paper work to produce a mot 1 for inspection 2 for a failure or more 1 or two for pass and advise looks like the paper industry and the printer ink going to do well lol oh and the computer is supposed to make a paperless office
Comment by Jeff posted on
In Wales there is a second copy of every page in welsh!!
Comment by Phil Bowen posted on
You want to live in wales We have 2 of every thing
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
For the Welsh garages - you can choose on your print box whether you print out all or just the English or Welsh versions as the customer may prefer.
Comment by wayne Dedmen-ert posted on
Interesting changes ahead. I would like to see somewhere for the public to read that if they present their vehicle say 28 days before the expiry date and it fails they still think it’s ok to drive their car away and use it normally
But this not the case as technically their vehicle isn’t roadworthy.
Comment by Andy Constantinou posted on
Regardless of whether or not an mot is done early if it fails then it becomes unroadworthy and the mot becomes void. Similarly if it passes you add the days onto the new ticket.
You can't have it both ways. This as far as i am aware has always been the case.
If a car is presented with a VT 30 then its not road worthy and the old mot is invalid
Comment by Mastertek12 posted on
It is technically is still ok to drive the vehicle if it still has a valid mot as the new mot failuredoes not cancel the existing mot,however driving a vehicle knowingly with defects failed during this mot could possibly land you in a bit of trouble especially if you are involved in an RTC and I personally wouldn’t take the chance.
Comment by Adam Craze posted on
I found this out 2 weeks ago as I took my car in for MOT nearly 3 weeks early and it failed on the windscreen with a 10mm crack on drivers view. This was the only problem. However Autoglass couldn't get anyone out to me for 1 week! The garage said now the car was unroadworthy and kept the car. I wish I had knew about this previously.
Comment by Justin posted on
If my cert says its roadworthy and a 28 days before cert expires a dodgy garage says it isnt then i have 28 days to find a new garage. Not all garages are honest and sadly try to exploit motorists for their gain.
Comment by Denis Calvert posted on
Yes agree trying to get through to vehicle owners is hard work they still think it is ok to drive. I have considered phoning the police before today 're bald tyres etc.
Comment by Diego Lopez posted on
And what about if I want to have repaired some else or by myself, should I towed the car?
Comment by Richard Wilson posted on
Could depend on the fail item. Nothing can revoke an existing MOT so they would have to fail the test on something that made the vehicle not in a road worthy condition.
Comment by PAul posted on
I agree totally with this I worked as a special copper for a while, and stopped someone who had about a month left to go on their mot however the person told me that they had only just had an mot and it failed , ( she took it early ) but she was ok to drive because the old one was still valid ?? And my senior told me there was nothing I could do, how crazy is that I don’t care if you take it back a week after you had one done if it fails t car should be off the road until fixed it’s really simple
Comment by Andy Bowman posted on
I agree with you comments, but the vehicle may not be roadworthy even if presented on the day of expiry there may still be a failure item before hand. But it still has a current certificate that shows the vehicle was safe at time of test 12 months ago and is still current till the expiry date.
Comment by Gary Mason posted on
They should be able to drive it to a repair shop as not all MOT places can carry out the required repairs.
Comment by Neil Barlow posted on
As now, driving an unroadworthy vehicle on the road is not legal and - more importantly - not sensible.
Comment by Matthew posted on
For clarity - what is the threshold for being "roadworthy", as I note you state this is separate to passing an MOT test.
Is it only "Dangerous" defects that would push you over the "unroadworthy" threshold?
i.e. if today you still have 1 month to go until expiry of existing MOT certificate, and you have an MOT carried out today and receive a Fail due to a Major defect (everything else passes), is the car still considered roadworthy, and driveable to any destination until your MOT certificate expires?
Comment by con posted on
will we still have the option to mark something as dangerous if we think it should be since we are in a better position to make that judgment.
also since we will get asked this if a car is brought in early and it happens to fail will the old test be void. I understand its illegal to drive a faulty vehicle but I would like to give them the correct information.
thanks
Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on
Hi,
If a vehicle has it's MOT early and fails the test with a dangerous defect, the vehicle is dangerous and unroadworthy and therefore should not be driven. If the vehicle fails with a major defect, it can be driven away from the test station to be repaired.
Kind regards,
Olivia
Comment by Robin posted on
You mentioned the vehicle can be driven away for repair but have failed to say that it cannot be driven for every day use once the failed certificate is issued , it needs to state that the failed MOT cancels out the original MOT
thus you can only drive the vehicle away from the MOT station, to a garage for repair (if taking to different garage) and away once repairs complete, then back to the MOT testing station for retest. Of all the write ups i have seen none have been written in stone as what is the correct procedure
Comment by Andy Constantinou posted on
You can't stop a customer from driving thier car away.
Can advise them not to drive but that is all.
We are mot testers not law enforcement.
What the driver does is not our concern
Comment by Steve posted on
But surely if a car has a major defect then it is unroadworthy,so shouldn't be driven on the road?
Comment by Peter posted on
So if the vehicle fails with a dangerous defect it cannot be legally driven away even for repairs to be carried out elsewhere?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Peter
You are correct.
