https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/mot-services-were-working-on-23-january-2018/

MOT services we're working on: 23 January 2018

 

MOT testing screen

In my latest update, I’d like to explain some of the changes the team will be working on over the next few weeks, including changes to the MOT testing service helpdesk and the new inspection manual.

MOT testing service desk

In December, we told you that from January 2018, the MOT testing service helpdesk will become part of DVSA’s call centre. Before this took place, it wasn’t run by DVSA, so we couldn’t put calls through between the helpdesk and our standards team and often we found you had queries for both.

Now if you call the MOT testing service helpdesk and you have a follow-up technical testing question, they can transfer you to the MOT standards team.

This is part of the on-going work we’re doing to join these 2 services, and make it easier for you to get MOT testing support and advice.

Once we’ve trained more of our staff to answer all types of questions, we’ll look at whether merging the 2 phone numbers is possible and would improve the service for you.

Roadworthiness directive implementation

It’s been really good to see that you’ve been engaging with the changes we’ll be making as part of the roadworthiness directive, and giving us feedback on some of our ideas.

Your feedback is essential and will help us make sure we make any necessary changes.

New inspection manual

As you know, the roadworthiness directive means we’re making substantial changes to the inspection manual.

We recently published the latest draft of the manual on GOV.UK. Although it won’t come into effect until 20 May 2018, I want to make sure you can start getting to know what's in it and what’s changing. It’d be great to hear your feedback on it, so please let us know if there are any areas we can improve.

Finding the right failure reasons

You may have noticed from the new manual that while the content of the MOT isn’t changing much, there’ll be quite a few changes on how we word MOT failure reasons.

It’s important that we make it as easy as possible to find the correct failure reasons within the MOT testing service, as they might be worded or organised differently to before.

So, we’ve been doing a lot of testing of prototypes with testers and I’m really pleased with how this has gone so far. It's helped us understand how we can make the service easier to use and defects quicker to find. We’ll continue doing more user testing over the next few weeks.

Vehicles of historic interest and first date of MOT

The Department for Transport (DfT) has now published the definitions for the rolling 40-year exemption for vehicles of historic interest, and what modifications are acceptable.

They intend that the exemption from MOT for vehicles of historic interest will be administered through the vehicle tax renewal process. It’ll be up to the owners to declare whether their vehicle meets these requirements (if it’s of valid age).

DfT also announced the results of the consultation on the first test date for cars this week, which will be staying at 3 years.

Safety recalls

Before Christmas, we made a really big update to the ‘Check the MOT history of a vehicle’ service, so you can now check if there’s any outstanding recalls on a vehicle.

This will not only help members of the public who want to check the safety of their own vehicle but the motor trade industry too. It means they’ll be able to check the safety and legality of the vehicles they’re selling.

In December there were 300,000 checks of the service. And, around 25,000 of these checks showed there was still outstanding safety recalls on the vehicle. We’ll be monitoring this, to see if it improves how quickly these outstanding recalls are dealt with.

Approvals process

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be working on improvements to some of the administrative processes around garage and tester approvals.

In November, the processing of approvals moved to a centralised team. Since then, we’ve recognised that we need to improve some of the processes to make sure we can provide the service needed.

Thanks for your patience on this. I’d like to reassure you that the teams at Chadderton are working hard to work through backlogs of approvals for new or changed sites.

Looking ahead

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be working on our revised approach to risk rating and the implementation of the roadworthiness directive, which I’ll blog more about soon.

Following some research we did last year, we’ve finalised the design of the new test pass/fail documentation. It includes more helpful information for motorists on the severity of defects. We’re now getting into the ‘development’ stage so we can switch to the new design as soon as possible. We're hoping this will be in April.

As always, please let us know your feedback in the comments.

85 comments

  1. Comment by Tony S posted on

    Well!
    I'm only part way through, lots added lots removed, lots of new dates to remember.
    On a serious not It Needs To Be Formatted Like The Old Manual.
    That will cut out a lot of repetition of phrases, ie; " A ‘light source’ means any bulb, LED or other means of emitting light."
    And reduce the amount of pages.
    And obviously a lot easier to use.
    Hope you can take this on board, you must already have this in mind!

