https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/mot-services-were-working-on-27-march-2018/

MOT services we're working on: 27 March 2018

Since my last blog post, we‘ve been progressing with preparation for the changes to the MOT that will come into effect from 20 May 2018.  We’ve also made improvements to data within the ‘Check the MOT history of a vehicle’ service and improved the way we do garage risk assessments.

Choosing vehicle defects

Over the past few months, we’ve been working hard to design how testers will need to pick the defects after 20 May. This needs to change from the current service because of the new defect categories – but we have tried to minimise the change.

To make sure this area works for testers, we’ve done a lot of research with them on the screens to make sure they are easy to use.  You’ll just need to pick the defect description that matches the defect on the vehicle as some types of failures might have both ‘dangerous’ and ‘major’ defects.

We’re also building a prototype area for testers to try these new screens within the MOT testing Service.  This means that testers will be able to try the new screens before they become ‘live’ on 20 May. We will let you know more when we make this available in April.

Improving the ‘search for a defect’

As you’ll have seen, the new MOT inspection manual is organised slightly differently and a lot of the wording has changed.

To make it easier to find defects, we’ve improved the ‘search’ function.  This means you can find the defect you want to record if you’re not sure which section of the manual it’s in or the exact wording.

We’ve had lots of positive feedback about how easy this is to use, so I hope you’ll find this useful.

Improving advisories

Over the past few weeks, you’ve given us a lot of feedback on hand-typed ‘manual advisories’. Many of you told us you use free text, because there aren’t enough of the right pre-defined advisory defects available.  So, we’ll be adding a number of new ones, related to MOT defects, to cover this.

These are based on the feedback you gave us and will be in place from 20 May. We’ll assess your feedback on these and can add any that we've missed. Once we’ve covered all of the needs for ‘free text’ advisories, we’ll consider removing that feature. This will improve the consistency of information we provide to motorists and avoid the need for testers to type as much as they do now.

We’ve had some helpful feedback on the proposal of 'observations', and will be looking at this more when the new roadworthiness directive changes are in place.

Training materials for the roadworthiness directive

The team has also been working on creating new training materials to cover the roadworthiness directive.

You’ll be able to find these on GOV.UK from the end of March. We know that different people like different types of training materials so there’ll be web content, video and presentations available. We’ll add to this as we get feedback from you.

Also, you’ll be able to use this material for next year’s annual training, which includes the directive changes. We’d encourage you to do this training as soon as the new training year begins on Sunday (1 April 2018), to avoid rushing at the end of the year. This will also help to make sure you fully understand the changes before 20 May 2018.

Further details of the syllabus will be available on GOV.UK on 1 April.

Garage equipment

Back in November, we told garages about the changes that will need to be made to smoke meter settings from 20 May. Since then, we’ve worked with the garage equipment manufacturers to make sure that they understand the changes that need to be made, so they can make them in time.

Some of you will have already found that not all equipment models will be able to be updated. So some of you will have to invest in new equipment. To try and make things clearer, the Garage Equipment Association has published a list that shows which types of equipment can and can’t be updated.

New data on ‘Check the MOT history of a vehicle’

Something else we’ve been working on this month, is adding heavy vehicle (HGV and PSV) data to the ‘Check the MOT history of a vehicle’ service – and that will be available publically in April. Many of you told us through feedback that you’d find this really useful, so we’ve added it in.

We’re now working on adding HGV trailer data to the service, and we will then move to extending the ‘Get MOT reminders’ service to include heavy vehicles.  As always, we like to hear your feedback when we add new things into the service to make sure they’re working well for you.

Garage risk ratings

In previous blog posts, we’ve let you know we’ll be improving the way we rate garages in terms of the risk they present to test quality.

We’re looking at our new approach to risk rating being driven by 3 main areas – analysis of our data, a site review and outcomes of DVSA checks. At the moment, we’re trialling the different parts of this and expect to make the changes in the summer to make sure that we use our resource better.

