Skip to main content

Improving how you enter test results

Posted by: , Posted on: - Categories: MOT testing service

As mentioned in our last blog, we've been working on making how you enter test results on the MOT testing service simpler.

On 3 November 2016 we changed how you enter test results.

These new changes have been introduced based on the feedback we've received. It should make it easier to find and add defects and also remove defects when carrying out a retest.

You can watch the video below to see what the new test result entry screens look like.

Keep sending us your feedback

Please keep sending us your feedback as it helps us identify the feature improvements that you most want to see.

The easiest way for you to send us your suggestions for improvements is by using the feedback link on the MOT testing service - alternatively, you can also email

This blog was updated on 4 November 2016 to reflect that this update was introduced on 3 November 2016. 

Sharing and comments

Share this page


  1. Comment by kevin Little posted on

    Please can you adapt the layout to fit the screen to alleviate constant scrolling down the page. The layout takes so much longer to navigate whilst searching for defects
    Surely it would be more efficient to have the relevant information on the top of the page to enable logging of defects easily.

    Maybe in future you could consult testers as to the best way to design a layout which benefits the user



  2. Comment by Tom posted on

    The new pages require a lot of scrolling up and down to enter results and to find the green action button
    This makes things a lot more cumbersome and slower to operate
    The pages need to be more compact .

  3. Comment by murray posted on

    liking the new layout better

  4. Comment by david carass posted on

    Just a point , a mileage box on the inspection sheet would be handy.

  5. Comment by david carass posted on

    Hi ,I have been carrying out mot tests since 1963 ,and still going .I have seen a lot of changes over the years but have always thought ,what the hell they know best and I just take it in my stride. Learn the system and carry on testing .its the way foreward .

  6. Comment by Paul posted on

    What's happened to the "items not tested" option ?
    Ain't the best improvement you gotta
    1)finish & return to mot results
    2)Search for a defect
    3)then type in items not tested

    • Replies to Paul>

      Comment by me again posted on

      Defect categories screen is where Search for a defect shud be

    • Replies to Paul>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Paul,

      Items not tested used to be available as a separate category for testers (it still is for VE's).

      For testers, the "Items not tested" category was removed and replaced with 4 individual RFR's within the relevant component category.

      This happened back in 2014. For more info, you can read our blog about this here



      • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

        Comment by me again posted on

        Thank you Thomas,
        The conclusion to my question was why is the ‘Search for a defect’ facility only available before you enter the ‘Defect categories screen’ or after you ‘finish & return to mot results’?
        It’s not the best improvement’s considering ‘It’s all about making information readily available to the person testing the vehicle’…using a useful tool like the tablet was easy until the improvement? I think Neil Barlow and his team got it right how it was and what we have now is poor by comparison, maybe a bit too much information than we need to see, the difference in font sizes & the screen layout is a distraction, in conclusion it’s a step backwards without prejudice to the vehicle technical data development. It’s supposed to save a lot of time in the long run, it’s nice when you bring something out that we can immediately go for and you can see the improvements and its user friendly & we can take it forward. Sorry am probably colour blind, dyslexic and have various ranges of learning difficulties

  7. Comment by Steve posted on

    Each tester has their own common advisories they use on a regular basis, can the system not be changed so that each user is able to save these ?
    As someone stated earlier, 'tyre worn on outer edge' 'tyre perished' 'undertrays fitted' 'brake pipes covered in grease' etc. These need to be included somewhere.

    Also when entering the fail/PRS/advisory why do we have to scroll down the screen so much to enter the information? The longitudinal, vertical etc options are set too far apart on the screen, move them closer together & help reduce the time to enter the details.

    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by wag posted on

      I do agree with your comment on the advisories steve,and im not lover of this new system.As has been said before by many... change for changes sake...not had the new card yet..more waste of time and money

  8. Comment by mickey d posted on

    like the new layout, flows much better

    • Replies to mickey d>

      Comment by mickey d posted on

      you can ajust your computer setings to make the font bigger

  9. Comment by Niss Mohammed posted on

    If it ain't broken don't fix it. The old system was much better, the new system small writing although I do like the alphabetical order. Old system was a lot better.

