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 Mark posted on
Ok I give in where are heat shields fail please tell me
Comment by DAVID posted on
2.1.5 Power steering
If power steering isn't working, you may have to do a road test to check if the steering is adversely affected.
YOU ARE ASKING US TO TAKE A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CAR ON THE ROAD, SURE MY INSURANCE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY
Comment by Pete posted on
Hi, just a couple of questions regarding the new test items coming in.
1. Front and rear end marker lamps on vehicles more than 2100mm wide, (a) does the 2100mm include the wind mirrors or not.? (b) is it on all test classes?(c) what if none are fitted, i. e I have just done a practice test on a 12 plate Iveco Daily which is wider than 1200 mm though it has front end marker lamps above the windscreen it does not have rear ones. What would we do here fail for missing or manual P&A.
2. Diesel emissions limits. I have just noticed that the plate value on a 2009 Ford Connect is 1.68 ppm which is higher than the maximum level for a vehicle of that year of 1.5ppm. Which limit do we use.
TIA,
Pete
Comment by Sox posted on
How are we going to cover ourselves when a customer insists on driving his dangerous failure away. We surely cannot refuse to give the customer his property back ? Are garages putting a disclaimer on the invoice or making the customer sign one before they drive the car away?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Sox
Our advice is that a vehicle with a dangerous defect should not be driven until the defect is repaired - because it's dangerous both to the driver and other road users.
Garages can’t prevent a driver taking a car away from a failure at an MOT garage and should not try to do so. But if the vehicle is dangerous, they should arrange to have it recovered.
Comment by mike posted on
are prop shafts now testable items
Comment by Tom posted on
Can somebody tell me if the below statement is correct because most diesel smoke when you rev them or does it mean at idle?
You’ll also give a major fault if you:
•can see smoke of any colour coming from the exhaust
•find evidence that the DPF has been tampered with
Comment by david b posted on
All these new mot checks we are being told to carry out, for some forced to pay for new emissions equipment and STILL no mention of a price fee increase from DVSA
Comment by Pete posted on
Dave I think the problem is that while there's VTSs out there (mensioning no names) still doing cut price Mots I don't think the price will go up.
Comment by david b posted on
true pete, and also when you have local councils offering discounted mots if you sign up to have your garden waste collection (wyre forest council) we have no chance. utter shambles dvsa
Comment by mercedes posted on
i would even take fixed price its going to cost us a lot off money to update our machines with no sign off a reward at the end
Comment by Andrew posted on
Well said !
Comment by chris wanless posted on
many motor cycles in standard form have rear indicators less than 24cm apart
Comment by pete o'dell posted on
name some please
Comment by martin nunn posted on
I had a ducati diavel and they were 23cm with standard lights fitted
Comment by Dave posted on
How can you charge different for different classes if this information isnt on certificate
Comment by david b posted on
if all these new mot measures coming into place are to keep inline with EU legislation as we are still in the EU, once UK has come out the EU will DVSA be keeping these new measures in place and going forward will you still be running the MOT inline with EU legislation applying there rules rather than the UK running our own?
Comment by richard posted on
Has anyone that has designed the new manual layout & then decided to omit half of the old manual & completely mess it up, actually. A. worked as an mot tester/mechanic & B. lifted the bonnet of a car. The reason I say this is its a complete mess, it looks like a school project !!!
You keep saying feed back from the general public etc etc this is the preferred method of the manual & design of the new certificate, which particular general public is that, as all the ones i know hate it & think its a complete mess!
Comment by Michael johnson posted on
If the front brake disks meet the minimum standard for breaking efficiency. What if they have plenty of thicknesses left but have a rust lip on the inside edge as so typical on certain cars so only 3/4 of the pad is effectively functional would this fail the new test? Also if an engine has an oil leak as many do. Say the back of the engine is coated from a slow leak that would maybe drip an inch patch of oil over night, but is not dripping during the mot when the engine is running would this fail? Also if an external ram type of power steering has a slow leak that maybe needs tipping up once a year but looks wet on the mot would this fail the new test?
