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 terry moore posted on
please put back garage name address and phone no for customers use! please
how many pages to print now!! add a line of advisory information or two and 2 pages are printed, lets save paper guys
Comment by GEOFF posted on
I totally agree with you. Since we have had to fork out of our own pockets it has not been of concern to them. The monies we pay to them is stupid.( Is the queen getting more money). ( Has- been has we work for the crown has we are told . Also on top of it all we have to pay for the EU Directive reguarding Emmissions Update. The companies involved with supplying / calibrating MOT standards/ Equipement are the only ones making money. Looking forward to retiring and getting out of this rat race.
Comment by david b posted on
why is there no relevant information on the failure sheet to explain to customers the re test procedure?
customers do not read our site poster nor can they be bothered to visit the website link which you have put on the failure sheet.
can this information be put on the failure sheet please? it then is there in black and white and saves us testers time having to explain to customers the correct procedure following a failure
Comment by Steve posted on
I understand that if a vehicle fails the test due a dangerous defect it shouldn't be driven on the road but does that failure certificate actually invalidate an existing MOT? ie if the test is done early but the vehicle fails and then driven on the road is the current certificate still valid so the driver can't be prosecuted for not having a MOT?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Steve
If a vehicle does fail an MOT (be that for major and/or dangerous defects) then, as now, its current MOT will still be valid until expiry. However, as now, it will still not be legal to drive if it is ‘unroadworthy’.
Comment by Basil posted on
Why not put after dangerous or major (UNROADWORTHY) so that it clarifies the position and exonerates the garage completely
Comment by Richard posted on
Big concerns, testing organisation listed as the three partners who own the business and not company name and phone number, for customers to contact, meaning loss of customers .Not very happy needs to be rectified.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Richard
Thanks for pointing this out. 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.
Comment by Joe Johnson posted on
Hi Julia, I am a MOT tester who also teaches at a college, I wondered if you will be updating the videos for the latest changes (or re doing them entirely) as they are great resources for our level 2 MOT examiners course
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Joe
There are no plans to update these currently but we will keep you updated on this site.
Comment by Harry posted on
I could not agree more.
If Joe Bloggs owns A & B Garage. It's the garage name that should be on the certificate. Not Joe Bloggs.
How would any customer know, what garage carried out the MOT. With no garage name or contact number.
To me, its just common sense. Did no one look at this, and just say that does not look right?
We spend many pounds, advertising and marketing the garage name, not who the owner is. I would like to see the garage name on the certificate.
Comment by Andy posted on
Despite being told we were getting the training on the 20th April, it's still not working. When will we get to see the new "enviroment"? We are less than a month away now, this is cutting it a bit close.
https://training.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Andy
The online MOT tester training environment is now live at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-from-may-2018-guidance-for-mot-testers/identifying-and-recording-the-new-defects-on-the-mot-testing-service#use-the-training-environment. Take a look at the Special Notice for more details on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-special-notice-05-18-training-environment-and-redesigned-test-documents
Comment by john rowan posted on
the entity name is a problem, hope this can be amended quickly.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi John
Thanks for pointing this out. 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.
Comment by Mike Williams posted on
The training environment which should have been available on the 20/04/18 is still not working, it would have been useful to have been told there is a problem. without having to call Swansea.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Mike
The online MOT tester training environment is now live at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-from-may-2018-guidance-for-mot-testers/identifying-and-recording-the-new-defects-on-the-mot-testing-service#use-the-training-environment. Take a look at the Special Notice for more details on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-special-notice-05-18-training-environment-and-redesigned-test-documents
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Apologies for that. We did send out a 'DVSA direct' e-mail - which those people registered will have got. To register, go to the matters of testing homepage and scroll down and look for the updates section on the right. We post information here on any short term issues such as the training environment being a few days late.
Comment by Mark posted on
Testing stations are already moaning about the amount of paper and ink that is being used, where many other utility companies are trying to go paperless.
Here in Wales, we go through enough paper to demolish a small forest every year with duplicates of everything in Welsh.
Would it not be possible to add a button at the end of the MOT form to say "Do you want a welsh copy" The majority of our customers don't speak welsh, so all this paper goes straight in the bin.