Comment by mark posted on
it's getting far to complicated now there was nothing wrong with the fail/pass/advise system it was easy to learn and customers could understand it easily. this new system is as confusing to customers as it is testers and the new certificate layout is a total mess. bring back the old system at least it worked.........most of the time.
Comment by Peter O posted on
yep, those of us who know what we are doing already know this and advise customers accordingly, as its been so with the old system
Comment by Roy pears posted on
Olivia your reply to question from con 20th April can you clarify can vehicle be driven away with a dangerous failure on it every one keeps posting conflicting answers
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Roy
A vehicle with a dangerous fault should not be driven away.
Comment by richard posted on
so if the customer has 20 days left on the current mot,then it fails with a major defect, and cant get it repaired until the 10th day,can they still drive the car legal?
Comment by Matthew B posted on
"If the vehicle fails with a major defect, it can be driven away from the test station to be repaired"
The position in dangerous repairs is now clear, thank you.
However, to be 100% clear on this, if a vehicle is presented for its next MOT before the expiry of its current certificate (certificate A) and fails with a major defect, it can (until the expiry date printed on certificate A):
A) ONLY be driven to an appropriate location to be repaired and CANNOT be used for any other purpose, or
B) can be driven to any location for any purpose, as long as repairs have been booked elsewhere by the expiry date on certificate A, or
C) can be driven to any location for any purpose.
Comment by Dd posted on
What authority has a test centre have to stop you drive your vehicle away .could be a money making for the garage as they have your and can charge high rate because you canto drive it away.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi
A test centre can't stop you taking your vehicle away but if it has been failed with dangerous faults it should not be driven.
Comment by Mike Ball posted on
Hi Olivia. In relation to my earlier question I should have said imply and the question obviously relates to a "Dangerous" fault.
Comment by Graham Nicol posted on
So the car fails and shouldn't be driven away ,fine have no problem with that but what if the Test station doesn't do repairs ? and has limited parking Facilities who is going to sort out storage and removal of unroadworthy Vehicles ???? I have already be asked this Question
Comment by James C. posted on
So if I took my car to an mot centre that does not fix the car(mot test only) and has a dangerous fault listed. How do I get it repaired if I can't drive it on the road again?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi James
If it fails with a dangerous defect the vehicle will need to be removed such as by a recovery vehicle.
Comment by bill posted on
you did not answer the question the answer is no the mot is not void but the vehicle should not be driven on the road but we cannot stop them from doing so
Comment by M.lobb posted on
So with this in mind anyone who thinks they may have a major fault are unlikely to bring there vechcle for a early test !
Comment by Ash posted on
How is that the case though? How can you say it's okay to drive a car that is deemed to not have met the minimum standards to be on the road?
If I fail a car with 4 bald tyres, it's illegal. How can they drive it? If PC plod pulled them over it's 12 points on their license. Yet we are saying they can drive it.
DVSA and the police need to work together on this issue.
Comment by jameslindley posted on
The defects that have been recognised as dangerous are all pre-defined. There will not be the option to mark other defects as such.
If a vehicle does fail an MOT (be that for major and/or dangerous defects) then, as now, its MOT will still be valid. However, as now, it will still not be legal to drive if it is ‘unroadworthy’ – which in particular means dangerous defects.
Comment by Neil Barlow posted on
You are correct, it is illegal to drive any unroadworthy vehicles - with more severe defects having more severe penalties.
To try and keep it simple and drive the right behaviours (not driving dangerous cars), we have focussed the messaging on the 'dangerous' defects.
But we don't say anywhere in the blog or on the certificates that it is okay to drive a vehicle with major defects. It's best if people fix things on their cars before driving them.
Comment by Gary posted on
I test for a local Authority. We don't do any repairs to general public vehicles at all. We don't even fit bulbs. I know we can only advise people that they shouldn't really drive their vehicle away if it has a dangerous fail Item, but with us they have too. The only other option for them is to have it recovered. Any thoughts on this for us local Authority testers.
Comment by mercedes posted on
this new mot pass certificate is a mess people are asking me were is the expiry date on it and what is there a need for a date tested next to it people are just getting confused this is 3/4 times i have had to explain the new mot lay out
Comment by Andy C posted on
Excellent!
Clear and concise.
Comment by Steve posted on
Initial feedback from our customers and the public of the proposed changes are of total confusion, the New Certificates have met with disapproval throughout, nothing positive can come from this other than alienating not only the public but also the Motortrade as a whole
Comment by Peter O posted on
I totally agree its complete nonsense
Comment by Raj posted on
The new certificates show the ‘entity’name, so in case of a sole trader shows the sole trader’s full name! Rather than the business name as before.
This is a silly move. Also the station telephone number is missing.
Comment by Charlie posted on
Exactly raj if sole trader there is no garage name or contact details we have been putting garage stamp on the bottom but it’s not good enough
Comment by Phil posted on
Yeah agree should definitely have the garage name on will just cause confusion.
Comment by David Hutchinson posted on
The business name and telephone number should be on the VT20/30 our business name has no resemblance to the names of our partners of the business. Also why not include email on there too for garage
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi David
Thanks for pointing this out and your suggestion to include an email address. We are picking up with the development teams how we can correct the printed name and other items. We will update you when this is done.