https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/mot-services-were-working-on-6-july-2018/

MOT services we’re working on: 6 July 2018

Checking car during MOT

I’d like to start this month’s update by saying a big thank you to everyone involved in the changes to the MOT that came in last month. It’s been really positive to see how much effort you all put into preparing yourselves for the changes.

It meant that the majority of MOTs happened on 20 May as normal, giving the public the service they expect from us. There was also very few phone calls to our call centre from you asking for more clarity on the new MOT standards, which is great.

What we learnt from implementing the changes

Before 20 May, the training environment we set up to help you get used to the changes was used by over 12,000 testers. Your feedback showed that most of you found this useful, so we’ll look at providing a similar training environment again for any large changes in the future.

Looking at the data

Since then, we’ve been reviewing the test recording data to help us improve the service for you.

The data showed us that it took some of you longer to record defects in the first few days after the changes which isn’t surprising. However, by early June the time taken to record defects quickly returned to about the same as it had been before the changes.

We also saw a big increase in people choosing to ‘search’ for defects, because the structure of the new manual is not as familiar. This has given us useful information on what people are looking for but not finding, which helps us improve it. We’ve already added more similar words for common searches so when you’re searching for one word or phrase, it finds another in the manual that means the same.

Clearer wording for defect descriptions

We received some feedback on defects that could be worded more clearly in the manual and in the standards.

We’ve reviewed this and we’ll make some minor changes so that defect descriptions better match the defects you see on vehicles.

Risk rating

Another big thing the team has been working on improving recently is risk rating. Risk rating garages is a really important area as it determines how we direct our resources to support garages and carry out enforcement activities.

Why are we changing risk rating?

Over the last few months, we‘ve been running some trials to see how we can better assess risk and focus our efforts more specifically than we do now. This will help improve MOT quality and catch more MOT fraudsters.

The future overall risk score for a garage will be made up of 2 key elements – analysis of the data and the results of an improved site assessment.

Using our data more effectively

We’ll analyse the data produced by each tester to look at trends in their results. This will be things like:

  • what they record
  • how long tests take
  • disciplinary history

This information will help us develop an overall impression of the garage. This is the same data that testers and those that run garages can look at through the test quality information feature of the service.

So, we’ll do some calculations based around testers and this will be pulled together to form an overall score for the garage. We’re working hard to make sure that this information is clear and open to those that need it.

Site reviews

Vehicle examiners will still visit sites and carry out checks to make sure they comply with DVSA’s rules and that they have good systems for managing the quality of testing.

We’ll aim to include a check of an MOT being done in this visit too. These checks will be done at fixed intervals, which will initially be every 3 years. We’ll look to make this more regular in the longer term.

Overall garage risk rating

So, the overall risk rating will be created by combining the data and the site assessment. The garage will be given a red, amber or green rating, which will give us a clear view of where to focus our support and enforcement efforts.

I’ll explain more about these changes nearer the go-live date in autumn.

Looking ahead

As well as refining our manual and standards following the changes to the MOT, and improving risk rating, we’re also working on some more smaller improvements. Over the next few months, we’ll be looking at improving the way security cards work, to make the system more secure and easier to use. We’ll be blogging more about this soon.

As always, please let me know your feedback in the comments. It’d be good to hear how you’ve found the MOT changes.

216 comments

  1. Comment by M.P.Cole posted on

    A good omission from the new manual?Two V.I.N numbers displayed and not even on a multi-build vehicle!!!No reason for rejection anywhere.The ringers must love us at the minute

    Reply
  2. Comment by James posted on

    How do you fail a brake hose having insufficient room to move fouling part of vehicle??? Not there and not listed as a removed item from the test guide we had, i have had problems with all of above and some, makes it even more difficult than it needs to be, double and triple checking with colleagues, other garages and DVSA , surely all this was checked before going live very disappointed James

    Reply
    • Replies to James>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi James
      Thanks for your comments, you would fail under 1.1.12 stretched or if was fouling it would be damaged.
      Simon

      Reply
  3. Comment by L Brogan posted on

    The below comment was posted to Steve by Julia, and has been posted numerous times on the blog. we are all aware of the failure in the manual, maybe DVSA could clarify where the reason for rejection appears on the MTS.

    Hi Steve
    The failure for headlamps is: 4.1.2 a) The aim of the headlamp is not within limits laid down in the European headlamp requirements and it'is not likely that a vehicle fitted with fitted a right hand dip headlamp would meet these requirements.

    If there is white light in the ‘red’ area of the screen then the vehicle will fail.

    Reply
  4. Comment by mark posted on

    when i do a diesel test on our machine on a pre july 2008 it passes the test on a fast pass 1.50 no matter what manufacturer limit ie 1.1 is this correct

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Keith posted on

      Have you got a Sun /Snap On DGA ? machine if you have they have got the update wrong after charging loads of money for it and do not seem to have done any thing to fix it.

