Since my last update, the team have been really busy working on the feedback you’ve given us, following the changes that were made to the MOT in May 2018.
As always, your feedback is really useful in helping us identify where there might be issues and how we can make the service even better for you.
Improving security
In my last blog post, I let you know that we’re looking to improve the way security cards work, to make the system more secure and easier to use.
This includes:
- making our password policy stronger
- making our recovery security question and answers harder to guess
- reducing the number of times you’ll need to enter your security card PIN each day
- increasing our proactive monitoring of suspicious activities, to prevent fraudulent use of the security cards
- switching off the ability for your browser to autofill your password and user ID
Making your passwords stronger
To begin with, we’re looking at how we can make sure the passwords you’re choosing are stronger by banning very common and easy to guess passwords. We’ll be introducing a maximum of 7 days that you can be without a card and log in with security questions. After 7 days, you will need to use your security card. We’re also be preventing the use of the same answer for both security questions.
Another thing we're doing is looking into ways we can securely reduce the number of times you need to enter your PIN every day, as we know this can be very time-consuming.
We’re working on a solution so that you will only need to log in with your security card once a day. The system will then remember your details, so you won’t need to re-enter your PIN unless something like your browser or device has changed since you first logged in.
We’re aiming to make most the changes live by 3 and 4 October, and we’ll let you know more soon.
Garage risk ratings
Something else we’ve been working on recently is garage risk ratings. I explained more about what we’re improving and why in my last update. We’ve nearly completed this work now, and we’ve been busy training our staff on how to carry out the new risk ratings in the past few months.
So, from later in the autumn if you have a site assessment, the way it’s carried out will be different.
How the new assessment will work
We’ll be focusing more on compliance and the test itself so our examiners will be carrying out more checks on recently tested vehicles. We’ll also be doing a shorter check on systems and processes in the garage, which will be called a site review.
The purpose of the site review is to ensure the vehicle testing station is following principles that promote good quality testing, we will focus on 4 areas:
- basic compliance
- management control and quality control
- premises and equipment
- people's training and their skills
Each area will be then marked as either:
- satisfactory
- improvement needed
- unsatisfactory
The site review outcome will combine the result of the vehicle re-inspection (if carried out), previous disciplinary history of the testers and the authorised examiner and data captured from the testing service. This will then be displayed on the MOT testing service as a rating of red, amber or green.
You’ll be able to view the outcome of the site review of the testing service and see the areas where improvement might be needed.
Risk ratings for testers
As part of this work, we’re also looking at risk rating testers, using data from the testing service and disciplinary history. Testers will be able to see their rating in their profile. The testers rating is personal to them and will not be displayed to site managers or authorised examiner (AE). However, some AEs may choose to ask prospective employees to share it.
We’ll let you know more about the launch of this soon. As part of this, we’ll be creating a short guide to replace the current guide to risk reduction – which will focus on the things that are expected of a well-run MOT garage.
Making the manual clearer
Something you let us know in the comments, was that the wording of some defects wasn’t as clear as it could be. To help make it easier for you to identify the defects while you're testing, and make it clearer to the public, we’re making minor changes to some of the wording in the manual.
For example, previously, when testing the horn on a vehicle, you would need to choose the reason why it failed. We’ve now consolidated the reasons to make it clearer. So you’ll only need to choose the option that the ‘horn no longer meets requirements’.
We’ve made some of the manual clearer on how to check different things are working properly. Something you gave us a lot of feedback on was brake fluid. We’ve now provided you with clearer instructions on how to do this during a test.
We’ve also made it clearer which vehicles need the engine malfunction indicator lamp testing – by adding ‘from’ dates for different types of vehicles.
More defect descriptions
Over the past 4 months, you’ve given us lots of really great feedback on the new test, including the new categories.
We’ve taken this into consideration and from 13 September 2018, we’ll be introducing some more defect descriptions. These include:
- corroded brake hose ferrules including flexible brake hose excessively damaged, deteriorated, chafed, twisted or stretched
- tyre valves seriously damaged or misaligned
- headlamp alignment
- shock absorbers bushes that excessively worn
- suspension arms, rods, linkage that have ‘excessive wear or free play in suspension component’
- transmissions for motorcycles - excessively tight transmission belt or chain
This won’t be a significant change to the test and should include most of the feedback you’ve given us since the changes in May.
I hope the changes we’ve made will make it quicker and easier for you during testing. If you have any more questions please let me know in the comments below, and we’ll try and get back to you.