We’ll use our data to identify unusual trends. We are piloting this now and we’re already finding, and dealing with, some garages doing poor or fraudulent testing.

Also, we’re also trying a new approach to a ‘site review’ to replace the current site assessment. The key changes we’re trialling will narrow the assessment down to the things that materially affect test quality. This will make it shorter and more focused than it has been in the past.

We’ll continue to test with different garages over the next few weeks, and will let you know how we get on and when our approach will change.

63 comments

  1. Comment by Dave Motterham posted on

    I am totally bemused that we all spent training time covering issues already covered to be told we now have to learn a new manual only 2 weeks after. Some one at DVSA needs a kick up the bum !!!

    Reply
  2. Comment by Nigel posted on

    With the the manual going live on May 20th2018 but you say things may change in the manual right up until that date the deadline for 2018/19 mot assessment should be extended until the end of may in 2019. That will give us a full 12months to complete the assessment as we do now

    Reply
  3. Comment by Paul posted on

    Check MOT history 'outstanding manufacturer's safety recall found contact a Dealership to arrange for repairs' were we going to put that advise without the manual advisory box

    Reply
  4. Comment by Yogi posted on

    Please keep the manual advisory active , it's all about armer plateing your backside

    Reply
  5. Comment by steve posted on

    could you please give us some clarification on end outline marker lamps please, especially for the rear of the vehicle . I am sure that there are many testers who have not come across these lights before . some pictures would be a great help

    Reply
  6. Comment by david b posted on

    why is it websites like garagewire email me with news from dvsa about mot related items before we get official news from dvsa??

    Reply
  7. Comment by Dan posted on

    Loosing manual advisory’s will be bad for road safety, not everything can be covered in the manual. Listen to us tester.

    Reply
  8. Comment by mark posted on

    so much for doing 3 topics a year i can count i can count 8 now plus didnt we do corrosion last year and headlamps and drivers view the year before the whole thing is a joke run by people who havnt a clue what they are doing

    Reply
  9. Comment by Julian posted on

    what a great idea some seminars would be a good thing also so we can ask questions about everything

    Reply
  10. Comment by Steve Reneaux posted on

    Why have you combined class 5 vehicles with 4 & 7 in the new manual?
    I know you started this process a few years ago, clearly confusing many testers. The new manual is an opportunity to rectify this.
    There are so many components and methods of inspection that will never be seen by class 4/7 testers and yet the Annual Assessment includes questions on air driers, slack adjusters etc. There are consequences if a tester answers too many of these incorrectly.
    Vehicles are separated into classes for very good reasons, I can't think how including class 5 can improve safety or efficiency, indeed, it could do the opposite. If a class 5 vehicle is presented for test and can be tested, we should just use the class 5 manual...

    Reply
    • Replies to Steve Reneaux>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve

      Class 5 (and Class 3) have been in the manual for some time. The decision was taken after due consultation with the industry. We think that you will find that when using the MOT Testing Service after 20 May, it will be much more intuitive and confusion should be reduced.

      Reply
  11. Comment by Steve Reneaux posted on

    How is passing a missing brake reservoir cap an improvement upon vehicle safety? Contaminated brake fluid is now a failure.
    We all know that brake fluid is hygroscopic, meaning that fluid in an uncapped reservoir is becoming contaminated just by exposure let alone with water pouring into it!
    Please explain DVSA's thinking behind this.
    Thank you.

    Reply
    • Replies to Steve Reneaux>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve
      A missing brake fluid reservoir cap is a ‘minor’ defect in the Roadworthiness Directive and this how it was transferred into the new manual. However, after further consideration, this was changed to a ‘major’ defect. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the current, draft online version. We are amending the manual to reflect this.

