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 steve posted on
where do we find beam image incorrect ? AND AS FOR YOUR STEERING AND SUSPENSION LISTINGS , PLEASE SORT IT OUT
Comment by paul bufton posted on
Not within requirements thats from dvsa standard team
Comment by Josh posted on
For beam pattern obviously incorrect select: 4.1.2 (b.) Headlamp aim unable to be tested - Major
Comment by richard posted on
Probably most, if not all of us testers which are on the front line dont agree with these changes,but what can we do?NOTHING!! We can only pass and fail what we are aloud to do.D.V.S.A. Answer will be if you dont agree you opt out of testing.There will probably be many unsafe vehicles on the road for the next few years until all this settles down.We can only do what we can do.It takes time to learn.
Comment by David posted on
My car has failed it's mot with major defaults .. and runs out 27th June .
Can I drive it
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi David
If the vehicle has roadworthiness defects, it cannot be legally driven on the road.
Comment by steve posted on
I really think the old system was much better and clearer , all you needed to do was just add the new items to it , and remove the now non testable items . could of saved a lot of money , us testers would not be confused ,and we would not be asking for help or clarification on these things . PLEASE DVSA SORT IT OUT !
Comment by steve posted on
So how do we fail a car with a bad earth in the lights causing interaction with another lamp ? PLEASE SOMEONE LOOK AT THIS NEW SYSTEM AND SORT IT OUT !
Comment by david b posted on
i contacted my VE on this he told me it is still a testable item. but i still cannot find it on the new manual!! and im still none the wiser!
why are we getting contradicting information from dvsa/ve ?? do they actually communicate so the right information is put out to us ? its bad enough for us testers not knowing what is going on/standards to test too, but ve are in the same boat as us.
no transparency or direction from dvsa at all.
shambolic.
Comment by LCB posted on
Where is the tyre valve located in the new layout? How do we fail a perished one on Motorcycles? It's been removed from the system.
Comment by david b posted on
its in tyre condition-but is no longer a failure item, closest thing to it to fail it is damaged? i presume to justify the fail it the valve would have to leak if you wiggle it?
Comment by Graham posted on
Just had a 2005 bmw 525d in. It has a dpf fitted, no evidence of tampering, no black soot in exhaust so all in order. However its smoking, and also smells bad, so its during regen process. Now i have to fail this on emiting smoke from dpf. But why because it is designed to emit smoke during regen process. Why are we failing cars and taking them off the road for something that they are designed to do???????
Comment by Graham posted on
Just had a 2005 bmw 525d in. It has a dpf fitted, no evidence of tampering, no black soot in exhaust so all in order. However its smoking, and also smells bad, so its during regen process. Now i have to fail this on emiting smoke from dpf. But why because it is designed to emit smoke during regen process. Why are we failing cars and taking them off the road for something that they are designed to do?????
Comment by Graham posted on
Just had a 2005 bmw 525d in which i know has a dpf fitted. Dpf is intact, no evidence of tampering, exhaust is clean (no black soot), yet there is smoke / vapour coming out the back. There is no malfunction lights on, so it must be during regeneration process, (you can also tell by the smell) Now i have to fail this for smoke emitted from dpf. However when a dpf is regening it will smoke which is whats its meant to do. So why are we failing cars and taking them off the road when they are doing what there meant to be doing?!?!?!
Comment by Pete posted on
It would seem that the manual is no longer the definitive go to reference for fail items. there are inconsistencies between the fail items available when entering results and the defect listing in the manual. One of the stand out items is the common fail of a CV boot being insecure, available as a fail when testing but not backed up by the manual.
Comment by pete posted on
The fail item for defective beam pattern (bulb fitted incorrectly) has vanished.
Comment by Colin Shakespeare posted on
My concern is diesel smoke meter limits provided by manufactures on the vehicle VIN plate.
I have followed the correct process and issued the major defect for emissions limit not met, when the plate value presented is lower than the test machine limit for the age of the vehicle.
Not all vehicles have this plate limit and so that vehicle can be tested to a limit provided by the machine for the year.
An unfair ruling has been created which is allowing some vehicles to fail the DSM test, when it would have passed had it been down to year and not plate limit.
Would I be right in thinking that the VIN plate limit was set by the manufacturers at the factory before the vehicle went to market.
So I'm left wondering how vehicles of age and with engine wear can possibly meet the original factory set limit?