    Reply
  2. Comment by Martin posted on

    Seems you only appreciate feedback when it doesn't point out glaring mistakes and omissions on your part.
    A comment not passing your "moderation" is an indication that the observation is correct.
    It is also censorship ....

    Reply
  3. Comment by mark posted on

    Has anybody consulted the general public about all these changes or is it as normal practice the testers are going to get all the flack.I will be telling our customers to complain directly to the DVLA because i am nobodys laccy

    Reply
  4. Comment by Steve posted on

    Reversing lights will now be tested, but if they don't work it's a 'Minor'.
    What is the point of testing it? If it doesn't matter if it works or not.

    Reply
  5. Comment by Graham posted on

    brake pads less than 1.5mm (grinding) - Fail
    brake pads 1.6mm and above - Advise
    brake pad warning light on (most pads have 5mm of thickness when sensor kicks in) - Fail!
    How can this be, we test to minimum standards, before i was told by dvsa you cant measure 1.5mm with wheel on, so unless its grinding, pass and advise. Why are we now faiuling brakes which are half worn in most cases? Differents standards of testing being implemented here!

    Reply
  6. Comment by rusty posted on

    So basically the mot is no longer minimum standards.

    Reply
  7. Comment by Conker posted on

    We have always been told that the mot manual was going to be simplified
    no way is this manual going to be easy .there are to many new items in one go there needs to be a gradual process. there are going to be a lot of testers scratching there heads.

    Reply
  8. Comment by Jonathan Williams posted on

    I think the new manual is going to be hard to get hold of, as a new tester it seems like a huge amount to learn for both manuals, I do agree with Richard and Mark, with regards to the common faults half way down the page and the pointless hidden advisories, however in my eyes an advisory should only be added if it’s of use to the customer / presenter.... and being that nearly everything is covered then it’s donw to the manufacturers to make the change.... DVSA need to discuss this with manufacturers, but again if they’re all covered up then I’m sure that all like myself will continue to have those pointless convos with the customer about the hidden items,,, I would also say that if a car is serviced properly then those said covers would have been moved and the pipes etc would have been inspected during a service, with that said it’s then in my opinion that servicing should be mandatory and the presenter / owner will the have to except that the cost will go up and that only then standards will go up and then the motor trade may actually be taken serious as lives are actually in our hands. #mattersoftesting #risingstandards #weareprofessionals
    P.s sorry if this was all a bit too long..... but we should all make a change and fir the right reasons.

    Reply
  9. Comment by David posted on

    Looks like we now pass front position lights that have blue,green orange etc except red bulbs,also what is the point of checking reverse lights then passing them if they don’t work, also prepare to have a lot of your customers cars scrapped and business lost with the failure of the engine management light on, how many cars a running about with this light on that does not affect the vehicle, same as perfectly good brakes , but a faulty warning wire is now a fail

    Reply
    • Replies to David>

      Comment by marty posted on

      agree that we don't need to fail the car with mil light on - emission testing is the best way to check an engine fault

      Reply
    • Replies to David>

      Comment by Dave Bradley-Scrivener posted on

      if I was you I would re read the writing on position lamps

      Reply
      • Replies to Dave Bradley-Scrivener>

        Comment by DAVID posted on

        Think if you read it says
        a lamp .....emitted, colour,position,or intensity,not in accordance with the requirements ...MINOR
        showing red to the front or white to the rear ....MAJOR
        the way I read that is blue,green or whatever you fancy to the front a minor fault RED TO THE FRONT MAJOR
        or possibly im not reading it right

        Reply
      • Replies to Dave Bradley-Scrivener>

        Comment by DAVID posted on

        emitted colour, position or intensity not in accordance with the
        requirements RESULT MINOR
        (ii) showing red light to the front, white light to the rear or has heavily reduced RESULT MAJOR

        My interpretation of this is any other colour than red fitted to the front is a minor fault therefore a pass

        Reply
    • Replies to David>

      Comment by El posted on

      I can also see the introduction of the engine management light as a failure item being a major issue between customers and garages as they are not aware of the changes being made to the system as it isn't common knowledge and how many people have had this light illuminated for years without it ever being an issue but now us testers will cop the flack as we did when the airbag light became testable.

