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.
306 comments
Comment by Peter posted on
When assigning a defect to a part of the vehicle it would make things easier if there was a BOTH option i.e. Both wiper blades not clearing the screen or BOTH rear tyre treads worn below legal requirement . Any chance of modifying this wording ?
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
I can understand this request but we need to be very specific when identifying defects as it could lead to confusion.
Comment by Craig wilson posted on
You are not very specific with advisory on tyre near legal limit/worn edge or brake pipe corroded/covered in grease these items should all be separate
Comment by DAVID posted on
I just type the word both, ie wiper not clearing screen , dont select which one ie n/s or o/s just type both into box
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi
I agree we can look at being able to pick multiple locations for an item - which could save time when recording a result. We'll add it onto the list of possible improvements we could make.
Cheers
Neil
Comment by Graham posted on
Neil, there are alot of differences between manual and mot testing service. For example corrosion in prescribed area in manual explains that reasons for rejection are :
-the corrosion has caused a hole in the metal,
-the area doesn't feel firm when you press it with your finger and thumb,
-or a corrosion assessment tool creates a hole.
However when you go to fail a car the mot testing service fail says:
-Prescribed area excessively corroded, significantly reduced structural strength
5.3.6 (a) (i)
This is different and misleading. For example a hole could be present which by manual it should fail, however if you think structural strength hasnt been reduced, yet it still has a hole, mot testing service is looking for you to advise.
There are quiet a few more differences which i havent got time to list but hopefully the good testers who read this blog can comment a few and give you something to look into.
What really needs to happen is someone at dvsa with testing background go through and compare manual - testing service (were we input fail advise items) very closely to find inconsistency's
Comment by Harry posted on
The search engine, is all well and good and may get you to the item your looking for. But does not show how it got there. So the next time you are looking for the same item, you are none the wiser on where to look.
On a separate note. The year dates are missing in the first emissions flow charts, in the new manual.
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Harry, we did a lot of user research before we came up with this solution to locating defects in MTS. We are sure that when you get used to it, you will find it quicker to use. We are also monitoring what you search for so that we can continuously improve the search function.
You are correct about the date on the emissions flow chart although it does say 'on or after 1975' in the chart title. However, it would be better if the date was in the first diamond, so we will look at changing it.
Comment by dave d posted on
Why are people going on and on about brake ferrules, is this some big money fail item that has disappeared,its not very high on my list
Comment by richard posted on
Not sure where you are based, but the cars I've seen that have come from up north, the rust on these vehicles is quite bad.
Comment by george posted on
Just because its rusty doesn't mean it should fail, and im from up north
Comment by craig posted on
The safety aspect knowing you are putting a dangerous car out and you cant do nothing about it can only advise ,
Comment by Kev posted on
Can someone please explain why a tyre worn below 1.6mm is a DANGEROUS item, but at tyre having a bulge, caused by separation or partial failure of its structure or has a tear, caused by separation or partial failure of its structure is only a MAJOR.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Kev
Following a review of feedback, a tyre that has a lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure will be amended to be a 'dangerous' defect at the earliest opportunity
Comment by Richard posted on
A concern which was mentioned above in July about changing reverse lamps from minor to major without sending any correspondence is unfair. anybody who took the trouble to read and learn the draft and then a defect category being changed without telling us leads to mistakes. It is obliviously easier for your IT department to change something overnight, that's good for you, that's progress, but my worry is that you will do this and not tell us ! the time you save doing it this way ought to used telling us on a notice, it opens the door for mistakes. Also what happens if we loose the internet, we have no access to a printable or savable PDF version, do we not test when the internet is down ? especially if you do change defect without informing us ! leads to incorrect test standards
Comment by Dave s posted on
Thanks Richard i was not aware that they had changed the reversing light criteria, i read the blog all the time but it goes for days or weeks without anything answered , like you i spent weeks reading new drafts carrying out practice tests and printing numerous pieces of paper , to what effect they change something without telling you , how many more will be discovered, and will somebody be disciplined by a mystery shopper
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Richard, we could have communicated these changes better and we will strive to do so in the future. Many of the changes that have taken place since inplementation are as a result of feedback from testers. You will see that some of the things that are no longer part of the test, because they are not included in the directive, will be coming back.