Comment by Micky posted on
I agree. It means some 3 yr old cars could be scrapped because they cannot meet the plate value, whilst other 10 yr old cars can be more polluting but still allowed on the road.The newer the car you buy, the more stringent are the standards to be met so there is less tolerance for engine wear. The answer is to buy a 40 year old classic and spew out as much fume as you like without any emissions test worries.
Another ill -thought -out government scheme.
Comment by Matt posted on
Why on the brake input screen have we now got to select the steered axle?. Surely from the chassis input the government/MOT website should know which axle is steered.
Comment by martin nunn posted on
This may have already been mentioned, but several things have been remove from the motorcycle test that is just crazy!
such as
tight chain is no longer listed as a fail or advisory. a tight chain can be a dangerous fail if it snaps!
exhaust corrosion is not a fail or advise. So an exhaust might be about to snap in half or fall off, but as long as it doesn't leak its ok?..
reduced handbar clearance that is likely to trap a riders hands is no longer a fail as long as the bars don't hit the tank..???
..and don't even get me started on the integrated indicators/rear light. Yes you can fail it on being under 24cm apart but the manual contradicts itself ..
under position lights it states "Front and rear position lamps can be incorporated with the direction indicator lamps. The position lamp on the same side of the direction indicator MUST SWITCH OFF when the indicator is switched on."
BUT... under indicators it states.. "Some motorcycles have direction indicators combined with the position lamps. In these cases the position lamp DOESN'T HAVE TO SWITCH OFF when the relevant direction indicator is switched on."
SO WHICH ONE IS IT????
whoever changed the rules should be sacked! it was fine just the way it was..
Comment by martin nunn posted on
oh and spongy brake pedal/lever is now missing too..
Comment by martin nunn posted on
oil leaking is no longer on the system. so its ok for a engine to be leaking oil everywhere now?
Comment by mark posted on
I have been talking to a few testers from other garages and i have not meet one who likes or understands the new format
Comment by mark posted on
how do we advise handbrake travel
Comment by brian posted on
failure items are very hard to find now it seems to be a random miss mass of items in no particular order and you use the bit at the top the page you come up with a load of unrelated stuff bring back the old menu basicly its useless
Comment by Ash posted on
We are a Welsh testing station. However, most customers want the certificate printed in English. Is there a setting where we can change it to print English only rather than both? Or do we manually have to do it for every ticket we print?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Ash
We have to make sure that we treat English and Welsh equally – this means we cannot assume that customers want in English. However, it is relatively swift to pick which pages or pages to print when printing documents, once the customer has let you know which they require.
Comment by r king posted on
does anyone know where to find corroded brake ferrules ?
Comment by david b posted on
it is no longer a failure item mate
Comment by T cross posted on
Its not there
Comment by Steve Mason posted on
What replaced "Beam image obviously incorrect" as there is nothing equal to it on the system.
Comment by Matt posted on
Just wondering why headlamp beam image obviously incorrect has been removed. Its a really common problem bulbs that have been incorrectly fitted. What do I select now?
Comment by castrolrob posted on
while I remember are the end outline markers we are supposed to test the ones (typically)at the front of the cab above the screen,the ones down the side of the load body (normally called running lights)the ones normally mounted at the top of the rear load body or all of the above?also is our 2.1 metres measurement based on the width of the cab,the width of the load body,mirrors(normally projecting beyond everything) or some other criteria known only to yourselves,any restrictions on size/colour?just curious......
Comment by Scott posted on
How's about reinstating lamps affected by the operation of another lamp. eg indicators affecting position lamps, stop or fog lamps etc...
Comment by Paul posted on
Diesel emissions limits & manufacturer's plate; you state 'If the smoke level is displayed on the VIN plate, it will be a number, usually in a box , and often positioned in the bottom right corner of the VIN plate. May the smoke level also be a manufacturer's plate separate to the VIN plate i.e a sticker on the slam panel of a Peugeot /Citroen, or one that says smoke limit & has a value that can be found on Mazda & Suzuki?
Comment by Bert posted on
good point as i've noticed this on land rover defenders it has a sticker on bulk head but not on chassis plate
Comment by Bert posted on
I also personally think it would be better if the figure we need to use was on the vsi at the start of the test
Comment by Stephen posted on
Hi, Paul I think they should bring back VSi, so as us NT's can look up locations of various items such as fuel emissions limits
Comment by Ron posted on
Nice of them to answer you ,I would stick to using the VIN plate because it could be a replacement bonnet ect with a different sticker ,but VIN plate is definitely for that car , but would it would be nice to have some clarity from the powers that be.