Comment by motboyhull posted on
We are seeing the same customers dont understand the lay out and have comments that it just looks like an advert for DVSA.
No contact telephone for the MOT station.
We think this is a step back from the last design,we think the whole design needs to go back to your design desk
Customers arent interested DVSA telephone numbers they just want a clear
certificate thats easy to understand
Comment by Jason posted on
The old certificate was much better than this new one. Most of the driving public will just end up more confused than before !! Looks more like someone trying to justify their job.
Comment by Luigi posted on
Some confusing stories , if it fails on a major will the current mot still be valid. Thanks
Comment by K. Stottor posted on
I totally agree with Raj, the entity name should be the name of the testing station, regardless of sole trader or ltd company, it looks ridiculous, & I’ve had some customers with frowns on their faces, while trying to make sense of the new certificates format, it looks very untidy & confusing to the general public.
One customer referred to the document looking like a PayPal receipt, boxes & outlining would go a long way to making it more understandable for the general public.
Comment by Bosch posted on
New certificate is confusing at many levels last certificate fine they could’ve used the same layout make the font a little bigger. Job was a gooden. But ?
Comment by Andrew posted on
With our cost increasing, emmission tester updates annual training,wages, learning new systems, crashing mot system etc,etc isn’t it about the the fee was increased ?
Comment by Alan Greenwood posted on
Effective communication! Thank you.
Comment by PhillW posted on
I’m with Raj. The new certificate shows my name sole trader and the name of tester. There’s no infomation of where they took car for test only the station number The fail certificate looks over complicated, I can see the layout is in line with the website layout which works very well, but it hasn’t been transferred well to paper.
Comment by Nigel posted on
This is taken from ask the police web site "If your vehicle doesn't have an MOT you can drive it to or from a pre-arranged MOT or to or from a pre-arranged appointment to have defects remedied that were discovered on a previous test. You can drive your vehicle on a road without road tax in these circumstances". It goes on to say this journey should be kept as short as possible as you can still be prosecuted for driving a vehicle on the road with defects. It would be much clearer that if a car was bought in for a test early and it subsequently failed this should now overrule any days left on the previous mot and dvla web site should show the vehicle as not having a current mot.
Comment by Stephen Driver posted on
We noticed there was no telephone number on the new certificates for the garage .
Comment by Otis posted on
My only issue is that to customers with the litany of defect categories it looks as if garages are trying to drum up work...
Having read and digested the new manual there is a lot of good stuff BUT the new certificate and the odd vehicle categories are not the best ideas
Comment by bernard brinkworth posted on
I find this whole thing confusing dont understand why there have to be so many changes at one time. Testers are not computers you cant program them. Why cant make one change at a time so can fit them in to our routine.Minor fail is a pass who comes up with this stuff. We had pass and fail in the past it was easy for everyone to understand. Then RFR and pass. You get used to system then all change again. Do you ever think about the testers more stress I for one not looking forward to this change.
Comment by Mr D Wright posted on
I think the actual mot scheme is very fair and should make the roads safer. The negative thoughts I have are :
1, the amount of extra paper and ink we have to use to provide documentation is actually quite worrying especially when we’re supposed to be getting “greener “.
2,The extra costs involved to carry out mot testing including the provision of new emissions testing equipment because the limits have been changed by “whoever “is somewhat annoying as nobody has mentioned any increase in the mot fees.
Comment by ghazi posted on
i think it would have been much easier to be a doctor then an MOT tester
Comment by Ian posted on
Q. If my car fails on a major or dangerous fault, can I,
A, drive it home (and no further) or drive it until the current test expires.
B, Tow it home on a rigid bar,
or (as rumoured)
the car must NOT leave the testing station and MUST be repaired by the testing station
or
B, does it have to "transported" by trailer/lorry away for repairs elsewhere.
A definite yes/no answer would be appreciated.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Ian
If it fails on a 'dangerous' fault, the car should not be driven if it's unsafe to drive but could be recovered. It does not have to be repaired by the testing station that failed it in the first place.
Comment by Mike Kirby posted on
Utterly daft changes and extremely confusing to my mind. Will these changes actually improve road safety and reduce road deaths?
Comment by Neil Barlow posted on
Hi Mike. Which change is confusing? Happy to clarify.