      Reply
  10. Comment by David posted on

    Check out the power steering not working in the new draft, we are told to road test the car , to find out if it is a major fault or a dangerous fault , I for one will not be road testing any car I know has a steering fault

    Reply
  11. Comment by D Banks posted on

    Please just give the Testing Station a list of the New items instead of making thing complicated.
    The system does need updating to keep up with the times

    Reply
  12. Comment by Dave h. posted on

    Agree with richard,not working would clearly come top in most failure sections but its not,cars after 33 surely should be top as well. Agree with mark about feedback as well,why cant the cusor be put into the box after you have selected "mileage ". Been asking for that for a while now.

    Reply
  13. Comment by marty posted on

    No reversing light on post 2009 cars - section 4.6 - major fault - Not looking forward to my 16yrs old assistant selecting reverse on a late automatic car whilst I stand behind the car to check for working reverse lights or interaction !

    Reply
  14. Comment by ARB posted on

    *PLEASE* BRING BACK THE STATION TEST CENTRE FEATURE - IT WAS SO USEFUL IN TRACKING / TRACING A VEHICLE'S HISTORY.
    I've come across so many vehicles that have a 'made up' history that's easy to forge and impossible to corroborate. Realise and sympathise that there's nuisance implications for some testing stations but perhaps put this extra functionality behind a signup gateway - (should discourage the casual nuisance makers).
    And bravo Neil for this blog - really informative, refreshingly transparent.

    Reply
  15. Comment by A. JONES. posted on

    If as you say our feedback is essential then for god sake start listening to it ! Why do you need to train your staff to answer questions surely they should already be trained ? How many of your staff are trained or have taken part in any mot training as mot testers have to? We have already told you what we think and you have ignored us so carry on and best of luck to all of us . Good job DVSA keep on pushing on and doing whatever you want you have our backing all the way as can be seen from every negative comment left in this and all other previous ill thought out changes . Democracy working at it's best here. But what do we know we are just grease monkeys put on this earth to do as we are told .

    Reply
  16. Comment by Nigel posted on

    The new manual is only a draft and obviously any comments of relevance will make any sense, however there so many blatant exceptions to failures which are missing from this draft.Having tested for more years than I can remember, I find it frustrating that people at the frontline are not communicated with to be able to provide appropriate decisions. Please review this manual for the benefit of the people at the front line, we will have to bear the brunt of all the motorists who have no idea of these changes. The items highlighted by many of my colleagues show that this draft manual needs many more hours spent on it, examples are where are brake hose ferrules and directional tyres. Why is there little difference between "major" and "dangerous" in interpretation? Why are the vertical black lines indicating change not on the indexes in all section? Why are explanations of criteria set not explained fully? Why are we showing European class groups and our own and then using either in the criterial? Then to top all of this you are encouraging us to undertake our annual training as quickly as possible to understand the changes, what is so annoying is that this amendment has sat on a table since at least 2015, why did we not get snippets introduced into our annual training over the last 2 years?

    Reply
  17. Comment by Tom.c posted on

    Any update to when the MOT testing station info comes back on the website?

    Thanks!

    Reply
    • Replies to Tom.c>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Tom

      We’re still evaluating feedback which is why we've temporarily taken this part of the service down.

      We welcome customers’ views and hope people will continue to let us know what they think.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Tom.c posted on

        Hi Julia,

        Thank you for your reply!

        Tom

        Reply
  18. Comment by Paul posted on

    I read in 2014 directive you that is Gov/DVSA. are expected to Prohibit owner from Driving a Dangerous Fail ! How do you intend to comply when current MOT. Fail with Dangerous allows Owner to drive off DO Hundreds of miles in a couple of days and bring back later for Retest ... What new deterrent method proposed to comply ??

    Reply
    • Replies to Paul>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Paul

      The directive does not require us to do that. However, we will be making the failure documentation much clearer where safety is concerned and the legal consequences of driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. We hope doing this will discourage vehicle keepers from (knowingly) driving vehicles in a dangerous condition. We'll also monitor the effectiveness of that to determine if further change is necessary in the future

      Reply
  19. Comment by Clive posted on

    The draft - Some good stuff and clearly an attempt to bring us in line with EU requirements.
    Sadly wrapped up in a confused mess. Terminology changes throughout the document. Some clear mistakes.
    Very confusing at times. I wonder why we just did not adopt the Eire version which is tried and trusted and I believe matches the directive.
    I hope this was a first draft and not the final one.
    My question is why release the draft in this state ? its another case of the recent class 5 note we got which was then retracted and clarified.
    With such an important document in terms of safety not to mention peoples lively hoods a little care and proof reading would be good.