If there is an MTS outage, then you will use the CT code. However, it is the responsibility of the VTS to maintain a robust internet connection. The use of 3 or 4g mobile phones should be considered to make sure that connectivity is always present. As the inspection manual is a live document, it will always be the correct version. A pdf version would go out of date very quickly.
Comment by James posted on
My car failed on brake pads being worn fair enough.under the new regulations it was deemed too dangerous to drive home to be replaced,they were not down to the metal and indeed passed the brake test.under the old rules this would have been an advisory..this prosess I both unfair and incorrect making the cost more expensive to pass the mot
Comment by richard posted on
If they were below 1.5mm then they would have failed the "old" test as they have now, the only difference is now the failure is put down as a dangerous. They can pass the brake efficiency test with pads below the 1.5mm failure criteria.
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
As Richard says, the vehicle would have failed before the changes to the manual.
However, there is a misconception that it was OK to drive a vehicle to or from a pre-booked MOT under the old requirements. It has never been legal to drive a vehicle on the road with a roadworthiness defect under any circumstances . The new requirements make this clearer to the motorist.
Comment by david b posted on
all well and good this PR push on making public aware of it not being legal to drive there vehicles knowingly with a defect but who is enforcing these checks? when was the last time you saw dvsa or police pulling people over for on the spot checks etc?
this is whats needed but both departments do not have the man power to carry it out so its a complete waste of time-only last week i had a car out of mot 11months out , this should not be happening on uk roads and clearly shows not enough is being done.
Comment by Graham posted on
in my opinion, i will only fail pads that are worn metal to metal, how can you tell the difference between 1.6mm pass and 1.4mm fail with your eyes. If you fail pads they should be bad enough you dont want to carry out the brake test through fear of damaging discs. Same goes for a brake pipe, if you fail an excessively corroded pipe that isnt yet leaking, you should not do brake test through fear of damaging something.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi
I agree that part of the answer may be about more enforcement. But we do also need to educate the public. In terms of MOTs being on time, we are starting with education and helping motorists and the MOT Reminder service is a part of that. But we will also need to look at enforcement. We are just starting a trial with some police forces about better linking to their automatic number plate recognition. We will be looking at broader initiatives in that vein over the next year.
Comment by mark posted on
do you really think that people who drive without a license insurance and tax really care if it has a mot
Comment by AP posted on
Why change the classifications from 4 and 7 which was easy to understand to m n and l?
Comment by Grant Thunder (DVSA) posted on
Thank you for the question.
The 2014/45 roadworthiness directive states the vehicle category (if available) is a minimum requirement for the roadworthiness certificate.
We still refer to test classes for the purpose of identifying which vehicle the site and tester are authorised to test. In the introduction section of the manual under ‘Application (Classes 3,4,5 and 7)’ there are descriptions of all the EU vehicle categories and which MOT test class they full under.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi
Just to add to that the new categories (m, n etc) are those that are used for vehicle type approvals so it does make sense to align MOT testing to those, and differences in how vehicle types are approved can be more easily reflected in the test.
Unfortunately we have a bit of a mix of the old and new at the moment but over time we can tidy this.
Neil
Comment by Terry posted on
I think you should have left it alone, can't find anything you want to fail, if you do find it it's not worded as it used to be and sometimes doesn't match why your failing it, what ever you do DO NOT remove manual advisories as I use this far more than trying to find anything that resembles what I'm advising and as for this minor fail, major fail or dangerous fail..... what a joke. Just made everything more complicated for no real reason. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.....well it wasn't broken, is now though. I work at a main dealer site that averages 2 to 3 test a day and we have 3 testers so don't use it much, sometimes can go a week between test, can never find anything. Some stuff seems to be in really random places and not even in the same section as it all used to be. I'm beginning to think someone office based designed this rubbish and not someone who has to use it as part of their job. I find it now takes on average 5 times longer to log mot results especially if there's a list of failures
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Terry
Leaving things as they were was not an option. As mentioned elswhere on the blog, the UK is still a full member of the European Union and must implement directives as required until we leave the EU. I can see that the low volume of tests done at your VTS makes things more difficult for you, which is something that the quality mangement sytems in your VTS should address to ensure that all testers are fully up to speed with the standards.