Comment by Dan posted on
Could you clarify if there will be a rfr for headlamp beam image obviously incorrect. Can see it in the training site or new inspection manual and this is a big problem for road safety. The amount of cars I see with incorrectly fitted headlight bulbs scattering light everywhere blinding oncoming vehicles.
Comment by Steve posted on
Steve nt
Where has headlight obviously out of focus gone , used to be in headlamp aim. How do we check for contaminated brake fluid without removing cap , and using special equipment . Mot certificate not as clear as old one, why change.
Comment by Nigel posted on
Anyone with lowerd suspension to the extent that you feel every bump you drive over take a look at suspension rfr. spring:
with an unsafe modification
Major
modified so that the suspension is inoperative
Dangerous.
Comment by Harry posted on
Could the DVSA, please do a little more, on educating the general public.
Regarding drivers view. On where is, and what is not an acceptable place to put your sat nav, camera, phone holders and all the other stuff, found hanging from interior mirrors. As I am getting bored of trying to explain, why it would be an MOT fail if left in place.
Comment by Mel Paul posted on
How do we determine wether the brake fluid is contaminated?
Comment by Tom posted on
The new reverse lights testing criteria is unclear .
Can you give further explanation please .
Switch not operating therefore lights staying on or not working is Major
Lights not operating minor .
Do the lights have to work to gain a pass ?
Comment by Alan posted on
Headlight aim..we can fail for to far left/right low or high but no failure for incorrectly fitted bulb causing dazzling to oncoming traffic. It’s a strange thing this new manual.
Comment by Graham posted on
No test class on new style certificates
Comment by Graham posted on
Any comment from dvsa why test classes arnt on new certificates. Is this by design or mistake? Test classes need to be shown on certificate else there will be no end of drama in big garages with receptionists charging for incorrect test class, also customers could be charged for class 7 when then have a class 4, if it dosnt say on cert how will they know??
Comment by calum posted on
vehicle category number 5 at top of sheet class 4 now M1 as per notice.06-18 update
Comment by Graham posted on
Yeah but if you get a goods vehicle as N1, some are class 4, some are class 7. If there is a difference in price between class 4 and 7 it needs to be marked clearly on sheet. If not change priceing structure difference between M1 and N1 not classes
Comment by Graham posted on
Yeah but if you get a goods vehicle as N1, some are class 4, some are class 7. If there is a difference in price between class 4 and 7 it needs to be marked clearly on sheet. If not change pricing structure difference between M1 and N1 not classes
Comment by Graham posted on
Any comment from dvsa why test classes arnt on new certificates. Is this by design or mistake? Test classes need to be shown on certificate else there will be no end of drama in big garages with receptionists charging for incorrect test class, also customers could be charged for class 7 when then have a class 4, if it dosnt say on cert how will they know??
Comment by mo posted on
their should be category saying under tray fitted obstructing inspection/engine cover fitted not saying under tray insecure ? every new car has under tray fitted we have to manual advise them should be something their stating under tray fitted
Comment by con posted on
I cant find a fail for a hydraulic hand brake will this be put back in the manual .
also can you clarify if all manual head light adjust must work even for non hid lights
Comment by mark posted on
do we not fail shocker bushes for wear now, but can fail a spring missing how the hell would they drive it to a testing station with a spring missing
Comment by robert posted on
i have had someone drive a car with a block of wood inserted where spring was and on the old metros too
Comment by mark posted on
metros didnt have springs
Comment by Ellwood posted on
Can dvsa reply to this please for clarity
Are shocker bushes no longer testable
Items , or is the rfr now insecurity you don't seem to be answering front line questions, I want to know what I'm doing Monday morning, not just winging it. Good luck to all next week dvsa included x
Comment by Basil posted on
Hi Mark- still can't find anything about worn shock absorber bushes have you had any luck?
Comment by Basil posted on
Under general suspension bushes- had to find it yesterday ?
Comment by mark posted on
are the dvsa getting the picture nobody wants these changes or assesments
Comment by Stephen posted on
So NO Broken or Incomplete Coil Springs,, why?? Aren't these a road safety issue
Comment by Keith posted on
shows fractured spring but would you get away with using that as it depends where you look up the meaning of fractured as we all know the means of a word in mot speak is not as it the real world at times.