  10. Comment by Tom posted on

    What went wrong today then ?
    I see the system crashed following the latest upgrade.

    • Replies to Tom>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Tom,

      We experienced some problems with the infrastructure of the service on Saturday. This unplanned outage wasn't anything to do with last Wednesday's update to the service.

      Once the problem was identified we worked quickly to fix the issue.

      We're currently working on improving how we can get a contingency code out to all users quickly. We'll be launching a service status page on GOV.UK soon. On this page you'll be able to see the current status of the service and get access to a contingency code if there is a widespread outage.

      We're really sorry for any inconvenience that this unplanned outage may have caused.



  11. Comment by trevor posted on

    would have bet my house on it major upgrade two days later we need to contingency test and please answer your phone when you dont send out a number untll half way into the morning

    • Replies to trevor>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Trevor,

      We're really sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may have caused. This unplanned outage wasn't anything to do with last Wednesday's update to the service.

      We'll be launching a service status page on GOV.UK soon. On this page, you'll be able to see the current status of the service and get access to a contingency code if there is a widespread outage. We'll be updating everyone when this page is live.



  12. Comment by cheekyboy posted on

    well done DVSA play around with the system and it all crashes, why oh why don't you just leave things alone????????????

  13. Comment by richard posted on

    Saturday morning 5th November, the system is down !!!! , why the hell cant i get hold of anyone. No contingency number nothing, phone has a recorded message, saying we are sorry we are busy please call back, then hangs up. Meanwhile I've got mots backing up !!!!

  14. Comment by cheekyboy posted on

    I personally prefer the old mot lay out for defects, think the new lay out writing is far to small, but yet again something changes which didn't need changing

    • Replies to cheekyboy>

      Comment by Stephen posted on

      I also liked the old version better. The text is far too small on the new version and yet again why cant the most commonly RFR be at the top??

  15. Comment by Only Me posted on

    Why is everything in alphabetical order?

    Can't the top-level menus be grouped according to the testers manual sections:
    ie Lights, Steering, Brakes, Tyres, Seat Belts, Body, Exhaust, Drivers View, etc

    • Replies to Only Me>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on


      Thanks for your comment. The old layout was also alphabetical but it was formatted in rows.

      The new layout has kept the same order but it's now displayed in a column.

      When we have more information and have reviewed user feedback we'll be looking into whether we need to reorder the categories.



  16. Comment by richard posted on

    Just a small gripe, re the new update, why was the need to swap the brake readings & advisories around ?

    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Richard,

      This change was based on the feedback we received during user research. It also follows the flow on the inspection sheets where the users records the odometer reading at the top of the sheet, defects in the middle section and brake test at the bottom of the sheet.



    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by Les posted on

      Used 3 times so far & like it, flows thru easily - only gripe is small text on menus, good job.

    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by paul posted on

      Usual DVSA double standards here. Power steering inoperative. Not marked as dangerous. Go to the Catogorisation of Defects Book (Published by, er, DVSA) used to set the standards of a roadside prohibition and guess what? Its an immediate risk to road safety, which in turn means its dangerous to drive. That means "Sorry Sir, your car is dangerous, you will need to get it recovered." You would think DVSA would know this.

      • Replies to paul>

        Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

        Hi Paul,

        The video was produced to show you what the new test result entry screens would look like before they went live. It was made to give you an overview of the new screens and wasn't showing how individual defects should be classified.



  17. Comment by Stuart posted on

    So seeing as CPD is a hot topic I'd like to know where information is available regarding what qualifies as acceptable training. We are not mandated to pay for our training only the assessment but how are we supposed to self train when the information regarding this appears to be a secret or only known to these Training Providers who are not prepared to willingly give out the information.
    We don't all have the luxury of being able to afford the extra costs involved

    • Replies to Stuart>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Stuart,

      You can find information about how you can complete your training in our guide on GOV.UK



      • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

        Comment by Stuart posted on

        I have already read this document and many others but none state what is acceptable as far as training is concerned. Have re read the amended Inspection Manual and been involved on many discussions on the mtaeta forum. Discussed matters with other local testers. What if any is recordable are there is no difinitive list.