Comment by martin posted on
Whats a suspension rod when its at home ?. Misleading and needs to be removed.
Comment by Dave posted on
Ever heard of a “panhard rod”?
Comment by Lee posted on
Yeh it links one side of a live rear axel across to the other side of the body to stop lateral body displacement to axel
Comment by martin posted on
Its the only "suspension rod" I know of everything else including panhard rod should come under tie bars.
Comment by T cross posted on
Hi on drive shaft c/v boots does in still apply to 2 wheel drive and not 4x4 cars it says nothing in manual about this seems to me you can fail ether now!
Comment by david posted on
i have been testing for over 20 years this new system i am finding it hard finding things such as:- brake locking devices and security devices missing which was a fail on the old system. also brake flexi pipe perished and cant see ferrules corrode, also i see you have taken off the advisories for hand bake travel, also suspension bushes you have removed excessively perished resulting in excessive play and replaced it with worn ? which i think is wrong! you can have a perished bush with excessive play or just perished with no play. what am i to do when there is a perish bush with no play? how do i advise it?
Comment by Paul bufton posted on
On the new get for heatsheiĺd mißsing I can see around fuel tank and around heat source say cat or particail filter but does every one have to be fitted
Comment by matthew veness posted on
Has service brake control spongy really gone! or is it that I cannot find the correct criteria?
Comment by Bert posted on
now noticed shock absorber bush no longer on the system? really what is going on
Comment by ken posted on
if the reverse lights dont work its a minor [pass]and if the switch dont work its a fail. so how do we know which it is?
Comment by Nigel posted on
I asked them exactly the dame question and there are loads of issue like this throught the new manual
Comment by Richard posted on
I think we would use this if the reverse lamps are stuck on ! 99.9% change it is the switch Ken , otherwise we can never diagnose the switch for the lamps not working, could be both bulbs
Comment by Dave s posted on
Can we have a PRS for a minor fault ie front position light inop we have a PRS to replace bulb, but bulb DIM NO PRS SO IF WE REPLACE THE BULB , so it shows on certificate as a minor fault
Comment by Steve posted on
Where do I find the section to pass/fail /advise power steering drive systems?
The search engine doesn't recognise the items
Comment by Steve posted on
Are position lamps required?
Section 4.2.1 says not required and are required???
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Steve
If no position lamps are fitted or they have all been permanently disconnected, painted over or masked, they are not mandatory in which case they are not tested. You should issue an advisory notice.
Comment by Nigel posted on
It clearly says in the new manual vechicles dont have to have front or rear position lamps. Yet a couple of lines down it says vechicles must have two front and rear postion lamps. This is just one of many contradictory pieces of information throught the new manual all very confusing and all them need clarifying.
Comment by martin posted on
hi could you please help me and other garages that will come across this problem I have just failed a car for having a heat shield missing. I have rang the car dealer and the part in question is NOT available anywhere and more to the point not the part is NOT made anymore .would this be more to our advantage if not dangerous to be an advisory . what do we tell the customer or presenter.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
If the heat shield is missing where originally fitted, this would be deemed to be dangerous only if there is a risk of fire.
If there is no risk of fire, then you should issue an advisory for the heat shield missing.
If the vehicle is a fail, and you are unable to repair it then all you can do is advise the customer of that and they will have to try to arrange the repair elsewhere.
Comment by dave posted on
How do we decide if there is a risk of fire, how many cars have burst into flames due to the heat from an exhaust melting fuel pipes or tanks, how hot does anything have to get to ignite diesel, cars have been running about for years and years without catching fire, if in my opinion as I have never seen a car burst into flames due to a missing heat shield ( im 61 now )there is no fire risk due to percentages then I must surely pass but who s expert opinion will count, me a Nt for over 40 year or DVSA
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Dave
Years ago, vehicles did not run at the temperatures they do now and they had a lot more space around the engine and exhaust. Heat shields were therefore very rarely fitted on cars but are now commonplace. Vehicle manufacturers would not fit heat shields to vehicles if they were not necessary, but a missing heat shield only justifies a failure if this presents a fire risk. We accept this may not be easy to determine, but if in doubt, pass and advise.