Comment by dave posted on
its just under springs , it is their but doesnt say coils
Comment by Shaun posted on
Surely this can't be the case, this needs confirming please.
Comment by Nick posted on
Somebody has been listening,the defect for the steering rack boot has now been added,still can't find reason for rejection for Mil not working as in manual.
Comment by Bert posted on
its under the emissions section
Comment by dave posted on
its in the emission section, so it fails if the light is on EVEN IF IT PASSES THE EMISSION TEST ,barmy
Comment by castrolrob posted on
go onto the mot forum for a correct answer to this query,essentially its unenforceable I.e.pass and advise for the light not working at all with the added bonus that before much longer you aint gonna be able to advise!before this gets moderated the reply concerned comes from your own standards team....
Comment by Ellwood posted on
Brake wear light? Visually and physically sound brake systems and
Performance OK , really!
BMW , Iveco, Tranny owners will trip .
Comment by Marcus W posted on
You'll find the Mil RFR under emissions.
Comment by david b posted on
MIl lamp is in the emissions section nick- took me ages to find it also
Comment by Nick posted on
Mil lamp not working wasn't there originally ,they have now put it in.
Comment by Steve posted on
Is there a month and year to start checking these mil lights ,or is it all cars fitted with them
Comment by Nigel posted on
There is no provision for brake hoses deteriorated not excessively or slightly ,just damaged . I don't recall seeing may hoses damaged but do see a lot slightly perished which would be an advise or perished with cord showing which we mark down as a dangerous failure .
Comment by Steve posted on
Completely agree with you - just one of many anomalies.
It makes no sense not to give warning to customers that their brake hose is perished and could fail tomorrow but hasn't today because it's not damaged, twisted, chafed, porous, kinked,stretched or leaking.
Why is 'deteriorated' okay today but not next week?grrrrr!
Comment by will posted on
where in the new manual does it say that a tester can use an assistant during the test if they think it necessary even though the testing station uses optl method of testing. This is clearly stated in old manual cant find it in new manual
Comment by John staines posted on
After 45 years in the motor trade I have decided to stop being a NT. Why change an established system & why do prices for exams /training end in 99 pence as if it's a bargain deal?
Comment by Eddy posted on
Just been on the new site.Oooo dear what a mess everything been change round into different categories.Too many changes in one go.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi Eddy
The structure is the same as the new manual that has been around in draft for a little while.
However, because we know it will be hard to find things, the search feature for finding RfRs has been improved. Worth trying that.
Also may be worth looking at the training materials on gov.uk which summaries the changes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-from-may-2018-guidance-for-mot-testers
Comment by Phil posted on
Hi Neil, Condition and operation reversing lamps.. 1 or 2 may be fitted but they must work.
Defect list.... A reversing lamp inop.... Minor fault... So passes mot
Compliance with requirements....
Reversing lamp emitted colour, position or INTENSITY not in accordance with requirements.... Major fault.. Fail.
So not working pass, dim fail? Is this correct please clarify. Kind regards Phil.
Comment by george posted on
exhaust heat shields are now a fail or mayor ( new blurb )
many have fell off over the years focuses for one, believe a lot of the parts are now obsolete are we going to be scrapping the cars for a fire risk that isn't going to happen anyway off the thread there if you type in the search box heat shield it doesn't come up with anything
Comment by robert posted on
no doubt you have heard this before but wouldn't it have been better that the so called on going testing and refreshing course had covered the new mot regulations
Comment by marcus posted on
hi just looking on new site but cant see any thing for steering steering rack gaiter insecure or is missing as stated on site same thing as
Comment by Stephen posted on
Marcus, If you type in the search box, the missing items appear. However I do agree with you there are lots of items missing and readly available until you use the search engine thing
Comment by david b posted on
its under steering gear marcus
Comment by David posted on
Thanks for making something that works fine into a minefield old ticket easy for everyone to understand new ticket totaly awfull no test class why m1 n1.Have tried the trial of the style test with failure items we have alist of common fialure items for instance7994 no reserve travel handbrake guess what it dose not work.Also when you changed the ticket style the system crashed halfway through the day what are our chances come the 20th May
Comment by steve posted on
when in the day when we wrote out mot tickets it was one sheet of paper now if you do a prs you get about seven sheets of paper i think that all the mot garages in Great Britian must use a forest a month but if it works then some one always wants to mess it up so it dos not .