  18. Comment by shaun posted on

    just starting using new layout today, this was something that i requested a while back as its now much easier to see how many fails or advisories you placed on a vehicle without going all the back to start screen, its easy to click advise instead of a fail and vise versa, now at a glance i know how many fails ive clicked on, some old cars have such long lists this just makes my life easier, thumbs up for me

    • Replies to shaun>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Shaun,

      Thanks for commenting. We're always looking to improve the service based on users feedback, so please do keep sending it in.



      • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

        Comment by cheekyboy posted on

        Hi Thomas if you are always listening to users feedbacks when is the VSI coming back?? as a lot of people are requesting it, me for 1, be good to hear your feedback

        • Replies to cheekyboy>

          Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on


          There's been lots of comments about bringing back Vehicle Specific Information (VSI).

          We have started some work in the background looking at how we could add vehicle technical information to the service and we've got more work planned on this for the near future.

          We'll be posting more about the work we're doing on this in a blog very soon.



    • Replies to shaun>

      Comment by Julian posted on

      Just used the new update , ok on first test nice car only a couple of advisories . Second car lots of defects , took and extra twenty minutes to usual , yes I'm not used to it yet , I thought looking at it before using it would be better than it is . We get lots of older cars in with faults , if it is as slow as on my last test this will impact seriously on test times affecting our business .

  19. Comment by Russ posted on

    VSI was very helpful and if possible should return.

    From an AE point of view, I think recording calibrations onto the system would be better too.

    The online system is definitely better, but there seems to be too many different information points, which I think confuses people.

    I do think it is very over regulated now, and can see why many are disgruntled with things. I passed my annual assessment in June, but still think it's a bit much on testers having an exam every year, the training is a five year cycle why not have an exam at the end of that?
    Not sure what other testers experiences are, but some of the questions I had through the IMI were worded terrible, and you could have argued three of the answers were correct. I won't put the question, but the answer was it passes and the options were fail, pass, pass and advise, not part of the test! You can see how you could argue all three could be correct; especially pass and advise. So you know the ruling, but not sure what their answer is.

    The training company I used aren't much help either, they use out of date training videos with the wrong information on, and when I recently rang them up they didn't have a clue who I was even though I'd paid for all of my testers training and exams with them. Also in the mock exam, I had questions on motorbikes and class 5's even though I have no license for that class, they also had questions that had the wrong answers on.

    This is now a massive cash cow for these private training companies, every day I get bombarded on Facebook, Twitter, mail, and email from these companies—Only £1,000 to be a tester, 100% pass rate!

    CPD is better, but it could have easily have been done by DVSA in house via E-learning.
    Rant over—Happy Monday ??

    • Replies to Russ>

      Comment by Tony S posted on

      Fully agree, it should have been set by DVSA as an E-Learning program and Test, at no cost to the Testers or AE's.
      DVSA has never answered mime or any one else's questions as to why it has been done this way, they just dance around the subject.
      So come on Thomas, lets have the truth , also show this message on the Blog.
      Tony S

      • Replies to Tony S>

        Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

        Hi Tony

        Thanks for your comment. DVSA and the majority of its stake holders decided that refresher training every 5 years was no longer fit for purpose in a fast moving environment of technological and legislative change. So that's why we introduced training that follows a continuing professional development (CPD) model.

        This meant training can be delivered through multiple channels, giving flexibility and choice to MOT testers. CPD is commonly used in other industries such as medical, aeronautic and many other service providers.

        DVSA doesn't have the resource or the expertise to deliver this training model so it fell to the awarding organisations that deliver the MOT qualifications to do this on our behalf. We recognise that this is still early days and we're learning from the experience of MOT annual training.

        In the future, there will be changes based on user experience and compliance levels. The end result will be to raise standards and professionalism within the MOT industry



        • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

          Comment by Tony S posted on

          Hi Thomas

          Thank's for the quick response,

          So "DVSA doesn't have the resource or the expertise to deliver this training model", as I and a lot of other people have suggested, this new training model is a cost saving scheme for DVSA/Government.