Comment by Paul Stember posted on
Steering rack gaiter or ball joint dust cover: damaged or deteriorated Minor
missing or no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc. Major
Training area now...Steering Gear 2.1.3(g)(ii) doesnt have the...'or no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc'...on it...Just 'MISSING' steering rack gaiter?
7.7 (c) (i) horn not loud enuff to be heard by another road user Minor ... makes it sorta pointless even having one don't it?
Visibility...Damaged (in excess of 10mm, 40mm etc) not adversely affecting driver's view Minor defect... may clear up any confusion to do with view of bonnet & sky S/N 2/ 2014.? (or you could update that 'template' that's out of date)
You gotta pass blue Daytime Running Lights? & Stop Lamp(s) Does not face rear Minor?
Brake Hoses...so much detail available, except...you left off the ferules?
THE 'DRAUGHT' VERSION seems to be changing cause you need our help & therefore could they not move D day give us all a bit more time
Number plate inscription missing or illegible Major...what is the inscription?
Comment by mark posted on
all of them
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Thanks Mark. If you do have any detail of what is confusing - then we may be able to point you towards information that can help.
Comment by Paul posted on
AS CLEAR AS MUD this is cutting it a bit close
Training area...Steering Gear 2.1.3(g)(ii) doesnt have the...'or no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc'...on it...Just 'MISSING' steering rack gaiter? And the new manual gives 3 defects for shock absorbers you then log into the train site and there's 5 defects they don't match up?
7.7 (c) (i) horn not loud enuff to be heard by another road user Minor ... makes it sorta pointless even having one don't it?
Visibility...Damaged (in excess of 10mm, 40mm etc) not adversely affecting driver's view Minor defect... may clear up any confusion to do with view of bonnet & sky S/N 2/ 2014. (or you could update that 'template' that's out of date)
You gotta pass blue Daytime Running Lights? & Stop Lamp(s) Does not face rear Minor?
Brake Hoses...so much detail available, except...you left off the ferules & brake hose having insufficient room to move resulting on it fouling on any..?
Tyre slightly damaged/valve stem damaged…Advisory!
The draft version seems to be changing every day just now could you not move D day and give us all a bit more time
Number plate inscription missing or illegible Major...what is the inscription, I know it’s a stupid question & reverse lights, they must work but won’t fail if they don’t?
Comment by Peter Chidley posted on
1. Firstly may I generally commend DVSA revised typeface /font on new documents . Regard as a giant leap forward from current docs. which I perceived as dated even when originally produced.
2. Am disappointed that DVSA seem to have chosen not to incorporate the iconic '3 triangle' logo as believe logo is more instantly recognised and is associated by public via VTS signage and safety awareness etc. Might add historically adopted from when light vehicle 10year testing (not 3 year testing ) was introduced in the 'dark ages '!!
As an NT have witnessed government departments currently DVSA, previously VOSA , Vehicle Inspectorate and so on.
3. Having now examined 'sample ' document layouts wish to offer various suggestions initially from a current NT point of view , also how future customers may perceive when introduced next month.
4. In my view certain KEY information needs to stand out and be emphasised with larger font size i.e Registration Number, Make & Model and overall result ( pass / fail ).
To avoid possible future misunderstanding / confusion test and expiry / preserve dates need separation or modification to make more 'fool proof ' to the average reader .
5. Ref VT20 can Date of test associated with Current mileage figure be placed where vehicle details are stated . After all once a rest completed is historical information.
6. May I suggest by revising layout that words PASS and Expiry are a bit more prominent and are listed SIDE by SIDE ( to be more associated with each other ) possibly with a note on preservation anniversary date etc. close by. Once a VT20 is issued perceive this part of certificate information the most relevant .
7. VT30 Refusal Documents need to maximise on available space by rearranging mandatory (fixed size ) information to allow for variable size and number of defects i.e Dangerous (fail ), Major (immediate ) and Minor (advisory) defects. All of these categories may have to be included as I have previously experienced testing classes 4 5&7 .
8. Intended purpose would be reduce the possibility of producing a second (continuation ) A4 sheet of paper.
9. Location of test, VTS details and gov. small print needs to be either reduced in (size relative to importance )and spead across to free up space for say failure items etc.