Comment by Shaun posted on
Just checked out your new manual, maybe I'm being blind but I couldn't see a flow chart for seatbelt requirements.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Shaun
The manual was published on Friday 27 April. Section 10 covers seatbelts - please see link here - https://training.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/class3457/Section-10-Seat-belt-installation-checks.html
Comment by mark posted on
it doesnt tell you requirements ie rear belts lap or inertia or combination of both that link just takes you to installation check
Comment by David posted on
Can DVSA tell us how many testers have now stopped doing tests, since all this lot started,if I worked in a large main dealer I would have had my name taken off the list of testers, no advantage of been a mot tester over another technician who doesn’t test, really glad I am getting to retirement age , this lot is getting far too much hassle, and why as a tester do I need to care about data protection , I was supposed to be checking the safety of a car, not been an unpaid environmentalist and police officer , roll on next year to see what damage can be done then, when we leave the EU
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
The number of testers is broadly static at the moment David.
Comment by con posted on
can you confirm if the manual head light adjustment is for any car of any age that has it fitted or just modern hid or led lights .
if its for any car of any age can the owner remove the system providing the aims are correct and not hid/led lights
thanks
Comment by Jude posted on
From an admin point of view, I am confused what to charge for the MOT now as there is no Class 4. 7 or 5 listed on the pass or fail. Have looked online to try & discover what M & N's mean but quite confusing. Can someone respond with a list of comparisons: ie
M1 = Class ?; M2 = Class ?; M3 = Class ?; N1 = Class ?; N2 = Class ?; N3 = Class? & what is a minibus categorised as?
Thanks
Comment by Jude posted on
Or Update the VT9a MOT Fee list to show M & N Numbers and prices
Comment by Harry posted on
The definition of organisation, in the on line dictionary is,
"An organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business"
Can we have the business name, back on the certificate please?
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Yes, see lower comments. At the moment it is printing AE, but we are looking to revert to trading name.
Comment by Dave bs posted on
had a look at new test environment, just a new system to get use to. but I think a lot of customers will be angry / confused by the pre defined dangerous, instead of reason for rejection, major shouldn't be a problem though. but I can see us spending extra time explaining it to the public
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
I'm sure you are right - some motorists may not like being told their car is dangerous. But - for many it will be seen as helpful information.
Comment by Dave bs posted on
agreed its just a new way for everybody to get used to, so lets just get on with it
Comment by mark posted on
how long you been testing dave its a lot of change to me after 33 years
Comment by Dave bs posted on
only 8 years since june 2010
Comment by Dave bs posted on
only 8 years, only ever delt with the computerised systems unless on contingency testing
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Following some of your comments, we’d just like clarify the position:
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 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 Joe posted on
What defines 'unroadworthy'? Earlier in the comments you suggest a vehicle with a major defect can be driven away from the test station. So, are only some defects classed as 'unroadworthy'?
Comment by Nigel posted on
Hi it would appear we can still add a dangerous defect ourselves under manual advisories. For example corroded brake hose ferrules don't look they have been added to the new system so that could be marked down as a manual advisories and if deemed bad enough and the dangerous box ticked
Comment by Jim posted on
Is that to say say it would be legal with a major failure. Surely now you have 2 categories of failure both unroadworthy.
Comment by pete o'dell posted on
how can a current mot be valid when its failed the mot test???? that is utter nonsense
Comment by richard clarke posted on
Will you be re-instating the option to mark a major failure as dangerous. Mot done on a vehicle today with both front lower suspension arms and n/s rear suspension arm corroded and holed. In my opinion this was dangerous, and I stated that in the box for additional information, but it does not stand out as well as items considered dangerous by the new manual.