      Reply
      • Replies to Keith>

        Comment by mark posted on

      • Replies to Keith>

        Comment by dave bs posted on

        pretty sure pre 1/7/2008 are still done on original limits from years gone by and are not affected by the 20th of may changes

        Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Mark
      Please also see instructions within special notice 6-2018 which is available through 'Special notices' on your home page.

      Reply
  5. Comment by Graham posted on

    I think the new certificates should have a bigger PASS or FAIL marked on them, not very clear by a quick glance what the outcome is, just blow up the font size a few. Also, with a lot of customers used to the old fail, advise system, i am getting a lot of confused customers with minors and advises. These should be grouped into one category to avoid confusion. It isn't very clear from a fail what needs to be done to pass the mot when you have a dangerous defect, a major, a minor and an advise. There is an explanation in brackets but i think this needs to go one step further and clearly mark (on a fail) what needs to be done bare minimum to pass

    Reply
    • Replies to Graham>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Graham
      Thank you for your comments.
      Minor defects must be recorded as they are specific defects, although a pass certificate is issued.
      Advisory comments are subjective and should be used to advise presenters of items worn close to limits.

      Reply
  6. Comment by Martin posted on

    How many potentially dangerous vehicles are on the roads for another year because of the "omissions" that were made when implementing the new regulations.
    The EU directive is the minimum standard member states have to abide by but the standard can be raised by individual member states.
    All these problems were avoidable from the start and would have saved a lot of confusion and frustration if the job had been done properly to start with.

    Reply
  7. Comment by jhulian posted on

    judging by the comments a seminar or in class room experience would be a good thing to explain the new changes

    Reply
  8. Comment by Louisa posted on

    "We will be introducing reasons for rejection that have been omitted".............. How about do the job properly the first time round so us testers stand half a chance, very poor showing DVSA.

    Reply
  9. Comment by brian posted on

    all these items that has been left out of the current manual, update what was wrong with previous manual? the new manual is shambles & potentially dangerous if left as is , should have been checked before it let loose on the general public

    Reply
  10. Comment by mark posted on

    i think the new format was a total rush job by the way the dvsa people keep saying we are looking into this and will change as soon as possible

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by mercedes posted on

      you are not the only person thinking this but will the powers that be listen

      Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by richard posted on

      totally agree,why all the rush?In the mean time until DVSA has done their home work hundreds of unsafe cars will slip through the net.Total shambles

      Reply
  11. Comment by Graham posted on

    What about brake / suspension retaining devices?? Ive just had a fiat 500 with the R clip missing on the pad pin. Before this would have failed, can you confirm its now not in the test. If so can it be put back in!!!! Thanks

    Reply
  12. Comment by Steve posted on

    Can someone with hands on mot experience please look at everything again . just tried to fail a car on having left hand drive headlamps in it , and what a surprise its not there !!!!!!

    Reply
    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by Simon Smith(DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve
      We've been looking at feedback received since the new changes were implemented.
      We will be introducing some reasons for rejection that have been omitted.
      The rfr associated with beam images incorrect will be brought back when we have done a full review and also updated the manual to align with the changes, along with some others.
      A special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
      Regards
      Simon

      Reply
    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by Paul T posted on

      Same with Headlamp aim that dazzles other road users! They have taken so many dangerous items which is absolutely bonkers? Try failing a brake flexi hose with corroded ferules too! Also if a shock absorber bush is worn or wearing out theres no fails or advises for it. Needs sorting ASAP

      Reply
    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve
      The failure for headlamps is: 4.1.2 a) The aim of the headlamp is not within limits laid down in the European headlamp requirements and it'is not likely that a vehicle fitted with fitted a right hand dip headlamp would meet these requirements.

      If there is white light in the ‘red’ area of the screen then the vehicle will fail.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by steve posted on

        thanks for your answer but there is no provision to fail it on the computer system . we used to have it on the old system , my point was that the mot manual does not correspond to the computer system that we tick boxes on . If there is we need proper wording just like we used to have

        Reply
  13. Comment by Hooters posted on

    As the test/inspection manual appears to be constantly changing, when do you suggest NT’s take their annual assessment?

    Reply
    • Replies to Hooters>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Hi,

      If you haven't done it yet this year, I would recommend as soon as possible.

      And yes, as you point out there will be some minor changes coming - but after the big change of the new manual, it's inevitable some alterations are needed to respond to feedback. A special notice will cover those when made.

      Neil

      Reply
  14. Comment by rusty posted on

    Had a old mini for test last week the front suspension was sat on the bump stops both sides, looks like its not a part of the test well I say that its not in the manual and nothing to fail it on the mot comp? so had to pass it with a strong advise. how can that be ! so its safe to drive a car with no working suspension ?