198 comments
Comment by Pete posted on
Is the brake servo hose no longer a testable item ? I went to advise a slightly damaged one the other day and no RfR or advisory appeared in the search and can't find any mention of it in the manual.
Comment by JOHN posted on
In my opinion tyre valve deterioration in cars and motor cycles especially
should be added as a dangerous failure because this is what I experience more often than a damaged valve.
Comment by Mohammad Ramzan posted on
Please can someone tell ne how to find little reserve travel on the handbrake lever I've looked for it but cannotfind it on the system I'm having to use manual advise for little reaserve travel on handbrake lever
Comment by Mike Williams posted on
1.1.6–Parking brake lever has excessive movement indicating incorrect adjustment
Unbelievable I know.
Comment by Stephen Ball posted on
There isn't an advisory on Hand brake lever travel anymore, DVSA removed it, so back to basics Manual advise
Comment by martin posted on
They make an awful lot of assumptions. . . . very bad practice in a supposed safety inspection .
Comment by philip posted on
is anyone else having the same problems as ourselves with diesel emissions i now dread the arrival of a pre 08 car as the amount of revving we are are doing to try go get them through is beyond a joke the workshop is starting to have a black tinge from all the soot from the exhausts i wipe the computers daily and everytime there is black soot on them we are breathing this in it cannot be good for us or the enviroment. we spend so much time helping customers get their cars through the emission test only to give it them back and a week later it would fail again if tested something has to change in the way we test diesels
Comment by Tony S posted on
So if it don't go through first time, fail it. Emissions too high.
If it's got that much soot/smoke, fail it. Too much smoke.
Get the old smokers off the road, it's the whole idea, unless you like chewing on soot.
Am I right?
Comment by Andrew Ackroyd posted on
Had an issue with lamps adversely affecting each other could not find a failure phoned the guy from dvsa who looks after our site that was at least 2 months ago left a msg to his phone to this day has not contacted me lucky for my testing station was able to contact the sites previous guy who advised me that the defect had BEEN FORGOTEN TO BE ADDED and told me how to fail the vehicle. The dvsa would have been down on myself like a ton of bricks for improper testing without the advise of the previous guy from the dvsa DISSAPOINTED THE DVSA ARE MAKING THIS JOB HARDER THAN IT IS I FEEL THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAILURE HAVE NOT GOT A CLUE WORRIED ABOUT SHOCKER BUSH THAN OPERATION OF THE UNIT ITSELF
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Andrew
Lamps adversely affecting others were recently added. Shock absorbers, there were defects for these units and we added the bush.
Here’s what the failures are for these items
a. A shock absorber:
i. insecurely attached to chassis or axle
ii. missing or likely to become detached
b. A shock absorber damaged to the extent that it does not function or showing signs of severe leakage
c. A shock absorber bush excessively worn
I hope this information helps:
Comment by Pj posted on
Had a main beam bulb that the output was poor, but the only option in the manual was "not working"
Comment by Graham posted on
Headlamp : light intensity severely reduced. I think this headlamp section (top of the page) with a few other fails is for dip and main beam. If you scroll down you have a different section for dip not working and main not working.
Comment by john a posted on
new class 1&2 manual, section 4.7.1. You must test all vehicles, fitted with front and rear position lamps, for presence of registration plate lamp and its operation. It then goes on to say "Some mopeds do not have a registration plate lamp". The manual does not state if this constitutes a pass or fail if we come across one of these. Guidance please.
Comment by castrolrob posted on
another question ive been asked for what seems like the 10th time,car failed on height adjuster 1 side inop,93 corolla,bits not available.if he removes the switch does it then pass?i have no guidance I can give em,have asked a few to ring dvsa and almost universally they cant get thru and give up then go elsewhere for a pass.you can add this to the pile of enquirys about defaced/missing plate smoke limits on initial test if you like......
Comment by Graham posted on
So i take it now we dont fail brake pad light on dash, only if the pads are worn down to the 'metal' squeal indicator. You cant just remove this without clearing this up, quite confusing all this adding then removing stuff and telliong us to look at manual to find out info. It would be much easier if you give us a brief description of the change
Comment by C williams posted on
Has any body come across Ford fitted tow bars don't pass electrical test with the approved electrical tester because it's LED and the body control module doesn't see volt drop
Comment by richard posted on
I've had this happen on Skodas as well.