Comment by mark posted on
just had a look at the new training format and manual god my head is hurting more sleepless nights to come thanks dvsa my last year me thinks
Comment by Philip posted on
If its not broke don,t fix it why change a perfectly good system new certificates very confusing
Comment by E.Wiper posted on
Cannot seem to find driveshaft on the new training site.it used to be under suspension & i have used search facility?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi there
Information is in the new manual published on 27 April in section 5 - https://training.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/class3457/Section-5-Axles-Wheels-Tyres-and-Suspension.html. Hope this helps.
Comment by Damien Hornby posted on
I have been using the online testers practice test and i am more than a little concerned that items are missing from the test. Such as front fork oil seals, steering stiffness and notchy, the throttle not needing to shut off or fail for the revs rising in lock. There are other items of concern too. are these to be introduced when the new system goes live? I would be very unhappy if after the switchover I had to pass a bike with fork oil pouring down the leg!
Comment by Stephen posted on
Had a go with the new system. Not Impressed. Couldn't find Exhaust had to use search engine. Fuel lines, exhaust mounts and related items not in the Emissions where you'd expect to find them... NOOOO But in the chassie and body and structure section WHY
There's more items missing and hidden away, Talk about time consuming. The search engine will break down with over use
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
The defects are structured in the same way as the new manual - which follows the way the directive is set out.
Because we know that is a different structure from the one used now, we have put a lot of work into the search engine to make that effective at finding defects, which can be much quicker than following a structure.
Comment by Ian posted on
I thought we voted to leave the eu so why change the mot system we have the best mot system easy to understand it falls or it past now we have a system at no will understand and wot give us the right to tell someone they can’t not drive there car home why change something that is not broken
Comment by Pete posted on
Just having a read through the new manual , which I'm not a lover of the layout by the way. Is it right the the RfR for a 'brake hose having insufficient room to move resulting on it fouling on any part', been removed? As I can't find it even if I use the search option.
Comment by Doug (DVSA) posted on
Hi Pete,
Yes, this is no longer a specific RfR. The new RfR’s focus on the damage caused to the pipe or the imminent risk of failure.
Comment by Mark posted on
What if it's fouling but not damaged yet but will be damaged soon
Comment by Nigel posted on
Just noticed also no provision for brake hose ferrules corroded and brake hoses deteriorated ie perishing. Most of the brake hoses we see have perishing near the ends which we mark as advisories and failure if the reinforcement can be seen.
Comment by Nish posted on
We need someone from DVSA to reply to the feedback for the new certificates. The borders and numbering on the previous certificates made it clear and concise for the reader. Also the Garage name is not printed, the full names of the partners or sole traders NOT the Garage name which makes it confusing.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Nish
Thanks for pointing this out. We are picking up with the development teams how we can correct the printed name and other items such as the appearance of the certificates. We will update you when this is done. In the meantime, we can assure you that the MOT certificate is still valid and the information matches that on the VT9 displayed in your reception area.
Comment by Renno London posted on
If the main items were in boxes it would be easier to read.
There is no Test Class on the cert.
Organisation is not the persons name.
Comment by Dave Moyle posted on
Certificate is not as clear as the old one
Should have test stations Contact number on it so retest can be booked
and the vehicle class!
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
The design is based on feedback from motorists. We didn't find that motorists found the number and class helpful in the research we did - but we will continue to review as we get more feedback from motorists.
Comment by David posted on
Where is all this feedback from the motorist , non of my customers have ever been asked, or is it from some fancy newspaper
Comment by david b posted on
but it is helpful when a customer rings to book there vehicle in say a van and they can see if it is a class 4 or 7 , as not all garages test class 7 and they book it to a class 4 site he cant test it customer has wasted his time when he turns up and hes also wasting an mot slot for the company to those that book them in each hour. its not all about the interest of the motorists neil- what about the interest of the garages up and down the country carrying mots on behalf of dvsa?
Comment by john posted on
just carried out mot on a people carrier checking the tyre valves as you do and guess what YES your right it burst this IS a safety item so getting rid of it on the new test in may is a foolish idea This is safety checking reverse lights not !!!!!
Comment by Dougie (DVSA) posted on
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments. Tyre vales are not part of the new directive, therefore are not included. Your point has been noted for future consideration.