    Reply
    • Replies to Clive>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Clive

      Thanks for taking the time to read through. The team creating the manual have looked at those from other countries whilst drafting it but we need do need a GB version that reflects our laws. We have released a draft because it is helpful to get feedback from its users and also because it helps people get a flavour of the changes early. If there are any specific comments on the content then those would be appreciated, and we will of course be tidying any drafting or terminology inconsistencies in the meantime.

      Reply
  20. Comment by steve posted on

    when i started testing in 1974 , the only dates and facts you had to remember, was seat belt requirements cars 1965 vans 1967.so you can imagine the changes to the test over the decades i have had to adapt to! .,as have others.we all try to soak up new information,and i appreciate the advance warning of multiple changes to the test. but what i think would help us all, if dvsa could print a section ,on the vehicle information/data confirmation page on the vts device ,giving the possible new testable items/criteria applicable to this vehicle..example .in 3 years time i will have to remember to include that a vehicle used after 1/3/2018 will have to have its front fog lamps checked, and used after 1/9/2009 reverse lamps checked,or used after1/9/2009 head lamp cleaning devices etc,etc. i have post it notes all over the place,doing my best to ensure i test to the correct standards and correct testable class! we testers need all the help we can get from dvsa this job doesnt get easier over time,information overload on the memory we require to do the job right is apparent. so a nice vehicle specific check list would be nice including where to find the head lamp wash function ,or find the odometer display or fuel flap release etc, perhaps thats too much to ask. but we can all dream

    Reply
  21. Comment by Sean posted on

    What a carry on, no one listening to any of the above comments, been doing mot testing or 31 years and I think I’m wasting my life trying to make vehicles safer with hindsight what a load of rubbish

    Reply
  22. Comment by lee posted on

    The new manual imo does nothing to improve road safety or advise customers of defects which is not clearly stated in advisories. If something is dangerous we can tick it when selecting on RFR. This is just more work for testers and AE's without any increase in the fee in years, on top of training we are now paying for and updating equipment and limits for smoke and gas.

    If its not broke don't fix it !!

    Reply
  23. Comment by Kenny G posted on

    Think we've gone full circle here anyone remember vt21 & vt22 fails

    Reply
    • Replies to Kenny G>

      Comment by Paul S posted on

      Not sure as to the relevance, back then, in the days before the VT30 combined checklist and failure notice, the tester would hand you a VT29 checklist, along with a VT21 (notice of failure) for a completed test, or a VT22 (notice of failure for a test that was not completed due to the condition of the vehicle)

      The VT22 was printed in red ink, and few vehicles that got one went
      anywhere but the scrapyard.

      Reply
    • Replies to Kenny G>

      Comment by mark posted on

      Yeah I do red and black nowt like progress is there

      Reply
  24. Comment by Derek posted on

    The system manual needed updating for some time. Its encouraging to see the efforts to improve our effectiveness to enforce legislation and discourage fraud on emissions standards, in particular the efforts to catch the DPF cut and shut cheats.
    Frustratingly however I have already had a discussion with a private hire driver about his intention to remove the manufactures emissions portion on the VIN plate so as to forced the use of the higher default values when testing emissions, "he would seem to have something to hide"
    It would seem prudent to make an incomplete VIN plate for emissions and also include vehicle weights identification needed for goods vehicles a major defect.

    It was very informative when customers and professionals were able to see who and were the MOT inspection had previously been carried out, when looking through the history file. Can we have this returned please ?

    Reply
    • Replies to Derek>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Derek

      We are currently looking at feedback and hope to be able to put something back in place soon.

      Reply
    • Replies to Derek>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Derek
      Thanks for the comment. We will discuss that idea with DfT for potential future changes.

      Reply
  25. Comment by dave posted on

    just been looking at the draft of the new inspection manual, there is rfr's for tyres not fitted in accordance to sidewall instructions, I'm sure there is other items no longer in the manual

    Reply
    • Replies to dave>

      Comment by dan posted on

      Madness eh.Seems to be quite a few bits missing.i didnt see anything about cv gaiters etc

      Reply
  26. Comment by JEFF ED posted on

    i think it would be a good idea to list all new items especially what will be failures in a special notice as was done in the past this would clear up any confussion

    Reply
    • Replies to JEFF ED>

      Comment by david b posted on

      THE SIMPLE IDEAS ARE THE BEST JEFF, WELL SAID.
      DVSA ARE YOU LISTENING??