10. It would be interesting to discover whether any NT's or AE's out there agree or disagree with my thoughts and suggestions .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL NOTE
Perhaps DVSA might consider a separate additional BLOG ? >>>
Will new regulations improve perception of Mot Testing by public?
.
As many out there ,especially over recent years, the perception by some presenters / vehicle owners / customer expectation have meant that prime function of an Mot Test has become significantly blurred to many. Merely an instrument to tax a vehicle?
Unfortunately and increasingly , some vehicle owners appear to place vehicle maintenance costs above the general safety of others .
Regard also the test as a year on year (very cheap) inspection merely present vehicles merely to find out what will pass or fail . (to assess whether vehicle worth keeping etc.)
Furthermore if advisories are issued any significance often ignored as they have no effect on issue of a pass certificate and do not cost anything!
Consequently Mot test can evolve to a process of including an additional ( unintended ) cheap inspection on customers behalf.
Often not helped by intensive fee discounting seen as low as £9 or FOC recently . Also often interlaced with other marketing offers thrown in . Is this good practice ?
Also common misconception that Mot Pass is a partial future guarantee of roadworthiness ,rather than a test to meet minimum standards of safety as we all know.
Would the owners/presenters/general public benefit from a programme of education , instead of complaining over the counter after a test often about something not fully understood or not part of test.
Experience over last few years has shown an increasingly significant trend considered for the worse .
Increasingly find condition of some vehicles as initially presented for test has worsened by more having failed pre checks .
To expand , unofficial data I have recorded is based on experience testing Class 4 5 &7 at VTS sites within the company 's geographical areas .Therefore not confined to a single VTS location .
Am able to reliably state fact ----an average of 10% of vehicles arrive with insufficient engine oil, coolant or both necessary in order to test, let alone potential RFR as no washer fluid . Significant enough ?
To conclude, can anyone out there share their experiences or do you accept , 'it is what it is' and nothing will change ?
Comment by andy 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 Gary thompson posted on
I agree looks messy with no box’s
Not professional, and no mot station phone , is not helpful for the customer.
Comment by alan slater broomhill motors posted on
we are issuing the new style certificates now we used matters of testing to understand the changes so we can show and explain to our customers as for major dangerous failures our customers would quite rightly expect us to repair there vehicle if at all possible although there have been occasions we have advised to owners to scrap vehicle I have been mot testing for 45 years so I have seen a lot of changes sometimes I thought I cant under stand this but I always do the mot system is very good and it helps to read matters of testing and print off copies it could do with the station telephone number on certificate but no doubt this will be done
Comment by Paul posted on
I agree with Raj the “entity “name is not the business trading name and must be altered to the garage name along with contact details . I tried contacting the relevant help desk on the “dedicated “ phone number to raise this issue but it seems when there is a major flaw or a “scheduled overnight update “ which goes disastrously wrong the help line is anything but helpful ! The most recent problem resulted in any attempt to talk to an advisor was made impossible as the phone line was permanently rejecting incoming calls . Does the DVSA think this is acceptable? And when might we expect this situation to improve?
Comment by Paul Richards posted on
On the subject of new certificate layout, when a manager prints a duplicate certificate, it says issued by ..........., but then asks for MOT inspector to sign at the bottom, rather than the issuer. The original inspector may not be available, that is why the manager has issued a replacement. Can this be corrected please.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Paul
Both duplicates and replacements clearly state who the original inspector was and then show who issued the duplicate or replacement and what date that was issued. The inspector's signature is for the tester who inspected the vehicle or a signature on behalf of the inspector in the case of a duplicate or replacement.
You are correct saying that the old certificate did state signature of issuer. We are confident that the new one complies with the EU directive as it is and clear for our users (the motorist). In the future, we may list the issuer if more user feedback in comes in.
Comment by Nish posted on
Why are there 2 pages printed with unnecessary text? This is going to double the amount of paper being used. Some pages only have 1 small line. This is not an acceptable use of paper or resources.
Comment by Ash posted on
The new Mot certificate is a joke, it has my name (the tester) and the two directors of the company on it(why) and it looks like a 10 year old with bad editing software produced it.