Comment by Bert posted on
ive had it on a mini
Comment by stevie m posted on
i had it on a vw passat the customer bought the car back with his caravan on to show it worked. cant argue with that.
Comment by Pete posted on
Happens all the time , there was a special notice dating back to 2012 advising to pass and advise trailer sockets, but it seems to have been removed in the last couple of weeks.
Comment by Graham posted on
Yeah get this loads, all of the lights will flash very fast, aslong as they all light up i pass. If some dont, then pass and advise as you cant be sure
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi
Thank you for your comment.
We are aware of ongoing issues concerning the operation of some 13 pin socket testers, and is working to resolve these.
A special notice issued in 2013 gave guidance should problems be encountered:
If you are experiencing difficulties with your 13 pin test tool you should, in the first instance, contact your equipment supplier/manufacturer giving as much detail as possible (e.g. vehicle make/model/year etc).
You should continue to pass and advise, where you are certain a deficiency does not exist.
Comment by Ken Mcintosh posted on
Rather than a guide to risk reduction just tell us exactly what is required then bingo things will be as they should be.
I have met many vehicle examiners since I started testing in 1977 and guess what they are exactly the same as us testers, they all have there own ideas on certain things to do with the testing scheme.
Why you may ask, because we are all human Subjective.
Comment by Dave posted on
Is it now ok to have any old nut,with no locking device on suspension ball joints etc.???????
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Dave
As the presence and effectiveness of some locking devices, such as locking fluid or ‘nyloc’ nuts, can't be easily determined you should advise the presenter
Comment by John posted on
I feel like the quality of DVSA service is never monitored,Red from me ,
Back up service is dire. Feel like as a garage service is left to carry the can,
Comment by Kevin from Hull posted on
It needs to be clearly stated to the customer that the M.O.T test is a very minimum standard AT THE TIME OF THE TEST and not a certificate of road worthiness for the next 12 months and that the advisories are the difference between that minimum standard and the much higher service standard.
Comment by mark george posted on
where in the manual do you find play in strut top bearings/bush ?
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Mark
MacPherson strut tops are detailed in Section 5.3.4 of the inspection manual.
Reasons for failure are selected via Suspension > Other suspension components > Pins and bushes
Comment by Graham posted on
Simon, how is a machpherson strut top mount a pin or bush? Why cant this not be added to the machpherson strut section to keep things less complicated. That section is full of fails that i have never ever seen and never will, useless fails that could be grouped together, yet the main important one has been left out. As we all know dvsa inspectors follow the manual to the exact word. If i failed a top mount under the pin / bush fail, i guarantee i would be looking at points, it is not a pin or a bush!!!!!
Comment by Glyn posted on
I think you should put it back like it used tobe ..ite like word search to find what you want .pass..fail ..major ...minor...advise ...
Comment by mike posted on
when are you going to default the steered axle 1&2 selection to axle 1, in 35 years i have never tested a 2nd axle steered car, ridiculous to have to select it every time.
Comment by richard posted on
Brake fluid, you stated you were going to add information to clarify on how to check if the brake fluid is contaminated, I cant see it any where ?
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Richard
This is what has been added:
'On many vehicles, you won’t be able to see if the brake fluid is contaminated. You should only fail a vehicle if you can clearly see that the fluid is contaminated.'
Many questions were raised where the reservoir is not transparent or clear and fluid cannot be clearly seen
Comment by Kev posted on
Hi Simon,
So new guidance, 'On many vehicles, you won’t be able to see if the brake fluid is contaminated. You should only fail a vehicle if you can clearly see that the fluid is contaminated.'
Many questions were raised where the reservoir is not transparent or clear and fluid cannot be clearly seen.
So OK if I can clearly see the contaminated brake fluid in the semi transparent reservoir, then I should consider it a Major Fail. If the contaminated fluid has also left a film of dirt on the inside of the reservoir (which is normally the case) and the vehicle is presented for retest after the fluid has been changed but the inside of the reservoir is still dirty and therefore without removing the cap the condition of the fluid cannot be assessed what are we supposed to do, fail the vehicle again and face the flack, give the presenter the benefit of the doubt and pass in which case should it have failed in the first place. Could you please clarify
Comment by Geoff B posted on
You talk of tightening security for logins and the security questions, but the with regard to the security questions - this is an absolute joke!
If you login without having your pin card with you, you click the link and you are asked to answer the questions. When you type the answers they are displayed in plain text - who on earth thought that a good idea??
Just about every other site that I have ever used with recovery question/answers, the typed answers were always obscured, like a password.