We can tell exactly how long it takes to log results and at first it was taking on average 1 minute longer per test but this has now dropped back to pre implementation times.
Comment by Peter Lowe posted on
How about a straight answer? How many diesel vehicles are expected to be forced off the roads because you have BACKDATED their test limits? ie. 2007 vehicle with 150000mls on the clock now tested to plate limit of 0.7.
The new lists must make life easier for computer geeks. They don't make a lot of logic/sense to me.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Peter
The test limits are those specified by the vehicle manufacturer as being able to be met. The European roadworthiness directive requires us to test to these limits and is essential to improving air quality.
Comment by Jim mcdonald posted on
I agree with andy
Comment by Andrew Ackroyd posted on
Cannot get my head around the fact have taken the suspension bounce test out of the examination a worn shock absorber is far more dangerous on how the vehicle handles than a headlamp cleaning device not working pathetic.
Comment by richard posted on
The suspension bounce test was removed years ago.
Comment by James posted on
Yes, makes a lot of sense have an accident due to worn shock absorbers, but its ok as the airbag is part of the test, never mind the people you hit. Who thinks of these things obviously not people in motor trade or engineers its more about the environment than safety James
Comment by Martin posted on
Do you not realise on some safety related items we are testing to a lower standard now ?
Lighting interaction problems ie clio's that don't have any lights unaffected by the operation of another lamp ... they work but not correctly NO FAIL.
Brake hose ferrules severely weakened by corrosion NO FAIL.
Spelling mistakes, incorrect wording the list is almost endless why do you not address these errors ?
Having to give a badly worded certificate with spelling mistakes to customers is embarrassing having to put a pass on a dangerous vehicle is ludicrous .
Comment by Louisa posted on
For what its worth I'm going to give my 2 pence worth. Yes the training environment was useful, but that's because it was pretty much the only help us testers were given. Supplied with a link to a draft manual that was subject to change up until the last minute, given a list of some of the changes ( not all of them), access to the training site and basically left to get on with it. There's a lot of changes in the new manual to get to grips with so some sort of formal training would have been good.
There's things missing from the new manual, eg lights interacting with each other, but no clarification to tell us if that's intentional or a mistake.
Reverse lights have changed from being a minor failure to a major, again no communications from anyone to clarify this or tell us it had happened.
All in all I personally feel the level of communication from DVSA regarding this whole situation has been poor!
Comment by david b posted on
my sentiment also- well said louisa.
Comment by Basil posted on
Totally 100% Agree with you
Comment by Stephen posted on
I agree with Louisa. Don't information about the new testable items, no guidance for Minor, Major or Dangerous, Why can't DVSA help us out, put us all back in the class room, explain the changes, show us what everything means, but please help us.
Also in the blog where be getting more visits that's nice, haven't had 1 for over 3 or 4 years, We do get regualar visits from the RMI who help us, but not on this new layout.
Also I've had no in formation with regards to refresher training???
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Stephen
There are more than 60,000 testers so it would not be possible to train them all in a classroom environment. Before the changes went live, we produced a virtual training site with lots of information about the changes on gov.uk. The take up of this was very poor but you can still access the training material at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-from-may-2018-guidance-for-mot-testers
In respect of dangerous, major and minor defects, you shouldn’t be concerned by this because if you identify the defect, the manual will automatically tell you which category applies.
DVSA resources are limited and we are not always able to visit VTSs as often as we would like. Visits are largely targeted so that we visit the poorer garages more often, thus maximising the effectiveness of our resources.