Comment by Andy g posted on
if a vehicle fails test for with a major defect we should advize customers that it should not be driven on the road , were mot testers not giving this advice previously ?. if a customer chooses to ignore our advise and drive their vehicle on the road with a major defect they will be legaly responsible, was that not the case previously ?. my advice stop with the sensationlism and use common sense,a vital part of being an mot tester in my opinion.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Andy
Hi there
If a vehicle fails with a major defect, it can be driven away for repair as long as it is safe to drive. The responsibility for deciding to do this rests with the driver.
Comment by Kevin posted on
You would think that they would have taken out one change at a time.ie one a month rather than throw it all in ! Plus now m.o.t centres are going to be spending more time on vehicles but no sign of the price of the m.o.t going up !
Comment by Dale posted on
Where do test stations stand with explaining to the customer about dangerous defects and them taking the car anyway?
I personally don't think we should be in a position where we have power to hold a vehicle because we're commercially driven - so are not impartial like DVSA or Police officers who 'prohibit' a car.
Also the new layout / formatting needs work as the expiry date can move places depending on advisories etc. Before it was left at the top so you always could see it - indeed we always use a coloured highlighter to show it clearly.
And maybe a clear blog with ALL of the changes such as new categories to pin down new things to test.
Comment by alan posted on
i think they aimed these new certificates at the millennial generation...
Comment by Colin Gossage posted on
Please give the industry a clear message regarding heat shields. The wording is clear. If the manufacturer put one on, it was for a good reason. This will cause customer and tester confusion, ending up in mixed standards of testing.
Comment by Dougie (DVSA) posted on
Hi Colin,
Thanks for your comments. Heat shields are not detailed in the new directive and therefore are not included in the manual. Your point has been noted for future consideration.
Comment by Stuart posted on
I went in to book an MOT yesterday for next week and first thing the guy said was " do you know it's changing " and asked if it had a current MOT and I said "yes a month" and then he then went on to more or less say say if it failed that cancelled the current MOT ....I suggested that was not quite the truth but apart from the suspicion he has been reading the Daily Mail why did he say this anyway as there is a month to go before the changes . Apart from the categorisation of the fails to Dangerous and Major it's still illegal to drive an unroadworthy car on the road just as it is now.
Hopefully the message will get through in the month but reading a couple of the comments above there is work to be done .
How did DVSA get in to this mess....takes me back to years ago at a Civil Service training course when it was stressed that when putting a message across it's not so much whether YOU know what you mean but whether the recipient knows what YOU mean !!!!
Comment by Tina Adams posted on
My vehicle failed an MOT 2005. Advisory stated 4 dangerous probs. Re tested same month still dangerous. Then car was tested again n passed MOT. Ive had car 4 weeks. I got MOT info from Gov.uk site. I didnt get paper MOT nor know the garage that tested it. The seller told me get another MOT done yourself. That the car is sound. Oh apart from shooting across the rd if i hit even the smallest pothole.This MOT runs out Sept 2019
Comment by R grace posted on
If a vehicle fails on a major defect whether dangerous or not and the presenter drives away from the test station with his current mot still valid. Is the vehicle insurance still valid?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi
You would need to check with your insurance company on this point.
Comment by Chris Reed posted on
Seems sensible enough to me! Anything that changes takes some getting used to.
Comment by craig h posted on
The new certificates are a mess , no clear layout ,i struggle to find the info on the page to show the customer . the feed back i have had has been very negative.
Comment by Martyn posted on
I also noticed this Raj . The only phone no. is the DVSA .They will be getting lots of phone calls for re-tests etc .
Comment by peter posted on
I concur with Raj post on 20Th of April, the new format gives the proprietors name and not the name of the garage carrying out the test and the telephone number is missing. the certificate needs to show that if a vehicle is submitted for a test prior to its due date and is deemed to be un-roadworthy, then the vehicle should not be driven on the road until the defects are rectified, as customers assume because there is a period of unexpired test the can still drive the vehicle regardless.