Ultimately, if someone already guesses/knows a UID/Password, then they only need to shoulder surf a tester entering security questions to have unimpeded access...
Comment by Mike Williams posted on
'brake lining or pad wear indicator illuminated' can you confirm that this failure has been removed and replaced with 'Brake lining or pad:
worn down to wear indicator'. so if the warning light is on do we fail it?
Comment by Paul posted on
Brake linings and pads
you gotta go into 'Brake lining(s)' to get.. worn down to wear indicator
then come out & go into 'pads' to get.. brake lining or pad wear indicator illuminated
Comment by castrolrob posted on
wear indicator illuminated is on the previous page,the one where you selected pads,worn to indicator is on the actual pad failure page.yeah I know.....
Comment by castrolrob posted on
and now its gone,yesterday I had both worn to indicator and warning light,gone to use it today and warning light looks gone.am I going senile?
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Mike
Brake pad wear indicators illuminated has been removed, if pad warning indicators are illuminated they should not be failed under the linings rfr.
If the wear indicator is illuminated you should not take this that the pads are worn to that extent and a fault is not present within that electrical system. ie wire has earthed
Comment by Paul posted on
The Brake pad(s) Brake lining(s) pages are identical inc the RfR's except for wear indicator on the Brake pad(s) page.
plural noun: brake linings
a layer of hard material attached to a brake shoe or brake pad to increase friction against the drum or disc.
Comment by 2002 posted on
I take we are still no allowed to find a tool to measure that the pad material is under 1.5 mm.
Comment by Graham posted on
i was told by dvsa bloke, becasue you cant measure 1.5mm with your eyes, only fail a pad that is grinding. Then if its grinding you must do brake test either, so there shouldnt be any fails out there just for pads, unless you carry out brake test first.
Comment by Mike Williams posted on
Thanks for the quick reply Simon, but should we pass a vehicle with the Brake Wear Indicator lamp illuminated. It doesn't seem right to let a vehicle go with a Warning Lamp Illuminated. Could we fail it for "Brake lining or pad worn down to wear indicator", the lamp on the dash being a wear indicator?
Comment by craig posted on
Trying to find updates in manual useing show all updates on contents page , nothing showing + no link
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Craig
It may be that your computer has cached a previous version of the manual, these should expire within 24 hours. if you cant see them now, clear the cache in your browser settings
Comment by craig posted on
got it thanks
Comment by Alex Carter posted on
I have ordered a new card and after around 6 months it still says on order with no other way of ordering it again when will I receive my new card??
Comment by Mick posted on
Why is an engine under try insecure a fail but there is no failure listed for an in secure heat shield. I've seen it a few times where a heat shield that's supposed to a part of the exhaust system (for example vauxhall a antara rear exhaust silencer) become loose and could fall of causing danger to other road users.
Comment by Craig posted on
Exhaust heat shields on older cars missing above rear box should commonsense be used by the tester
Comment by Jim posted on
Have you not considered going back to PASS , ADVICE , FAIL, that is the biggest complaint we get from both trade and retail customers all the time day after day were i work we are mot only and do anything have from 10 to 40 mot tests it's getting very annoying constantly having to explain it what was so wrong with the old system? ?
Comment by Colin posted on
Why can't we have an advisory for tyres perished/cracking but not exposing cords ?
Comment by Peter posted on
Colin there is under tyre condition
Comment by tom posted on
I have noticed that the search option will bring up items that are not avalable on the main listing .
Brake efiiciency only just met for example.
Also whilst the search option is of use it gives no inducation of where to find an item on the main listing .
Also the help desk tried to connect me to the another department for clarification on an item but no one was available and they are not permitted to call back. How can a tester get help if needed?
Comment by Wayne posted on
Introducing new items and wording .with short notice .as said before confuses testers .we need better training and some on the ground dvsa staff .had a site visit last year previous visit 5 years previous been 16 months since last visit .no help at all seems we are left to try to understand so many changes with out any assistance .help desk total waste of time .left on hold for 10 mins last time eventually hung up .fix what needs fixing
Comment by Scotty posted on
The biggest improvement that could be made to the scheme is the test fee. DVSA should set this fee as a fixed fee for EVERY VTS! This improvement alone would eradicate a lot of shoddy tests being carried out nationwide. There would be no local competition between local garages and everyone could prosper from it - leaving the customer to make their choice on the garage reputation - rather than saving a few quid!