Refresher training was replaced a few years ago with MOT Annual Training and Assessments, information on this can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/mot-tester-training-assessments
Comment by mark posted on
should have kept refresher course much more helpful than what we do know
Comment by Russell Barker posted on
We don't all need to go back into a classroom environment, it works better how it is now
Comment by James posted on
You have got to be joking, refresher courses were far far better i learnt loads and got things clarified. This online stuff is open to abuse and teaches you nothing, you cant ask why you got something wrong. I was on a course, we were asked if a white spot light fitted facing rear and permanently lit would fail ALL of the testers said yes, we were then told to check manual, we did and still said yes, we were ALL WRONG!!! The answer was pass and advise as it wasn't an obligatory light wouldn't have learnt that online. Think this is called progress we are expected to no more and taught less its madness James
Comment by david b posted on
training material that was incorrect julia, why ask us to learn something then change it because of all the mistakes in it and then dont even bother to tell us of the changes. that training site should of been the actual system we was going to use and put to us in full working order.
just because there are over 60 thousand testers doesnt mean they do not need training the number is irrelevant. doctors,police,firefighters all have continuous training so why arent us testers? do they carry out there own training like we have to? we are also trying to help save lives day in day out.
dvsa tell us they saved £28million for the government where is that money and why isnt it being spent on helping us testers and our training?
you could build several training centers with that money.
Comment by Pete posted on
You are totally correct Louisa, rather than standardising the test it's made it worse. And, as for wanting us to not use manual advisories any more I'm using it more and more.
Comment by IAN posted on
Where in the manual is there failure for a brake pedal that pumps up on hydraulic systems??
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Ian
Not exactly sure what you mean but if you are refering to the "full pressure hydraulic braking system" check, this has been removed.
Comment by Neset Ceri posted on
Issuing a Pass with a fail (PRS Items) is still confusing a lot of customers ( unless Tester- Receptionist has time to explain it ) Also why not simply the oil leaks just saying " oil leaks " instead of gear box or engine oil leaks. Most of the time it is not easy to identify where the oil leak is coming from and why isn't there Advice option in fluid leaks . Not so sure about " Pick ups " Manual mentions American pick ups in Class 4 but what about the other pick ups with similar design and weight ..why not just simply say " vehicles designed as Pick ups !
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Hi
Issuing a pass with a minor fail is not a PRS. PRS is where the repair is completed before the pass is issued. Customers should be properly briefed on the outcome of the test and certainly in the short term, more time may have to be spent explaining the certificate to the customer.
In identifying where oil leaks are coming from where possible, you are providing an improved service to the customer so that they have a better idea what needs to be repaired.
"American Pick-ups" are categorised separately because they do not fall into the European classification system.
Comment by Ray J posted on
I am a motorist and am very disappointed about the confusing emissions figures, government limit for my car 1.5 but the manufacturer figure on data plate states 0.54, so my car a Focus 2008 TDci , I have been advised it will not make 0.54 even with a new or cleaned DPF filter. It has failed the MOT at 1.7. With a clean it will probably make the 1.5. The garage has refused to retest my car . So I will probably have to now scrap my perfectly serviceable car because of these new rules.
Comment by david b posted on
thank the EU for this. all the new mot items that came in are diretive for the UK to comply with EU regulations until we leave the EU we are bound by them
Comment by dave bs posted on
so we can fail a number pate being delaminated for anpr cameras, but a dangerous brake ferrule or brake hose showing canvas is no longer a fail, not even an advisory, where is the logic, please do not ignore. I know from email address you can check where tester who comment test at
Comment by Grant Thunder (DVSA) posted on
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.
Comment by dave bs posted on
for now one I have found I have used as damaged then in bracket perished with age, same as ferrule corroded damaged by corrosion
Comment by richard posted on
"Brake hoses are covered under section 1 subsection 1.1.12 of the manuals, defect a and b covers hose reinforcement exposed."