Comment by Graham posted on
To avoid confusion, why not just simplify things and put testing organisation name with address, and have testers name on its own, like it used to be
Comment by Bert posted on
using the new system today, is it just me or have TRAILING ARMS been removed??? i even used the search section which brought up position lights lol
Comment by david b posted on
yes they have bert- i use suspension arm for this defect-its the only one close enough to it!
Comment by marcus posted on
can anyone tell me what is the difference between Inoperative and Does not illuminate as one is a Major failure and the other is an Advisory in the tpms both sound the same to me
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Marcus
With regard to TPMS, obviously inoperative is referring to the system which, for instance is clearly disconnected or has incorrect valves fitted. Some systems may not illuminate until there is a fault.
Comment by TC posted on
How are we to know each system in detail light on there is a fault simple not up to us to say what this could be
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi TC
The criteria for testing malfunction indicator lamps (MIL) is generally straightforward. However, on multi-function lamps, such for brake fluid level, brake pad wear and parking brake this may be a bit more onerous. Testers are expected to use the knowledge and experience in determining whether there is a defect present which fails to meet the test standard. If in doubt, pass and advise.
Comment by Alan posted on
Why isn’t a tyre close to the legal tread limit a minor defeat. I thought that was the point of these changes
Comment by Shaun posted on
Yes I didn't understand this either, I passed a car the other day with a note on a drop link gaiter that stated repair asap yet the 1.6 tyre stated may need repair
Comment by Alan posted on
What about flexible brake hose ferrules, I test mainly older vehicles and it’s not uncommon for them to be almost corroded away completely on the crimped section.
Comment by Dave bs posted on
I have also had 2 in this week the same, had to manual advise them, fortunately was a traders cars and was replaced
Comment by Dave s posted on
Do we need a new fees poster, with the new retestable items listed, can we find this somewhere , are eml lights free retest , etc , is there an up to date handwritten check list available or do we use the existing vt 29 handwritten with just pass and fail on it,
Comment by mark posted on
are you going to reimburse all the motorist who had to change flexi hoses with corroded ferruls that might have been a quite expensive job if they needed to change pipes when it was an advisory before and has been withdrawn again
Comment by Steven H posted on
I stopped being an NT and QC almost 2 years back, hey I have no sleep issues,also tickles me on just how BADLY some garages get it..
Recently seen passes with no advisories include tyres down to cords, TRE absolutely worn out, but they failed the BBJ ....which was not worn at all!, headlamp bulb fitted upside down(no comment)..oh well good luck guys
Comment by Anthony Willis posted on
Anyone who is doing their class 1 and 2 cpd for 2018-19 with IMI may have noticed in the self assessment questions there were around 5 questions relating to cars. (don't panic)
I contacted them and the reason behind it was when they built the course
some of the information wasn't available for the new changes. as DVSA tell them which subjects will be in this years cpd
This meant they had to make the short fall of questions up at the time with car questions.
This has now been rectified and the questions are now related to test class.
I contacted them one day and the next day it was sorted so thank you IMI for dealing with it swiftly.
Comment by Andy posted on
However I've just done my Class 4 free exam and there were 2 out of the 5 questions that were Motorcycle related.
Comment by Nick posted on
can someone explain how you can no longer fail a vehicle with a space saver fitted but you fail it for odd sizes on the same axle. Space savers are always a different size.Also, has anyone ever seen a transparent brake fluid reservoir? Translucent yes, transparent no. Define contaminated brake fluid
etc etc etc .Nuff said!
Comment by Nigel posted on
Can the DVSA please inform the press they are incorrectly informing the public that they cannot drive their car away if it has a dangerous defect, and that it must be repair there and then. We understand that you cannot stop anyone removing their car as it is their right to do so. So frustrating that wrong information being published in the press.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Nigel
You are correct - you can't stop anyone removing their car. Our communications do state this.
Comment by david b posted on
i have had countless customers ring when they book there vehicle in asking please do not impound my car if it fails i need it.
if the public are thinking in this way do you think the way you have delivered these new changes has been clear and concise?
Comment by Mark posted on
Shocker bushes please can will fail or not and if so how
Comment by Anthony Willis posted on
Please can somebody at dvsa look in to the removal of checking tyre valves and tyres not seated on the rim correctly
We can have a major failure on a number plate but tyre valves removed from inspection ? on motorcycles this is nothing short of madness.
I see in the training environment you can still advise but nothing for dangerous.
I assume we will just advise and tell the customer from experience to get it repaired.