Comment by Chris posted on
a 'FIXED PRICE MOT' wouldn't stop certain mot stations passing vehicles that shouldn't pass , 'TRADE' customers want a discount off the retail price and this reduction is out of the garage owners profits, so discounted MOT's shouldn't change the outcome of a test.
.
Comment by Guy at Landford Garage posted on
Hope the trailing arm makes a new appearance under suspension...
Brake and wear indicators touching. Does that mean we can fail every car where the resistive (electrical resistance) indicator is not showing 100%, come on boffins you’ve just given the ‘Teflon failures’ the authorised reason to change BMW pads at 5mm.
Comment by Lm posted on
What about tie rods/track rods, nothing anywhere advising play or even exsessive play as a failure! Emissions, if a diesel offers no or too little reading to record, that should be an advisory??
Comment by mark posted on
why advise that
Comment by myke posted on
tie rods/track rods, if what you mean is the track rod arm coming out from the steering rack boot and the free play you can detect is the inner axial joint, is only slight, in non component section there is or was a tick box for slight play in steering rack axial joints. For excessive play of these joints failure is to be measured by the amount of free play at the rim of the steering wheel. Inspection Manual > Section 2 Steering > 2.3 Steering play > a. i. excessive = Major. As for the emissions (over rated european non revving engines) Section 8 Nuisance > 8.2.2.2 Opacity the section "For example" explains the procedure. Also on some DSM machines that cannot detect the "blip" you need to abort the session to obtain a print out.
Comment by Gary Kearvell posted on
The whole testing site seems to have been rushed and the changes in May were not needed anyway and now you are basically putting it back as it was?i test MCs and the pass fail areas are very confusing. Rear reflector for instance used to be Fail if not central to the machine now it can be anywherewith pass and advise so what is the point of testing it?it is a constuction and use item
Comment by Col posted on
A motorcycle throttle doesn't have to return to the idle position ! To me a throttle that don't return to idle is dangerous ! Then you say something about throttle not working correctly .
Comment by Alan posted on
Totally agree. And side and centre stands should be added for return to the rest position and behind hard to peg down.
Comment by Mike Smith posted on
There are after market lamps on motorcycles where half the rear light fashes amber when indicating. We were told to fail this for one light effecting another. Now I have seen new Discoveries with with rear led tail lights progresively goin amber along in a line. Has the failure critereor change or is there a problem with type approval?
Comment by Richard B posted on
please may I have an answer to a previous question I posed a while ago . The defect category for TPMS is contradictive .
h.Tyre pressure monitoring system:
i.malfunctioning or tyre obviously under-inflated
Minor
ii.obviously inoperative
Major
if the system displays a fault with the TPMS (flashing light or visit dealer message for example) it is malfunctioning (minor) but if the system is displaying a malfunction surely it would be inoperative ?? please could confirm IF this means that the TPMS function lamp does not display at all this would be a major ? e.g system dead ? then otherwise if the system is "live " but saying there is a malfunction it is only a Minor ?
Comment by Bert posted on
if the TPMS light is just lit up to say a tyre is low then the system is working as intended not a fault in the system or inoperative, the system is faulty when it is say flashing etc
Comment by Richard B posted on
sorry Burt , if the light is "flashing" as you say showing a fault, it's showing a malfunction. if its "malfunctioning" its inoperative ! eg NOT working
Comment by Jamie posted on
I think the first 1 may refer to the telltale being inoperative
Comment by A Gibbons posted on
Still nothing about incorrect tyre rotation in failure criteria for class 1&2 yet it states it in the manual
Nothing about incorrect kick on headlights
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
A tyre not fitted in accordance with the direction of rotation marked on the side wall has been added. Section 5.2.3 (i)
The failure in the MOT testing service can be found ; Motorcycle tyres > Condition
Comment by Paul posted on
Hi are you putting back main beam on warning lamp checks as no mention surely this as been picked up on by someone ..
Comment by Richard B posted on
section 4.9.1 a ii main beam mandatory tell tale.... defect Major
it's in the manual Paul
Comment by Paul posted on
Don't have to its already on there under.. 4.9 ‘Tell-tales’ mandatory for lighting equipment
Comment by Matt posted on
I’m sure DVSA is aware of this but I’ve just seen an advert where Halfords are offering a free MOT if you buy any product from there store, so you could buy a £1 sponge or air freshener and claim a free test. Wow MOTs just a pound now.
Comment by Philip Burgess posted on
Hi
Reference the garage risk rating is satisfactory the highest rating??..