"i. Slightly damaged, chafed or twisted
ii. excessively damaged, chafed, twisted or stretched"
But the reinforcement exposed may be down to deterioration, which isn't either of any of the above ?
This is from the old manual : "excessively chafed, damaged or deteriorated"
Comment by Nigel posted on
Another thing i find very strange which needs rethinking is the horn. Not being heard by other road users is only a minor defect surly this has to be changed to a fail at some point.
Comment by rodney arnold posted on
nothing about class 5 tyre tread worn below 1mm is this no longer the case for class 5 vehicles
Comment by Grant Thunder (DVSA) posted on
Hi Rodney
Thank you for the question.
In the manual under section 5 subsection 5.2.3 after diagram 1 is the information for vehicles that require 1.0mm of tread depth, this includes class 5 vehicles.
The reason for failure is, e. tyre tread depth not in accordance with the requirements – Dangerous.
Comment by jim walker posted on
Colin above has made a very good point, we have noticed their are a large no of fail items missing from the new system, which could also be classed as dangerous. could we not have a box for dangerous items next to the manual advised box. after all we are tasked with ensuring safety of the vehicle or can't we be trusted to get it right.
Jim Walker
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Jim
As discussed elsewhere in this blog, some of the items that were not included in the directive change are being brought back, largely because of concerns raised by testers.
What we are trying to achieve is better consistency between testers, the use of common 'drop down' advisories will help to achieve this. However, you do still have the option to add a manual advisory, which can be marked dangerous if you need to. This can be found at the bottom of the 'categories' section in 'defects' but it should only be used exceptionally if you can't find a matching defect.
Comment by Danny posted on
What's happened to the A zone /B zone for windscreens can't find it anywhere
Comment by Grant Thunder (DVSA) posted on
Hi Danny
Thank you for the question.
In the class 3,4,5 and 7 manual under section 3.2 ‘Condition of glass’ there is a diagram and description of what Zone A is.
What was previously referred to as Zone B is the rest of the swept area of the windscreen not covered by Zone A.
Comment by david b posted on
again grant another major change made by dvsa and your not telling us.
whats wrong with using your special notice system? why have it and not use it?
Comment by Dave bs posted on
agree that is really bad, yet 1st major incident and good odds it will be tester/vts at fault, a vehicle can have lots of faults but to a degree can at least stop safely but removing brake hose ferrules and hose condition is a serious problem waiting to happen, but what do those higher up care, they are in there office out of the way of blame
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Dave
Brake hose ferrules will be reintroduced to the manual.
Comment by Stephen Driver posted on
A failure I often used was headlamp aim obviously incorrect,because of the diy motorists and some car parts outlets fitting headlamp bulbs incorrectly
Comment by Richard Studholme posted on
No MOT for over 40 year old cars I believe is a lethal decision. I've recently worked on in the last two weeks a Jaguar XK150, a Triumph Spitfire, an MG Midget, and an MGB. None were fit to be on the road, with issues that would be described as dangerous, mainly with corrosion in prescribed areas, suspension and brakes.
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Richard
This change came about after a Department for Transport review proposing to exempt vehicles of historic interest from statutory MOT Testing.
Conversely, the department has decided to leave the current regime of testing most new vehicles after 3 years and then each year, whereas the directive only requires vehicles to be tested after 4 years and not every year thereafter.
Comment by James posted on
Why are brake pads a Dangerous not Major unless metal on metal? If they give a good brake reading like criteria with badly worn and or pitted discs even if the pad contact area on the disc is reduced and WOULD overheat faster under prolonged braking still pass!! Why is there a minimum it is totally impossible to gauge 1.5mm far more use to be excessively worn? The reason for both these questions is because TWICE now due to the dangerous fail on pads on an MOT i have done, the customers have become irate leading to us having to remove the pads and measuring them, in BOTH cases the reading were very slightly over 1.5mm so had to retest and pass! Time we dont have, Same thing happened with brake fluid contaminated it failed on a VISUAL inspection! To be shown by the customer with a brake fluid tester it was ok? Your reply would be of great help thanks James
Comment by Jon Spivey posted on
The reason it is taking longer to record faults and the search facility is being used more is because the system is no longer as intuitive as it was before. Faults appear under headings which make no sense. How can it be possible to record a corrosion issue on a fuel HOSE !? If there is such a thing but if you want to advise on a corrosion issue on a fuel PIPE it has to be done under a manual advisory. The certificates are abysmal and confusing to the public. Many failure and advisory issues are now more open to tester interpretation than before and any new system which encourages this is a huge backward step. In addition, if the DVSA are going to continue bringing in vehicle manufacturing date items such as daytime running lights it should not be beyond them to be able to print vehicle specific checklists.