      Reply
  27. Comment by Graham posted on

    What about adding the last previous mileage to inspection sheet? This would be very helpful to us as testers, aswell as customers.

    Reply
  28. Comment by Steve Hallworth posted on

    Hi,
    I and my customers like to see advisories as the customer then has a view of future costs depending on mileage, use etc.

    Also, with regard to engine covers and under trays (plus much more plastic extending to the rear of a car), many newer cars have these and it does impede the inspection process. My concern is that when a car reaches say 10 years old it will be impossible to check for corrosion to brake pipes for example.

    Reply
  29. Comment by Stephen posted on

    Great work on the DRAFT, WOW lots to take in at the moment. Just our memories can handle the pressures

    Reply
  30. Comment by stewart cumming posted on

    Good morning,

    I have had the chance to read and digest the Draft May 2018 MOT Test Manual.

    I have the opinion that this is a huge step forward and would like to congratulate the DVSA team for putting in so much hard work and time in this and the foresight to keep the UK’s Vehicle standards in line with that of Europe.

    I would ask and like to make a formal request that all the current MOT Trainers and Assessors are given adequate support and training to help in the roll out of this manual.

    This is a huge step forward and I would ask that the DVSA’s training department consider this request with the knowledge that this would give the current delivery providers the knowledge and confidence to roll this out correctly.

    I would have no doubt that the current delivery providers would have no problems with there being a charge for this, as there is with any other training provider and for yourselves to recoup all of the set up costs for this training.

    Could you please let me know your thoughts on this.

    P.S. Could you please tell me why you have removed certain valuable videos from the DVSA You Tube portal.

    Best Regards

    Stewart Cumming Motor Vehicle Engineering Lecturer

    Reply
    • Replies to stewart cumming>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Stewart

      Thank you for taking the time to read the draft manual.

      Where training is concerned, DVSA has been working with the awarding organisations to make sure that they're kept fully up to date with developments.
      DVSA is producing training material that will be distributed to the training centres directly from the awarding organisations.
      It's not our intention to run training courses for centres but the awarding organisations may decide to do so, in which case DVSA will provide support.

      Reply
  31. Comment by g atkins posted on

    re my last email i ment to say where a defect is dangerous could this not be printed in red on the VT30

    Reply
    • Replies to g atkins>

      Comment by M A Amos posted on

      Currently these items have DANGEROUS next to them on the VT 30.
      However I do agree that they need highlighting more, many test stations only use b&w printers for test documents,so perhaps printing them in bold and capitals may be a better option.

      I also agree with other comments regarding the issue of a SN to cover the upcoming changes rather than having to trawl through the draft manual to find them

      Reply
  32. Comment by KatyBick posted on

    reading through stop lights, section 4.3.2 and the minor/major criteria below, i'm not sure that it is worded correctly and is confusing.
    Stop lamp(s):
    (i) switch does not operate in accordance with the requirements, Minor
    (ii) switch with a delay in operation Major
    (iii) remain on when the brakes are released. Dangerous

    I am also concerned about the lack of Minor listings for tyres and brake pads. There are still people out there who think an MOT pass Certificate states that their vehicle is sound for another year and ignore advisories written on our invoice.

    Reply
    • Replies to KatyBick>

      Comment by Alf posted on

      My laser printer only does black. You want me to spend a few thousand more on top of a new emissions analyser? Or go over to ridiculously expensive colour cartridges.

      Reply
  33. Comment by g atkins posted on

    could we not have the major faults print out in red

    Reply
  34. Comment by Terry Deakin posted on

    Informative and user friendly

    Reply
  35. Comment by Chris posted on

    With regards to the new testing manual, you say you wish to make it easier to understand, the format is very difficult to follow and will lead to a fall in standards applied, the manual published by the EU is a far easier format very similar to the old manual, why is it DVSA are making it harder just to be different? It was the same when standards rewrote the Hgv manual, it was so ambiguous and fragmented it was very difficult to apply the correct standards, DVSA had to reformat that one, after a few months, it is possible to keep the current format as is the case with the EU model, unfortunately Dvsa has lost too many of the "common sense" people with their "modernisation".