    Reply
    • Replies to rusty>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Rusty
      Thank you for you comments.
      This item is currently under review to implement.
      A special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
      Regards
      Simon

      Reply
  15. Comment by Graham posted on

    What about seat belt prescribed ares, there is only a fail for excessively corroded. What about inappropriate repair, damaged or fractured? All the other prescibed areas have these options

    Reply
    • Replies to Graham>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Graham
      We've been looking at feedback received since the new changes were implemented.
      We will be introducing some reasons for rejection that have been omitted.
      When we have done a full review and also updated the manual to align with the changes, along with some others, a special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
      Regards
      Simon

      Reply
    • Replies to Graham>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Graham
      We will be introducing some reasons for rejection that have been omitted.
      The rfrs associated with inappropriate repairs will be brought back when we have done a full review and also updated the manual to align with the changes, along with some others.
      A special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
      Regards
      Simon

      Reply
  16. Comment by Steve posted on

    Is corroded brake hose ferrules hiding somewhere or has it been removed?

    Reply
    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve

      This is no longer a testable item.

      Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by dave bs posted on

        now im getting really cofussed as I put comment on this and my reply is below

        Grant Thunder (DVSA) posted on on 09 July 2018

        Hi Dave

        We've been looking at feedback received since the new changes were implemented. We will be introducing some reasons for rejection that were omitted. The reason for failure associated with corroded brake hose ferrules will be brought back.

        Brake hoses are covered under section 1 subsection 1.1.12 of the manuals, defect a and b covers hose reinforcement exposed.
        can we have clarification soon as to ferrules

        Reply
      • Replies to Julia (DVSA)>

        Comment by Paul T posted on

        So Julia do all the top brass at DVSA assume that a corroded ferule that is likely to burst is safe do they? What about a flexi pipe that has a solid pipe near the end of the caliper is corroded badly? Are we assume these are characterized under the 'rigid brake pipe' section? A bit of clarity is much needed? The manual is clearer to understand in many ways but some rule changes should be highlighted so we are all on the same page?

        Reply
    • Replies to Steve>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve.
      We will be introducing some reasons for rejection that have been omitted.
      The rfrs associated with ferrules will be brought back when we have done a full review and also updated the manual to align with the changes, along with some others.
      A special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
      Regards
      Simon

      Reply
      • Replies to Simon Smith (DVSA)>

        Comment by dave bs posted on

        how soon? we are at the front line and if we pass a car that ends up killing someone (due to items now not testable but will be again) would we be in the clear? as its not testable for now. and what about VE's out there at the moment doing visits how do we reply to them, time is of the essence here as it is us testers who are the 1st line of checking vehicles. is anyone at dvsa experienced testers? or are you all just office staff implementing items by instructions, my confidence is waving over these changes

        Reply
  17. Comment by Hooters posted on

    A bit like MoT Comp. the MTS system messaging service could be better utilized in conveying information. That way, it is guaranteed to reach testers as soon as they log-in.

    Some of us refuse to use social media!

    Reply
    • Replies to Hooters>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Agree - messaging could be improved. We're looking at being able to send non-special notice type messages in the MOT testing service. We'll let you all know when that's ready.

      Reply
  18. Comment by Hooters posted on

    The MoT testing service and inspection manual appear to be in a ‘state of flux’ changing (possibly) on a daily basis.

    What support then can DVSA offer the professional/expert witness who finds himself requiring to make date-relevant references to the standards that were applied at the time of a particular test?

    Similarly, what about the tester that may find himself involved in any appeal?

    Your answers will be very much appreciated.

    Thank you.

    Reply
    • Replies to Hooters>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Hooters
      1st use dates associated with rfr's have not changed, other than the implementation some new rfrs since 20th May.
      The standards to apply them were detailed in special notice 07-18.

      Reply
  19. Comment by Hooters posted on

    When I test an old Class 4 with single line brakes and I fail it (e.g.) on emergency brake imbalance and/or low parking brake efficiency (as happend recently) why then does it show up on the VT30 as "Axle 1" location?
    This is something I have no control over.
    Am I missing something?

    Reply
    • Replies to Hooters>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Hooters
      If the vehicle had 3 axles with the parking brake operating on 2 of them, the MOT testing service differentiates the 2 axles with parking brakes associated to them as either Axle 1 or Axle 2.
      Vehicles with only 1 axle that have a parking brake default to Axle 1.

      Reply
  20. Comment by Hooters posted on

    Richard, Re: space savers.
    Whilst what DVSA say is correct, I think it's worthwhile pointing out that most, if not all space savers are a different size to the standard road wheels and different sizes across an axle is still fail.