          Surly the way forward would have been for DVSA to employ an expert to set up the training and test, via a Portal, being that DVSA now run the MOT scheme, therefore have all the information that is needed to set it up.

          I think this would have saved a lot of confusion and anguish amongst the MOT Testers and AE's


        • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

          Comment by clive posted on

          DVSA set the mot test requirements and standards,yet don't have the expertise to train the testers?!?!? There was nothing wrong with the 5-year refresher course,I can honestly say
          I never came away not having learnt something from someone,whether instructor or fellow tester.
          Now its a multi-choice exam, pass or fail, no information on what we got wrong, no guidance as to
          how to put it right for future. IE NO TRAINING. But thats ok because the DVSA is saving

  20. Comment by David Morter posted on

    I've been testing since 1976 and I have always enjoyed my job, but I'm glad I only have a year left. Good luck to you all, I'm a mot tester not a computer wiz kid. (David Morter)

    • Replies to David Morter>

      Comment by Stephen posted on

      Hi,David like you i'm an MOT tester 36years now, I just want to do my job test the vehicles and move on.
      Can't stand all this I.T stuff,
      The youngsters might know computers, but they know nothing when it comes to testing vehicles over 25 years old or older.

      • Replies to Stephen>

        Comment by David Morter posted on

        Thanks Stephen, head office seems to think that headlamp aims are more important than having pre 60s cars on the road with no mot's, the very cars that the mot was bought in for, this is the problem I have at the moment with the modern mot system I expect it's got to do with the younger testers not knowing the tolerance on kingpins, trunnions etc (not their fault), I'm now going to try and sort out this training and assessment wish me luck.

        • Replies to David Morter>

          Comment by Tony S posted on

          Like you guys, I've got nearly 30 years MOT plus more in inspections,
          King pins, points, condensers,!!!
          The training and Test ain't so bad, common sense really and keeping up to date, lot of the young uns don't have or do.

  21. Comment by Virge posted on

    No one is listening to you guys.

  22. Comment by dennis davies posted on

    being a old tester for well over 30 years and seeing many changes and different names now they call them selfs dvsa probably will change again soon, why keep changing things when you have got it running good, there was nothing wrong with the old system, the mot side seems to be getting spoilt, I can see why testers are hard to find . we do not need all this, we just want to get on and do our job to keep cars and the public safe. I have had my say give me back the old times.thank you.

  23. Comment by Rob marchant posted on

    Previous mileage on check sheet would be useful instead of when you've finished printing results and then may not notice it.
    Previous mileage 45000
    New mileage 145000 Oh that my not be right??

  24. Comment by richard posted on

    luckily it wasn't released last night according to the email i got this morning, i guess if they had , we'd all being using contingency by now.

  25. Comment by Raju posted on

    For God sake , lave it alone .
    And bring back VSI ....

    I have been testing for very long time and you keep changing and making it more difficult for us oldes .
    Old is gold . so hands off !

  26. Comment by Glynn posted on

    I agree with alot of he comments here, current layout is fine, bringing vsi back would be far more helpful. Listen to the people!

  27. Comment by david posted on

    when is this change being brought on,line

    • Replies to david>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi David,

      This change will be introduced following tonights improvements works.

      UPDATE 27/10/2016

      Last night we were unable to carry out the improvement works to the MOT testing service.

      We’ll release the new features as soon as we can and will keep you updated.



      • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

        Comment by Shafiq posted on

        Hi Thomas
        Can you guys put more 'non advisory' on to the system.
        For examples tyre bald on outer or inner edges
        Tyre perished but not showing cord or ply.
        And there many more non advisory used to be but not now.

  28. Comment by George posted on

    No need for change system works well

  29. Comment by Brian Worth posted on

    Bring back VSI, It must be possible to have 1 button to print, not 3 that we have at present. More info on EHB and testing hybrids.

    • Replies to Brian Worth>

      Comment by Laurie posted on

      I agree totally with the comments regarding VSI and EPB's, we need more information, not less!

  30. Comment by philip posted on

    bring back the vsi it would better than the changes here.