Satisfactory in my opinion means MOT Station meets minimum standards.
Should the DVSA not recognised MOT Stations that exceed these minimum standards with a 'good/outstanding' rating similar how the government rate schools and care facilities
Comment by martin posted on
Only as long as it is judged only on standard of testing (which in an ideal world should be the same countrywide) otherwise a good rating would be influenced by grander premises and facilities.
Comment by Ellen posted on
Totally agree. Something should be done about this. On the money saving expert he suggests about this deal in his words"it's best for motors less likely to fail". SO what does that imply??
Comment by will posted on
where in the new manual does it say that the tester can have the use of an assistant if necessary using an approved atl or optl
Comment by Mark posted on
The whole MOT system being operated by garages which then offer “repairs for the faults found” is corrupt. MOT check centres should ONLY offer MOTs then the consumer/car owner knows he will be given a fair analysis in the MOT process.
Separate MOT centres from repair garages and bring the UK into the modern days we live in.
Comment by martin posted on
The "mot system" isn't corrupt but some garages are unscrupulous and fail for profit.
Those amongst us who operate fairly and by the book are as annoyed as you are that this practice is allowed to continue.
Unfortunately those who encourage this practice by financially rewarding their staff are hiding in plain sight in every town in the uk and are teflon coated as far as I can see.
Comment by Howard Walker posted on
All cars should be serviced or have an MOT check prior to the test.
Also, cars should be taxed based on an annual pollution test. I have seen too many cars going out with a new test certificate issuing black fumes. My BMW 744i was tested and had 0 for its pollution score, and 1 for the other test.
DVLA issued it with a class A certificate equal to an electric vehicle.
It was built in 2000 but had only done 6k miles when I imported it from Japan, where pollution is much better controlled than in the UK.
Much rubbish is spoken about pollution from cars. Well maintained ones do not polute as much as badly maintained ones. The UK should forget EU polution laws and take a look how the Japanese do it.
Comment by stevie m posted on
bit of a slur on mot testers that. i test in a garage that does repairs that by no means has any reflection on my test results. and i am sure there are many other testers that are the same. and i an sure that independant testing stations would recommend a repair shop to a customer. mmmm maybe they are on a commission.
Comment by colin posted on
I run an mot station that then offers repairs, I wouldn't dream of failing for profit !..
If we fail a car then it's failed by the guide lines set by the manual and the customers don't have the worries of having to find a reputable garage to do the repairs, the know they can just leave it with us safe with the knowledge that when they pick up their Vehicles it been repaired to mot standards with a pass certificate. We are a local cheap and cheerful garage and all my customers love us to bits.your comments are totally unfair. There are bad mot stations out there as in all businesses but taring us all with the same brush is out of order. Being able to mot and repair keeps my four lads employed and our mortgages paid
Comment by Mick posted on
It's also a benefit for the customer that doesn't have to bring it back again or reboot for repairs then retest.
Comment by Dave C posted on
I fully agree with Colins comments,we are a small family run garage and would not dream of failing for profit , our pass and fails are average .Maybe one should look at higher fail rates to see where trouble may lie .
Comment by PETE posted on
I TRUST MY MOT TESTER 100% OR I WOULD NOT EMPLOY HIM...HE FAILED HIS OWN CAR AND MINE FOR THAT MATTER...SHAME ON YOU. MOT STATIONS WHO ONLY TEST, PASS THE CAR WITH A STRING OF ADVISORIES. ITS THE TESTER NOT THE TEST STATION IN MY OPINION
Comment by Mack posted on
Mark, Why instead of insulting honest hard working test stations don't you complain about reduced test fees or mot's being used by the big fast fits and main dealers as loss leaders ? These surely have to have a biased view in the mot outcome of vehicles presented ? If the fee was mandatory across the board then standards will only improve !! After all you cant buy cheap road tax can you
Comment by martin posted on
Good effort with the amendments such a pity we had to work with a substandard system to begin with.
Who on earth decided that we are losing too much time using our security card when we wasted many hours trying to find defect failures that had been removed.
I think you should concentrate your priority's elsewhere ie proof reading,correct terminology,punctuation and spelling.
Comment by con posted on
how will the risk score work if a tester has points from a previous station will it affect the new station as technically the new place could have done nothing wrong and be changed from say green to amber
Comment by John Stock posted on
Why can't the mileage of the last test be desplayed at the BEGGINING of the "Test Results" section?