Comment by Peter posted on
Overall I'm happy with the new system but some of the minor items could be much better worded. In particular "brake pipe corroded or covered in grease or other substance". I don't disagree with that as a minor but surely it should be two seperate ones? The same with (and I'm not quite sure now of the wording) but "tyre worn or on edge". Again that would be more useful as two individual items.
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Peter
I think you raise a valid point, we will consider this.
Comment by Mark posted on
I think I would like a bit more clarity on the windscreen rules. Zone a, zone b & outside the swept area seems to be be replaced rather bizarrely with " Affecting drivers view". In my view it
is open to interpretation.
Comment by Scooby doo posted on
What was wrong with the old way ??
Comment by sam posted on
Hi The average size of new brake pad is 6mm if the pad is below 1.5mm
Lets say 1 mm left at time of test why is this a dangerous failure (do not drive. ) when there is still 10% of life left before becoming a serious issue.
Surely this should be classified as major failure only.
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Sam - I have just bought some pads for my car and they are 12 mm, which I think is more usual for a front pad.
1mm is very, very low and you can only see the edge of it, the rest of the pad could be much worse.
Comment by James posted on
Hi Graham read your comment on 11th July to Sam about pads which makes sense. However no one replied to the issue i had with pads and brake fluid on the 7th July, your comments would be appreciated thanks James
Comment by Nick posted on
Class 3 nothing on leaking brake pipes, class 4 handbrake travel, macpherson strut mount excess wear, no headlamp pattern, class 1,2 no steering head bearing notchy bind, or main beam telltale, class 4 shock bushes excess play, just some missing I can think of !
Comment by ian tuckwell posted on
spot on
Comment by Luigi posted on
I often do mot’s on vehicles that have been standing for several months some even a year or two therefore brakes will be a likely failure , lease companies do not want any work done till vehicle has had an mot , where would that leave me on risk assessment ?
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Luigi
I am not really sure what you are asking? Clearly you cannot issue an MOT unless you have carried out the MOT Inspection and the vehicle has met the requirements of the MOT.
If you are being pressured to issue pass certifcates to vehicles before they are repaired and they do not meet the standards at the time of the test, then this is a very serious matter, which you should discuss with your AE. Alternatively, speak to someone at DVSA; 0300 123 9000.
Comment by Lloyd posted on
Thats clearly not what Luigi is saying, He is saying because of the condition of the cars he often has to test, as well as the customer not spending any money on maintaining their vehicles until an MOT inspection has been carried out, he is failing more vehicles than average. He wants to know how that will likely affect his risk assessment
Comment by Garry posted on
Emission plates being removed or stickers placed over box by MOT testers to get Diesels through new limits.
Seems pointless to bring out new rules if were not all on the same page.
Will there be further tighten of regs to address emission plates that have been tampered with.
Comment by Graham (DVSA) posted on
Garry
This is something that we are looking at.
Comment by Shaun posted on
Ok so alot of the old diesels seem to have a very low plate limit, some down to 0.7 @ 10 years old, so my query is if one of these fail the emissions, what's stopping the customer bringing the car back with a sticker covering the plate? Would I then have to just test to the 3.0 turbo limit?
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi Shaun,
I agree - that the current approach isn't perfect.
If you do find customers doing this it would be great to hear about it - as will help us understand if we do need to consider some other action.