      Reply
  12. Comment by mark posted on

    70% pass rate now you are putting more pressure on why dont you just make it 100% so there wont be any testers left talk about moving goalposts

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Mark

      The pass mark is gradually rising to 80% - this mirrors the pass mark for the qualification. The motoring public have a right to expect that testers can demonstrate continuing competence.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by mark posted on

        we had a refresher course every 5 years which worked fine ive been testing over 33 years dont talk down to me about been competent

        Reply
        • Replies to mark>

          Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

          Hi Mark

          Sorry you feel that's the case. Just to assure you, I was just trying to answer your question.

          Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Harry posted on

        Hi Julia [DVSA]
        Do you not think a qualified competent tester. Should also be entitled to a fair gradual wage increase, inline with inflation.
        More work, should include better rewards.
        How is that possible. With no increase in the MOT fee in over eight years?

        Reply
  13. Comment by Dave bs posted on

    please leave option for manual advisorys

    Reply
  14. Comment by david b posted on

    IF you choose to remove the manual advisory box for us testers then may i suggest then for every failure item you also allow an advisory box next to it?? this then will help us testers cover our behinds and also inform the vehicle owner for future reference.
    it is no good asking us to verbally advise customers as you get into the " no you didnt tell me that oh yes i did" situation.
    i hope we get to keep the manual advisory option as it is a very useful tool for us testers.

    Reply
  15. Comment by mark posted on

    what do you do if you have not got office on your computer to watch the presentation for changes

    Reply
  16. Comment by Graham posted on

    You have made brake pad sensor light on a major which is defined as : 'It may affect the vehicle’s safety, put other road users at risk or have an impact on the environment.' I disagree, pads less than 1.5mm may affect safety. We should keep to failing pads less than 1.5mm / grinding and just advise if light on. In my opinion pad warning light on falls into minor definition : 'No significant effect on the safety of the vehicle or impact on the environment.'

    Reply
  17. Comment by mark posted on

    would it not be a good idea to suspend the assessment this year so we could all get up to speed with all these changes this year and give us long term testers a bit of a fighting chance

    Reply
  18. Comment by Joseph Mitchell posted on

    Is it mandatory to do the 18/19 assessment and CPD before May 20th?

    Reply
    • Replies to Joseph Mitchell>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Joseph

      The 2018 to 2019 annual assessment doesn't have to be completed before 20 May. However, because one of the subjects is all about the new manual, it seems a good idea that testers should take advantage of any opportunity to be better acquainted with the changes. If you haven't competed your annual assessment for 2017 to 2018, you will need to complete annual training and assessment for 2018 to 2019 along with a demonstration test before you can restart testing.

      Reply
  19. Comment by Nigel posted on

    Would it not be a good idea to have some regional seminars prior to may 20th to bring us up to date with all the changes.

    Reply
    • Replies to Nigel>

      Comment by david b posted on

      super idea nigel i hope DSVA are listening

      Reply
  20. Comment by mark posted on

    just read in the paper if a customer brings test early and it fails they are no longer legal to drive the vehicle is this true and if it is i hope you are going to exlpian to them that they could be fined and not letting us do your dirty work again

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Mark
      The responsibility for driving (or not) a vehicle sits with the motorist. As now, if a tester has recorded a dangerous defect we would expect the customer to be provided with advice on the nature and severity of the defect. To support that the failure document is now much starker in warning the motorist to not use the vehicle with dangerous defects – but we do recognise that some irresponsible motorists may still chose to ignore that advice.

      Reply
  21. Comment by Barry posted on

    My observation is the expectation a customer will need have of driving there car away when a dangerous fault is recorded. What responsibility will the tester or facility head have.
    This is likely to become an area of conflict.
    For my part setting up the expectation that should a dangerous fault be recorded the customer may need to arrange alternative mode of collection, trailer etc.
    I will be interested to hear an official view

    Reply
    • Replies to Barry>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Barry

      The responsibility for driving a vehicle (or not) sits with the motorist. As now, if a tester has recorded a dangerous defect we would expect the customer to be provided with advice on the nature and severity of the defect. Also, the failure document is now much starker in warning the motorist to not use the vehicle with dangerous defects but we do recognise that some irresponsible motorists may still chose to ignore that advice.