If the tester has made an error in typing in the correct vehicle mileage it is not spotted until he has then already configured the pass cert, ready for printing. At this point it can no longer be altered.
The incorrect document has to be recorded, the system accessed and then re-enterred in order to correct the mistake.
Comment by Alan posted on
Hi , what about ' headlamp image obviously incorrect' missing from the list
of possible headlamp aim failures ?
I come across incorrectly fitted bulbs on an almost daily basis.
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Alan
New reasons for rejection are being implemented from 13 September including incorrect headlamp images, the changes can be found in the documents here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-special-notice-11-18-changes-to-mot-inspection-manuals-and-defects
Comment by Guy posted on
Do you have a local Halfords near by as well.....have to agree I am seeing this too.
Comment by mr vincent r longotano posted on
its time that the pricing of mot went up
Comment by Eddie Mackin posted on
C'mon, where on earth did you come up with that idea in-between all else thats been spoken about ? How does that song go ....? ? Are you for real ? I'm also guessing that you are a garage owner that just happens to do MOT's ?
Comment by Mick posted on
I agree I think people are charging too low for mot's considering the price of the labour rate. No I'm not an owner either.
Comment by Jay Cusick posted on
Yes,he probably is and quite rightly so.the test price hasn't risen for a long time whilst the cost of running a station has increased dramatically. When the new emissions test came in in may i had to purchase a new gas analyser at £6000 alone. How many tests to get that back? We then have computers,printers,training and ect on top of all that also to pay for
Comment by richard posted on
"Another thing we're doing is looking into ways we can securely reduce the number of times you need to enter your PIN every day, as we know this can be very time-consuming."
Really ? Time consuming ? I don't think so. The security to access this site is more then my banking app uses.
Comment by Richard B posted on
,Good morning .the re introduction of"tyre incorrectly fitted on the rim", does this mean we can fail stretched tyres again ( I know there are stretched tyres and there are seriously stretched tyres) but if we have badly over stretched tyres that are clearly poorly seated, does this mean we could fail them using this defect as before ?
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Richard
We've published details before regarding stretched tyres and what constitutes a fail, details can be found here:
https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/stretched-tyres-an-mot-failure/
Comment by Richard posted on
Thank you Simon, I am fully aware of the information, my question was based on you omitted it , then re put the defect back in , so was checking if was still the same criteria . Regards
Comment by michael watling posted on
Why in this modern times are MOT,s still neccesary, I always have my car serviced at the same garage every year,yet every year I have to pay extra for a MOT, that they admit is not needed, it's just another way of making money from the motorist
Comment by M.P.Cole posted on
You must be in the minority then as the amount of vehicles we see daily which are not fit to be on the road beggars belief.The M.o.T test is there to prevent defective vehicles from being on our roads.Simple as that.
Comment by dave posted on
yes sir, you are among the diligent who see car servicing as prudent. However the vast majority of vehicle owners who are not, enough said.
Comment by stevie m posted on
what about the people who do not maintain their vehicles. as a tester of 18 years i have seen to many vehicles presented that have obviously not been looked at since previous test. they seemed shocked that an advisory from previous test actually failed on the next test.
Comment by Col posted on
Totally agree ,so many owners think all you need to do is put fuel in , no need for a service or tire check lights check ,or spend any money on maintenance ,and as you say then are shocked when they fail
Comment by martin posted on
To a significant number of the motoring public the mot is viewed as a game to see how much they can get away with.
As has been mentioned before the amount of horror stories most mot stations see on a daily basis is justification for an annual check in itself.
Comment by Ken Mcintosh posted on
We wouldn’t require an mot test if everyone looked after there car as intended but sadly the servicing side in the garage has dropped off due to long life servicing intervals and bad maintenance, which makes the mot even more important than in days gone by.
Tyres brakes and bulbs just a few important things on a vehicle that don’t last forever.
Comment by Simon posted on
Thanks - but surely there is a mistake in the modified wording regarding suspension:
"c (ii). A suspension component modified so that the suspension is operative or likely to fail"
You must presumably mean "inoperative".
This wording is in the new SN but I think you may have transcribed it incorrectly and should consider modifying it so that the proper sense is conveyed.
I particularly like the feature of emailing us directly to tell us that there is an impending new SN - an excellent enhancement.
Have you considered modifying the login requirements so that if, for example, a tester only wishes to see their own test quality information (while doing CPD at evening/weekend!) it would not be necessary to enter the security number from the card?.... I'm guessing that there would be nil fraud risk if only accessing that data and not other functions of the site.
Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Simon,
Thanks for letting us know about this, this has now been corrected.
Thanks,
Olivia
Comment by Geoff cross posted on
Still can’t find anything on spoked wheels ie broken or loose spokes
Comment by Clifford moore posted on
Sounds like you are doing a great job working out all the issues and are trying to make my work easier so well done
Comment by David Madge posted on
What about the operation of light adversary affected by the operation of another light ? for example brake light flashing with an indicator
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi David
Light interaction failures are to be introduced from 13 September, details can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-special-notice-11-18-changes-to-mot-inspection-manuals-and-defects
Comment by Munyaradzi Hoffice posted on
Please include “covers and under-trays obscuring view of some components”in the advisory menu . It saves us typing time as most later cars have covers in the engine bay, along sills and the undercarriage.
Comment by S Calvert posted on
A good improvement, but always room for more.....
Brake hose ferrule condition should have never been removed, a welcome return for sure.
However why when they were discussing reinstating the brake hose ferrule condition did they not also included an Advisory or indeed a Minor option for a Slightly Corroded brake hose ferrule ???
This further reinforces the need to keep the ‘Manual Advisory’ as theres always going to be something that hasnt been included
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Thank you for your comment. System defined advisories have been associated with some new failures, of which slight corrosion to ferrule has been included. We have only listed the failures as advisories are not part of the manual.
Comment by Kev Egerton posted on
With the tyre valves why can't you just say when they are perished due to age that they are 'Perished and dangerous'
Comment by Simon (DVSA) posted on
Hi Kev
Failures for tyre valves, misaligned and damaged are distinctively different and therefore cannot be categorised as one as you suggest.
Comment by David Matthews posted on
As regards security, if you need to log on without your card to order a new one for instance and the first kiss question etc comes up, the answer we type comes up in readable text!!! people were stood behind me and almost saw my security word, NOT GOOD IS IT!!
Comment by Pete posted on
Agreed with this, I have been waiting for a new card and those security answers should be hidden
Comment by MJB posted on
I would be interested to know how big a problem the security changes are trying to address. What are the instances of password fraud, DVSA?
Comment by graham hastings posted on
emissions values should be date related, or printed on the inspection sheet to save arguments with customers.
Also a provision to alter incorrect brake weights
Comment by Ron Entwistle posted on
Change, Change and more Change. Why were these changes not introduced in May? Testers are going to get confused from what they learned yesterday, no longer applies today. It seems to me that the staff
at HQ. are hoping to justify their own jobs. They will end up confusing
testers. If the test needs to evolve, then more thought is required before
implementing any more changes.
Comment by Reg Salway posted on
I thought the changes made in May were to align us with Europe, so we all have the same Mot system! Well that's the excuse DVSA/Goverment made.
Now these new changes come in, reinstating some of the very good and obvious fail items that were removed in May.
Does that mean we no longer align with Europe?
We should never have changed it in the first place.
"If it aint broke don't fix it" leave it alone, or would that put some very highly paid pen pushers, who don't know one end of a track rod from the other out of a job? What a shame!
Comment by Steve Bohanna posted on
All sounds good but I don’t see how pressing our security card for a code is time consuming !! I would have thought that for the sake of security at the time of logging in. 1 press is a small amount to ask to keep security at a maximum ?
Comment by richard posted on
yeah I was a bit bemused by this, I cant believe anyone would think pressing the smart card & inputting the numbers is time consuming.
Comment by Derek Bayley posted on
A small point but, as someone with arthritis in my hands having to click on a box to activate it before entering the result is an unnecessary extra click every time, most sites I use have the box already active with the cursor ready to enter
It might seem much but when you test over a thousand vehicles a year multiplied by the miner of entries it begins to add up.
Comment by Colin Wellesley service station clacton on sea posted on
Hi are you going to put back in as a fail lamp interacting with another lamp example indicators interacting with position lamp as it is no longer in the list of failures and we have been told to put it down as a pass and advise. Which in my opinion is a fail as it always has been thanks I look forward to your reply
Comment by Geoff B posted on
I agree with Colin!
I have had two vehicles in with this issue, one with the position lamp going out when the brake lamp illuminated, and one with a flashing position lamp when the indicators were operated. This is less common than it used to be (Mk3/4 Escorts and Audis from the 80s), but PWM lamps with the wrong bulbs and good old fashioned earthing issues are still out there.