    Reply
  36. Comment by neil b posted on

    So any vehicle over 40 years old is now exempt from the m.o.t. test and its up to the owner to declare the state of the vehicle ??? so now the general public are m.o.t. testers and can make a decision as to whether there car is safe year on year ??? i have tested cars of historic age and have found them to be rotten most recently an old wolseley 6 that was not fit to be on the road so next year the owner can decide if this car is safe enough to be driven on the roads if i have this wrong then ill stand corrected but if not then what is the point in me being an m.o.t. tester if the owners can decide if there car is a pass or a fail so as long as the car has not been modified its fine for the car to be on the road as long as the owner says it is in a satisfactory condition but they can put there car in for test on a voluntary basis the law says all cars should have an annual m.o.t. test i feel this should be applied to all vehicles regardless of age a car over 40 years old is going to be prone to mechanical failure whats going to happen when one of these old cars fails and someone is seriously hurt or worse KILLED by a car that should not be on the road

    Reply
    • Replies to neil b>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Neil

      Thanks for your comment. You are right that this one is a tricky issue. However, DfT did run a consultation on this last year and Ministers decided this was the best way forward. The only reason I have mentioned again in this blog is to share the definitions of ‘modified’ for the vehicles of historic interest.

      Reply
  37. Comment by BILL DODDS posted on

    HOW ABOUT MOVING THE FAILURE, TRACK ROD END EXCESSIVELY WORN, TO THE TOP OF THE LIST OF DEFECTS ON THIS ITEM?

    Reply
  38. Comment by mark posted on

    things you cant see on a lot of cars
    engines
    boot floors
    seat bet mounting points
    pedal linkages
    inner wheelarches
    outer sills
    floor pans (mercedes , mini etc)
    servos
    brake master cylinders
    the way cars are built interferes with the mot

    Reply
  39. Comment by ian posted on

    reading the draft there is no mention of tyre marking denoting directional or asemetric etc?

    Reply
    • Replies to ian>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Ian
      You are correct. This is not a requirement of the Roadworthiness Directive and has been removed.

      Reply
  40. Comment by mark posted on

    Sometimes change is good, but a radical change of the mot scheme, advisories, criteria, exemption etc can only leed to confusion.
    Small changes are easily adhered to but a massive restructuring of the system may cause caos as not everyone will understand the new system, take for instance the number of testers who did not even understand how to do annual asessment.
    DVSA needs to think seriously about removing advisory, and also hidden "advisory" for undercovers etc is not a good idea items fitted from factory that obscure test items are common on all new vehicles, and it should be taken that they are always fitted when vehicles were tested otherwise we will have to do more "hidden" advisories than actual warnings!!

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Dave Bradley-Scrivener posted on

      agreed with undertrays advisorys but if a car was mot'd with a tray fitted but goes for service elsewhere and they spot a problem that was hidden and it goes to appeal there is no record that the tester noted undertrays fitted to cover them and there AE, so I would prefer a way to record obscured items hidden by undertrays, engine covers and so on

      Reply
  41. Comment by Karl Dobson posted on

    I checked my mot history in January and saw the Safety Recall notice. I hadn't received a letter, so this was fortunate. As it was for brakes. Thank you so much for the service... Next to provide a notification service perhaps, joined up to Gov Gateway or V5 information to include contact email?

    Reply
  42. Comment by Wayne crook posted on

    Interesting news

    Reply
  43. Comment by Colin Gossage posted on

    Why are we including the motorist in this prosses. They have never and will never take a responsible part in road safety.

    Reply
  44. Comment by Charles posted on

    Love the addition of brake fluid to the test
    We have to look through a dirt covered reservoir and , without taking off the cap, make a decision on the condition of the brake fluid
    I recon I've got more chance of turning water into wine

    Reply
  45. Comment by Lee Heywood posted on

    What was the thinking in releasing the manual draft with so many errors. I have stopped reading it as I felt it would influencing me badly. I feel waiting for the final corrected manual will keep my testing standards high. Will it be finalised and enough time left before implementation. Thanks Lee.