Comment by Robert Boyer posted on
Remembering the old adages, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. I guess the proof of the pudding etc.... The way it is (was) has it's faults, but generally, if used correctly, it works fine. I have to be honest and admit to be a little dubious but for everyone's sake I sincerely hope it is for the better. I hope some the inconsistencies are ironed out. Robert
Comment by Barry posted on
Good info, I'll be passing some of that in to customers to clear up the confusion. With regards to the new certificate, its a mess. Difficult to read and comprehend and uses too much paper. The old certificate was fine, only change I'd make would be to highlight the expiry date
Comment by Nick posted on
New mot certificate is a mess
Comment by Jon posted on
I know this is slightly of subject but Locking at the new Manual for airbags, there is nothing about the warning light working or not. There is a lot of vehicles that have either removed or covered this lamp (I haven’t done it)to pass test. Does this still apply or is there a fail/pass adivice option.
Comment by Ian Wilson posted on
If a vehicle fails on a "dangerous" fault can it be driven away from the test centre for repair?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
A vehicle failed for a dangerous faults should not be driven away from the garage. However, garages can't keep a car if it has failed its MOT.
Comment by simonjones posted on
There's a old saying if it works don't fix it. By that I mean the MOT current test.So why mess with it, My feeling are they want all the old cars off the road, so make the MOT harder to pass so people buy /lease newer cars to save the hassle of it all, As you say if you can see it obvious like tyres , yes yes there's no excuse to change them put how many people get under there car to have a look , unless theirs a oil stain on the road or nocking sound in the car.
Comment by Paul bufton posted on
Having used the new document 2 days now like the format advisors stand out more good job
Comment by Jon posted on
Why is it that as soon as we get to a point where the system works and everyone, testers and vehicle owners alike , understand it , it has to be changed. I think the current mot works well now after the initial week long computer teething troubles. I suspect we are in for more problems before it works properly.
Comment by Mad mike posted on
If a vehicle has a brake, steering, suspension or tyre fault which is liable to imminent failure,why should the vehicle not be prohibited from being driven from the testing station as is the case with commercial vehicles.
Comment by Aaron Walsh posted on
I agree that the address and phone number of the test station should be visible on all certificates
Comment by Denis Calvert posted on
I am not sure there was any need for this change I already explain to owners if a fault is dangerous. The dpf change on emissions is needed though. We have had a couple of cars in the past that have looked a bit effy
Comment by Steve posted on
What was wrong with pass or fail don’t need dangerous major or minor if the vehicle been tested is defective it’s defective not nearly defective and should the roads not be mot’ed could use the new system on them majority will be classed as dangerous or major not many will be minor defects
Comment by Ray Jarvis posted on
Quite a few comments I have read are referring to the Minor, Major, Dangerous. As I understand it this is an EU directive , and as we have not yet actually left the EU, we still have to comply with their rules.
I did like Steve's comment (21 apr 18) on the condition of the roads that the vehicles we test have to drive on not being fit for purpose. I have been to Cuba where the roads are full of potholes as you would expect, but I don't expect that here!!!
Getting back to the matter in hand, What I fail to understand is every time there is a change required for one reason or another, Why the changes are put out and then when testers and the public start complaining it is referred back to the development teams, Surely these things should be checked before they are put out live, I am on the mot Council but I don't remember being shown the changes to the printed certificate to comment on before it went live.
But at least it is good to know that it is being referred back to the development teams, and hopefully we, and the public can get back to a clearer printed certificate that has all the relevant information, but is self explanatory. I agree that the vehicle registration and the expiry date could do with being bolder as these for many people are the most important items.
Comment by john burvill AE posted on
As a garage owner refer to the new diesel emissions , we will have to pay for up grades and new machines and still no increase in mot prices how long has it been now about seven years , thirty thousand pounds of equipment to do a mot test plus yearly training and exams . but no increase in income for about seven years , taking in the cost of running a garage , the mot price for a class 4 mot test should be around £150.00 . what happened to the increase of £68.00 ho I remember now there was a political election .
funny how minicab checks and not even a mot test are over a hundred pounds.
Comment by Dave posted on
What raj said is exactly right there is no business name on the new certificate just the business owners details and street name with no telephone number we are on the same street as another MOT station and both pun new certificates look identical people ant going to know which one has tested there vehicle
Comment by Dave posted on
I agree with Raj comments and would like to see the business name & phone number instead of the sole traders name on the new certificates
Comment by James posted on
Excellent iam more confused than ever. This is wide open to abuse by unscrupulous garages.