    Reply
  21. Comment by mark posted on

    i went looking for indicator effecting side light and could not find it i am glad its not just me i put in 50/ light not working its as close as i could find i get a lot off renaults in with this fault they need to up date this and put it back in

    Reply
    • Replies to mark>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Mark
      We've been looking at feedback received since the new changes were implemented.
      We will be introducing some reasons for rejection that have been omitted.
      The rfr's associated with lamps affecting the operation of others will be brought back when we have done a full review and also updated the manual to align with the changes, along with some others.
      A special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
      Regards
      Simon

      Reply
  22. Comment by jooles posted on

    could somebody tell me were mcphearson top mounts have gone to

    Reply
    • Replies to jooles>

      Comment by Simon Smith (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Jooles
      Macpherson strut top mounts are covered within section 5.3.4 of the manual and would be failed under rfr 5.4.4 a (i)

      Reply
  23. Comment by Dave s posted on

    I have asked this question before but did not get an answer, can we have a PRS for a minor fault, so that it shows it had an issue, ie TPMS LIGHT ON , and TYRE LOW ON PRESSURE, these are both minor faults,I have to blow the tyre up to carry out a brake test, light goes off , so faults are no longer there, but if I PUT RESULT ONTO COMPUTER IT SHOWS ON THE CERTIFICATE THAT IT HAS 2 MINOR FAULTS, if it had a PRS the customer can see it had issues, instead i have to give an advisory, could I have an answer this time please

    Reply
    • Replies to Dave s>

      Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on

      Hi,

      Apologies we haven't replied before.

      This has been raised before and similarly for advisories. We are looking at whether this would be possible in the future. We just need to give some thought as to how we present and organise - as effectively all a PRS is, is a very immediate retest. So effectively it becomes a retest on a pass (as a minor or advisory don't fail). So - we are looking, we will let people know as we move it forward.

      Neil

      Reply
  24. Comment by Scott posted on

    Just noticed after the latest update yesterday when clicking on item repaired on retest the screen keeps refreshing. Ok when only failed on a couple of items but when there are a lot of items as well as advisories to click as repaired it becomes a chore having to keep scrolling down to where you've got to. This had been sorted previous to this update

    Reply
  25. Comment by richard posted on

    MOT inspection manual changes
    Updated 20 May 2018 "Removed:
    The following have been removed:failure for fitment of a space-saver wheel"

    Is this still the case ? as I cant find anything in the manual with regards to a space saver wheel being fitted at the time of the test.

    window tinting , without light measuring equipment, how are we to determine whether its a fail/pass

    Reply
    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on

      Richard, the fitment of a space saver wheel has been removed as a defect.

      Window tinting is a subjective assessment. However, common sense must prevail, vehicles should only fail if the window is excessively tinted.

      3.2 b) Windscreen or window excessively tinted:

      i. but not adversely affecting driver’s view - Minor

      ii. and visibility through swept area of windscreen or of an obligatory external mirror seriously affected - Major

      Note that the requirement is that you can see the obligatory external mirror but you do not need to assess the view through the mirror.

      Reply
      • Replies to Graham (DVSA)>

        Comment by richard posted on

        Ok the fitment of a space saver is no longer a fail. But if a vehicle is now presented for a test with a space saver fitted , we can fail it for the wrong size tyre on an axle ?

        Defect Category
        A tyre:
        i. load capacity or speed rating not in accordance with the minimum requirements
        Major
        ii. load capacity insufficient for axle presented weight
        Dangerous
        b. Tyres on the same axle or on twin wheels are different sizes
        Major

        Reply
      • Replies to Graham (DVSA)>

        Comment by S.S. posted on

        Would be idea if we had a tint chart printed in shades of white / grey / black (increments of 10%?) to hold behind the glass and given a breakpoint figure where the tint becomes an advisory, a minor & a major fault.

        Reply
    • Replies to richard>

      Comment by Stephen posted on

      Richard, you don't fail a car for space saver wheel fitted never have. However you just refuse to test the vehicle.

      Reply
  26. Comment by Eddy posted on

    First time i have come across this since the changes on 20th May,i could not find interaction between lamps i.e indicator effecting position lamp.Has this been removed.Try as a may i could not find it with the search box.

    Reply
    • Replies to Eddy>

      Comment by david b posted on

      several people have asked same question on here eddy, including myself, i ended asking my VE as far as he is aware its still a testable item. but if it isnt in the manual or on our screens we cant fail it?! pass and advise?
      as normal no response or clarification from dvsa of the changes made.

      Reply
    • Replies to Eddy>

      Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on

      You are correct that the interaction of lamps is no longer in the inspection manual. We have had a number of comments about this and we are looking into it.

      Reply
  27. Comment by steve posted on

    Could we please have an answer to what we are doing with a vehicle that a light has interaction with another please ?

    Reply
    • Replies to steve>

      Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Steve

      Following a review of feedback, this item will be added to the manuals at the earliest opportunity

      Reply

Leave a comment

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