      Reply
  22. Comment by phil starkey posted on

    with the changes that are coming in i see we are moving away from a minimum standard of vehicle safety as drilled in to any tester lucky enough to have been on a refresher course. reversing lights and headlight washers are hardly minimum standard.

    Reply
  23. Comment by Nigel posted on

    Just been reading the updated version of mot manual from may 20th and found section 4 reverse lamps a bit misleading.From 1st sept 209 It says all reversing lamps must work and show a white light to rear. Defect :A reversing lamp inoperative = minor? Yet further down it says Reversing lamps emitted colour, position or intensity not in accordance with the requirements =major. And reversing lamp switch not operating in accordance with the requirements = major defect. How can we tell the difference if the reverse lights are not working because of a bulb failure for example which you state is a minor fault or if the reverse light switch is not working which is a major fault.

    Reply
  24. Comment by Keith posted on

    It would be a good idea to make the Expiry date a lot bigger as it must be between 30/40% of a days Mot’s which have run out by the time they are tested and I have done 2 in the last few weeks which where 8 months out of date and had been driven all that time and most people only find out they have not got a currant Mot when they want to tax the car. I tried out the text reminder service which you have which works well with 3 texts and this needs pushing out to people.

    Reply
    • Replies to Keith>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Keith
      You can view the new MOT certificate design at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-test-pass-certificate-samples
      The 'Get MOT reminders' text and email service has proved very popular with thousands of people signing up to it every day. We are continuing to publicise the service and remind people on our social media channels. You can follow us on Twitter - @DVSAgovuk

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Bert posted on

        looking at the preview of the new certificate, under minor defect registration plate lamp throwing direct white light to the rear, is it not a fail white light to the rear?

        Reply
    • Replies to Keith>

      Comment by Graham posted on

      You have a whole year to get ready and plan to book your car in for next MOT. If people cant manage that then it is there own fault.

      Reply
  25. Comment by Mark posted on

    Just had a quick look about all the new rules I am always sinical on here but I do suppose it will work as long as we are not put under too much pressure.My only gripe is when we are told these directives where made in 2014/15 and because we are still in the eu we could get fined if we don't implement them what happens after we leave do we have to retrain again

    Reply
  26. Comment by Nigel posted on

    Its quite clear from previous comments by mot testers that the vast majority want to keep manual advisories but you seem to be ignoring that by saying you are considering removing this option from the system when you have addded the extra list of advisories to save us from entering manual advisories. When will you understand that you are not helping us by removing the manual advisories you are hindering us.

    Reply
  27. Comment by Paul posted on

    I see that your intent on getting rid of manual advisories despite most testers saying that they are very useful. In my opinion all that will happen is testers won't bother reporting things which cannot be good for road safety, where i work we are busy enough without wasting loads of time scouring through menus on your system when we could just type it in manually, anyone who remembers the list you had on the old system will know it was useless i for one never used to use it i just typed in exactly what i wanted to report so I'm under no illusions this new one wont be useless as well. You just don't listen do you and as for it cutting down on testers having to do a lot of typing that's just nonsense.

    Reply
  28. Comment by Julie posted on

    We have been using an app called vehicle smart to check MOT on Campervans. We have seen vehicles fail and then a few days later pass with no advisory faults. These fails are major and, couldn't be fixed overnight. The advisory faults featured words 'excessive corrosion' cuts in tyres and warnings of low tread, these faults were listed over and again for as many as four years. This is something that needs looking at. Make it compulsory to repair advisory faults before the next MOT.

    Reply
  29. Comment by Messmaker posted on

    All well and good investing in new equipment but when are we going to see a fee increase to cover said new equipment.