    Reply
    • Replies to Lee Heywood>

      Comment by Shaun posted on

      There is so many mistakes it's incredible

      Reply
  46. Comment by Robert Jones posted on

    Will we still be under the E.U., when testing(for Regulations) , when Brexit is finalised or will there be more changes?

    Reply
    • Replies to Robert Jones>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Robert

      These new items will come into play from May 2018 – while we will still be in the EU. Details beyond EU exit are not yet confirmed.

      Reply
  47. Comment by Tony Marshall posted on

    The 40year old exemption is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. the brakes and suspension designs on these vehicles are old and nowhere near as efficient as modern systems, to allow them on the road without any kind of qualified monitoring is wrong!

    Reply
  48. Comment by Margaret Gordon posted on

    With all the additional admin MOT garages have now, when will the price of the test be increased.

    Reply
  49. Comment by Michael Lehane posted on

    If you want a way of making sure customers know that an item is dangerous. Why not make a box pop up for the customer to sign when a dangerous item has been listed stating how it may affect their insurance when knowing driving a vehicle now categorised as dangerous.

    Reply
  50. Comment by castrolrob posted on

    hers a for instance for you,we have a 1965 morris minor comes in with a fiat twincam and 5 speed box that looks like it was probably converted sometime in the eighties/nineties.vhi or not?a 1966 landy with what appears to be a range rover coil sprung chassis/running gear and a 200tdi lump.vhi or not?a 1962 victor that has essentialy had the body cut off from the sills down and is now attached to a 4x4 turbo cavalier with all its associated running gear,vhi or not?keep in mind that all the above have been tax exempt for some years now and as such will probably have vhi on the logbooks.i dont think you guys have any conception of some of the weird and wonderful stuff out there or indeed any idea of the size of the can of worms youre asking us poor testers to open for you.i have the horrible feeling that we are gonna be back to pass and advise.oh wait,we aint gonna be able to do that are we?

    Reply
  51. Comment by malcolm posted on

    it would be helpful if points of failure or concern were physically marked to aid appropriate repair.

    e.g a chalk or paint marking to identify rust or a corroded pipe (pref a paint mark)

    it can be a problem for a customer to go to their repairer only to be told there's nothing wrong or they can't find the problem.... and a lot of customers have had this problem

    Reply
  52. Comment by glen bramley posted on

    Why after we do the annual assessment are we not told which questions we get wrong and the correct answer ..... if were never told we will carry on getting the same thing wrong

    Reply
  53. Comment by Richard wright posted on

    When your looking up failure on say a light the most common fault would be not working , but its halfway down the list.
    Most common failure on a ball joint would be excesive play. You guessed ot halfway down list
    Tyre failure class 4 1933 onwards halfway down
    It would be better if more common fails were at top instead of trawling threw. Unless i fail on realy uncommon things

    Reply
    • Replies to Richard wright>

      Comment by Shaun posted on

      I agree with that, very annoying

      Reply
  54. Comment by cheekyboy posted on

    i think we should be given a list of all the new items added to the test, not the re-worded just new testable items

    Reply
  55. Comment by julian p heath posted on

    if a VHI is submitted for a MOT and passes ,does this then change the tax class?

    Reply
    • Replies to julian p heath>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Julian

      Declaration that a vehicle meets the Vehicle of Historic Interest (VHI) criteria will be made at the time that taxation is due. So, the same process will cover its taxation rate (which currently is that vehicles made before 1 January 1977 are exempt from 1 April 2017) as well as declaration of MOT exemption. However, there is nothing to stop a VHI vehicle having an MOT – and it will still benefit from being tax exempt.

      Reply
  56. Comment by Mark posted on

    I know a great way you can improve the manual just leave it as it is I wonder if you ever listen to any feedback I think not

    Reply
  57. Comment by Otis posted on

    Whilst I accept that the draft of the new manual is just that..a draft it is disappointing that there are duplications, no read across in relation to test classes, the terminology is not consistent.
    There are some obvious errors which I am sure you will rectify but in the same SN it encourages us to undertake the 2018-19 assessment early. This is a risky strategy given that the manual needs obvious work not to mention a little unfair.
    In addition it is also unfair to have ,unless I am mistaken released the syllabus to training companies already and yet not to those who choose peer or self study.

    Reply

Leave a comment

We only ask for your email address so we know you're a real person