I do wonder how many garages will say it's not part of the test so we are not even going to look at it.
On a more positive note
I do like the look of the new system and handy reference to the manual in the sections is excellent.
I am sure as with all past changes to the mot scheme we all move on and no doubt there will be some adjustments along the way.
I hope the changes and updates going forward don't undermine safety, after all isn't that what the mot scheme is about
Comment by martin mcdonald posted on
The new emission criteria limit box is ok in theory but what happens if this box is defaced deliberately, meaning we can only test to defaults knowing that it wont pass the lower limits, what do we do pass and advise??
Comment by Bert posted on
DVSA please can you answer this question, I'm sure I read on the early stages of the new mot manual that a reason to refuse to test a vehicle from the 20th was if any of the fitted seats the tester was unable to test the seat belt (i.e dog cage in boot and cant remove) but i can no longer find this, am i correct? cheers
Comment by mark posted on
how do you advise c/seats nail in tyre etc there are no component advises
Comment by Stephen posted on
A rear registration plate lamp throwing direct white light to the rear
Minor..... How can this be Minor
Comment by Stephen posted on
Can't fail parking brake lever excessive travel? or even advise travel what's going on
Comment by Jones posted on
1.1.6 Parking brake lever or control
C.Parking brake lever has excessive movement indicating incorrect adjustment - Major
Comment by WB posted on
I notice that in the manual a Run flat tyre and Non Run Flat Tyre can be on the same axle , But are they not two different types of Structure ??
5.2.3c
Comment by Steve posted on
Why aren't inoperative reversing lights a major?
Reversing lights becoming a testable item is the ONLY benefit of these changes, but you've diluted it to mean nothing, why?
I've brought this up at several seminars in the past and have been laughed at with comments like "never heard of anyone being killed by a reversing lamp not working"(VOSA staff in those days).
There are several reasons why they should work but this example is the most important:
If a child walking towards the back of a car that suddenly starts to reverse; because the child is shorter than their rear view, at least the child has a chance to recognise that when a white light is lit on the back of a car, it will go backwards. One life saved makes it worthwhile, or am I wrong?
Comment by jhulian posted on
What would have helped in understanding the new changes would have been a classroom lesson from dvsa or at least some seminars across the country like in the past
Comment by Bertie posted on
Decision to make ..... 5.5k for new emissions test equip or shut up shop n go sign on ...... when you've got a small family MOT business it hits hard ..if we put our MOT price up to cover costs we'll lose customers anyway ...
Comment by Shaun posted on
I have MANUALLY advised countless cars for:- tyre bald on inner edge worn very close to ply/cords.
Now some cars come in where they are literally 50 miles away from having the cords exposed, so with your new manual this car would go out without even an advisory, sorry minor notice.
Problem is you can't advise it on close to legal limit as rest of tread could be 4mm
Comment by Paul Wilkinson posted on
Regarding new Class 1 and 2 Manual.
A new topic is combined position lamps and indicators.
It states in section 4.2.1
'The position lamps on the same side as direction indicator must switch off when indicator is switched on.'
In section 4.2.2
'The position lamps on the same side as direction indicator doesn't have to switch off when indicator is switched on.'
Sections 4.2.3 and 4.4.3 agree with 4.2.2.
Which is correct?
Comment by martin nunn posted on
ive been failing them under the less than 24cm apart rule. But I agree completely. The manual contradicts itself. I wish they left it alone!
Comment by DAVID posted on
Clarification please reversing light not working, how do we know if it is the switch not functioning as it should which is a major fault or the lamp not working which is a minor fault, could we have this in a special notice or better still take it out of the test
Comment by Hooters posted on
Clarification Required Please!
Where a vehicle fails it’s test before the 20th May and returns for re-test on or after 20th, presumably the new criteria will apply then including failing apt. defects that were not a RFR at the time of initial test.
So, for example, engine MIL showing at initial test was a ‘pass’ but then becomes a ‘fail’ at re-test.
Conversely, e.g. where a vehicle fails on one-of-two reg. plate lights inop. before 20th and returns on or after still with the defect then a VT20 pass certificate should be issued with no rectification having been carried out. Of course, there might be many other examples.
Am I correct on these?
Comment by Nigel posted on
The more i read the training material the more ridiculous it gets. Corroded fuel pipes now in non component advisories. And only able to fail an excessively leaking fuel pipe. So a heavily corroded fuel pipe with a slight leak is now a pass?