    Reply
  30. Comment by Dave s posted on

    Noticed in all the press releases , they are making a big issue out it is now a fail (DANGEROUS) for a brake disc to be MISSING , firstly never ever came across this , secondly if i had i would have refused to test, or crashed the car bringing it the workshop or marked it DANGEROUS

    Reply
  31. Comment by Benjamin Absin posted on

    How about check MOT history for Northern Ireland?

    Reply
    • Replies to Benjamin Absin>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Benjamin

      We don’t deal with MOT testing for Northern Ireland, but we're working with our counterparts there to see if, and when, it may be possible to add the NI data to the service. It's still a work in progress, but we'll update you on this blog as we progress.

      Reply
  32. Comment by Chris Rayner posted on

    Manual advisory should stay as the tester can log defects seen on test not relating to mot but could cause issues further in vehicles life which could affect forth coming mots and ie vehicle safety thanks

    Reply
  33. Comment by John Revill ( 1 ALQ11) posted on

    Concern over removing manual advisory facility.

    Maybe with class 4 cars it may be possible, but with so many variations of vehicles and modifications

    i.e. Ambulances, Motorhomes, class 4&7 goods vehicles ( tail lifts & attachments) etc.. this facility is a life line to give positive feed back to the presenter. ( As well as covering the backs of the MOT tester)

    Please leave the manual advisory facility in place.. its a life line!

    A builder's vehicle will present a whole load ( literally) of issues not found in the likes of a 3 year old class 4 car as would a specially adapted people carrier with disabled attachments/ loading /securing devices..

    I'm very willing to try to explain better with more examples. If you wish to get in touch, I'm pleased to try to explain.

    Hopefully some one from DVSA will be at the RMI event in Nottingham April 24th.

    Thanks, JR

    Reply
  34. Comment by John Butler posted on

    Looks like you guys are looking into loads of new ideas its great that you are using the people on the the frontline and listening to there feed back .

    Reply
  35. Comment by Michael Bowtell posted on

    brake performance not tested, can you add a PRS for this pease

    Reply
  36. Comment by Ryan posted on

    Taking out the manual advisory box will be a mistake. Testers use it to cover there own backs because i guarantee DVSA will not stand behind its tester should complaints start happening i.e Brake pipe burst a week after an MOT but not been picked up on because of plastic trims etc..

    Reply
  37. Comment by Martin posted on

    Sorry but you will never be able to legitimately say there is no need for manual advisories , you have already had a near 100% response telling you as much on a previous blog.
    If you fully intend to do away with manual advisories just tell us you are instead of pretending what we say counts for anything.

    Reply
  38. Comment by lloyd chalke posted on

    ok rusty only 70 to scroll through then great a lot better ha ha

    Reply
  39. Comment by John Forsyth posted on

    Hopefully all of the MOT centres will work to the same standard. This might mean that all of the old smoking diesels will be off the road and those of us with Euro 6 diesels are vilified. I also hope that polluting vans, lorries and buses are forced of the road.

    Reply
  40. Comment by David Aitken posted on

    Do not get rid of the free text advisorys, there will always be something that you haven't come across before!

    Reply
  41. Comment by Gary posted on

    All sounds ok but I think doing away with the manual advisory is a mistake. Suppose we’ll have to wait and see how it goes

    Reply
  42. Comment by Mark posted on

    Can't wait for all these changes it will be like starting all over again after over 33 years just what I needed at my age thanks Mr Barlow

    Reply
  43. Comment by Jonathan Moore posted on

    Great news to hear we are getting a training package in April, i had printed out the draft manual and gone through it but some 'hands on' material will be a big help!! Look forward to having a go with it.

    Reply
  44. Comment by Tony posted on

    There is a need for more class 1 and 2 defect related reasons for refusal and advisory. As it is more car orientated.

    Reply
  45. Comment by Andy posted on

    Sounds promising, let's just hope that it is a marked improvement to the system we currently have to use.

    Reply
  46. Comment by Adrian at Coastal. posted on

    I have tried the new look up a defect function and as yet have been able to get it to work!.

    Reply

Leave a comment

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