Comment by Stephen posted on
The new certificates, look like someone just made them up on there own pc. What about a bit of colour or bring back the old certificates. Customers are baffled at these new ones..
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
It really needs to be black and white (as before) so garages don't need to buy colour printers.
And we have done a lot of work with motorists on the new certificate design to make, in particular, defects stand out and type faces to be larger. We will, of course, listen to feedback as we go along and amend if needed - but I suspect most of current reaction is whilst people get used to it.
Comment by Nominated Tester & AE posted on
I think most testers accept change and adapt to it, It seems the new document layout is causing concern though. Did it go through a process of evaluation with the public and garages as it is causing obvious concern and confusion with all. As clear a as mud to everyone so far who has seen it.
Comment by Harry posted on
The New certificate Definitely requires the Trading business Name and Telephone number instead of the entity name.
We are a partnership AE and the lengthy partnership names then followed with the tester name is too complex.
At the end of the day the customer only requires the business name and testing station number
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Agree. We will be fixing the cert to display the correct name.
Comment by Ian posted on
The new layout of certificate is ok but 2 points,
Under testing organisation it seems to have my full name not the name of the test station I would have thought this was a breach of the data protection laws.
No phone number so customers can reach us.
Will these issues be sorted out.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Agree - we should be displaying trading name rather than the AE. We will be fixing that.
On the phone number - we hadn't had feedback from motorists that they found this useful on the certificate, but we will continue to review feedback.
Comment by pete o'dell posted on
motorists and motorcyclists don't look at the certificates unless its going to cost them money, DVSA should be consulting testers NOT the public, I for one have never ever been asked my opinion on anything test wise or testable.
Comment by Joe Johnson posted on
Having read the new draft MOT inspection manual I have spotted a mistake on page 4 in the lighting section. Your diagram 1 still refers to the RFR 2 or 3 which you have used in the old manual and is no longer used (this is the hatched section for containing the cut off) can I have some bonus points on my MOT SAR please.
Comment by Joe Johnson posted on
I see it is still showing on the new manual that was released on the 27th of April
Comment by Dougie (DVSA) posted on
Hi Joe,
Well spotted. The drawing will be amended in due course.
Comment by terry moore posted on
please why is the testing organisation space, my full name ??
should this no be garage/testing stn name. plus contact no missing.
not helpful for customers at all.!!!!
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Terry
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. In the meantime, we can assure you that the MOT certificate is still valid and the information matches that on the VT9 displayed in your reception area.
Comment by Damian posted on
Are manual advisories being removed still or will these remain as they are useful for certain things, for instance plastic undertrays on underside of vehicle or engine covers.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Damian
Advisories will remain as they they indicate a component will become defective soon.
Comment by KC posted on
The new changes to 40yr old vehicles not requiring a current MOT will open a large can of worms, people with such vehicles are clapping there hands, we restore classic vehicles and I have listened to some of the comments, we see some real horrors and do you think they will keep them in road worthy condition when they don't need to spend money on them, not on your life,or somebody else if one of these has a collision, all vehicle should require an MOT there is no argument then.
The quick fit boys will also have a field day with the new Major and Minor system, they will tell the customers that they must have the vehicle repaired on site and pay there extortionate prices, where are we going !!!!!!!!
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
For the historic vehicles, whilst not what this blog was about, I do understand your concerns. We will continue to feedback to DfT and ministers what we see on these types of vehicle.
On whether some garages choose to take advantage of the new dangerous marking, you may be correct that some will. And, as always, we will be interested in any feedback from garages doing this so we can investigate. However, as you will have read in the blog, the change to dangerous marking will be more consistent than now in terms of where it is used. And, of course - more clearly marking to a motorist that a car is dangerous to use must be a good thing.
Comment by M Awan posted on
I have noted this and brought it to the attention of DVSA by e mail and telephone. Was told that they are aware of this but can not tell me how long it will take to correct the problem
Comment by plum posted on
phone number missing is a biggy for me.currently rubber stamping and hi lighting it in, not ideal
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Out of interest is that on pass or fails? Is this something your customers are asking for - or something you are doing because you believe of use to them? Thanks.