  31. Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

    Hi all,

    Thanks for all your comments and feedback. We've had a lot of comments about bringing back Vehicle Specific Information (VSI).

    We have already started some work in the background on adding vehicle technical information to the service and we've got more work planned on this for the future.

    We'll be posting more about the work we're doing on this in a blog post shortly.



  32. Comment by Russ posted on

    It's called justifying ones job is it any better not really! constant meddling that seems to make are jobs harder and improves nothing.

  33. Comment by james posted on

    it would be nice to spend some time actually doing the MOT, instead of constatly reading E MAILS ,and you lot altering how we do the paper work .

  34. Comment by Stephen posted on

    Just means more time on the computer, and less time testing. Not good for us or our bosses.
    Just keep it as it is. Why change the whole system.

  35. Comment by Dave posted on

    Come on guys things have to move forward. dinosaur are extinct

  36. Comment by Dan posted on

    I really can't see that making any difference. But putting back the vsi in especially on testing electronic handbrake would save a lot of time.

  37. Comment by Andy posted on

    I work to a time frame just get use new system and now I have waste more time fannying around with another. And what was wrong with the old way of training

  38. Comment by Rafal posted on

    Current version is absolutely fine. Changes are not necessary

  39. Comment by Andy posted on

    Why change something when it isn't broken. We've all got used to the layout and system which works perfectly fine.... My opinion is Leave it as it is....

  40. Comment by Hugh Haines posted on

    Why chance something that is easy and quick to use now,as soon as we get used to it you complicate things!,

  41. Comment by David mcclelland posted on

    Negligible damping effect must be introduced again. This fluid leak is no good on a shock absorber. When there no fluid showing what then

  42. Comment by steve posted on

    here here. bring back VSI especially for EPB systems

  43. Comment by Merv posted on

    I agree, this seems like change for changes sake, theres nothing different only the layout, like the old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

  44. Comment by Marcin posted on

    Next change to make MOT teter life harder.

  45. Comment by Paul posted on

    Just when you get used to it. You change it again.
    Who thinks these things through.

  46. Comment by Michael Ball posted on

    Looks like change for the sake of change. Where are all these people that have suggested these changes? Could it be software programmers/designers that want to keep them selves in a job?
    I think the majority of NT's will by now be familiar with and quick at using what we have, why change it?
    A better use of resources would be to re-introduce VSI.

    • Replies to Michael Ball>

      Comment by John Hill posted on

      Agree! System has been working well, why change it so much already, and who on earth has had trouble understanding it?! VSI would be very useful to have back

  47. Comment by george posted on

    totally a waste of time ,the old method was better and quicker.

  48. Comment by george posted on

    i think its time to call it a day after 50 years

  49. Comment by george posted on

    been testing for 53years time for a change going into computer i t

  50. Comment by Tony posted on

    I agree with the negative comments this looks a step backwards

    • Replies to Tony>

      Comment by DEREK JARRETT posted on

      I agree the VSI was always a good idea especially the info regarding brake testing 4x4's etc.

  51. Comment by mike posted on

    Here we go again back to square one

  52. Comment by mahmood kaid posted on

    keep it going- making improvements, onward and upward, the system look better and updated, i am happy!!!
    we cannot keep with old dated systems, any good idea that will help the majority, bring it on

  53. Comment by Peter posted on

    I agree with Colin.

  54. Comment by Lee posted on

    i want to mot a car not sell stuff on ebay (9 seconds to 28 seconds)... the new way looks longer .. as the old saying goes 'if it isnt broke ... dont fix it....'

    this is going to play hell with our touch screens at work... BRING BACK THE VSI ...

  55. Comment by Alan Jone posted on

    Just the same as before but in a different set up what was the point.

  56. Comment by keith posted on

    From my point of view the re-jigging of the system will be a pain as we will need to re-learn the process of recording results whilst trying to meet tight deadlines for testing 10 to 15 year old vehicles. Bottom line may be that I am getting old and set in my ways but this looks like change for changes sake....we will see if its an improvement when working with it over the next few months etc ....I don't want to be negative but that's the way I see it sorry