However, already we are looking at whether we can pull together the data to save being reliant on the plate being visible - but it is early days. We will let you know how we get on with that.
Thanks,
Neil
Comment by ian posted on
I think the new rule on classic cars is stupid in its first degree. So I can pick up an in roadrothy banger what's over 40 years old from a scrap yard and drive it on the road without an mot? Just as long has it has its original parts. To ignorantly proclaim that everyone who has a car that old looks after is just that ignorant. There also is many people which have newer cars who look after them well why are they not exempt? Just a bit discriminative to say only people with classic cars look after them.
Comment by Shaun posted on
I have noticed that a brake Flexi hose damaged exposing cords is a fail, but there is no mention of a deteriorated hose showing cords as an advisory or fail... . So do we just ignore it if it's showing cords but not damaged?
Comment by Hugh Adams posted on
You say there were very few calls to your call centre on the 20th, I phoned about 10 times and the phone just rang out. I phoned my local inspector who told me he couldn't get any work done for testers phoning saying they couldn't find failure items on the system and that no one was picking up when they phoned the help desk. When he looked on the system he couldn't find the failure items either but was sure they were still there and all we could do was keep looking until we found them. I was looking for a damaged tyre valve and eventually found it next to 'bulge in tyre' and then spend valuable time explaining to the customer that their tyre is fine and it is just the valve. All my customers who get a failure are confused and the ones who get a pass hate the new certificate which looks terrible compared to the old one
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi Hugh
Apologies for that. We had some problems accessing our building first thing on the Sunday but we didn't get many calls when we were in, or on the Monday.
On the certificates, as with any change it will take some getting used to but we will listen to feedback. Certainly we did a lot of research before the change. Any information on what your customers don't like on that would always be helpful.
Many thanks
Neil
Comment by David posted on
Overall the manual is too long winded when being used, we used to have an information column that testers never knew was there, but some of us did, we'd read from the left hand side through to the central area and then look at the fail column, it was laid out much better before, now we have classes I,II,III,IV,V and VII all grouped together when we are searching for a specific class of vehicle, not even Senior Staff at DVSA can interpret all this information during the end time of an mot test, so really how can you expect us?
The information in the new manual now needs to be sectioned into its own classes of vehicles to reduce the amount of reading to find the right material for the class of vehicle being tested.
The new fail criteria in the MTS system also needs a re-work, DVSA again have put numerous classes of vehicles together and reading through it, unless you are very experienced and trained properly, some NTs will fail using the wrong class of vehicle specifications.
Its all well and good siting there and saying everyone in the scheme are experts and know exactly what decisions to make, but the written material both in the manual and MTS suggests that DVSA staff seriously need a re-think.
Comment by Simon Smith posted on
Hi Andy
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 corroded brake hose 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.
As we've tried to make the number of reasons for rejection lower, excessively damaged would cover the same as deteriorated. You should view a defect as damaged due to deterioration.
A Special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
Regards
Simon
Comment by Chris Simmonds posted on
We are all creatures of habit and don't like change, having arranged onsite training at the beginning of May helped to understand these changes.
I do agree some of the items are difficult to decide on, i.e. there used to be slightly deteriorated now only severely which is a minor, a customer today said shouldn't severely be a fail ?
With Andy's comment you have think on a different level, damaged by perishing, rusted ferrules or physical damage which you can add in the box which ever way it's damaged, hope I'm right on that ?
It's a big learning curve but overall an improvement with a few adjustments.
Comment by Paul posted on
Class 1&2 motorcycle tyres direction of rotation missing on the failures, tyre valves in dangerous conditions also missing, I have given up phoning and filling out the feedback forms to say about items missing. The new system is pretty much NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. If we miss things we would be disciplined. What happens at the DVSA end?
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
We do read the feedback forms - and have found them very helpful. As Grant, Simon and Graham have replied on other comments, we will be making some small changes shortly in line with much of that feedback. We will communicate this through a apecial notice.
Regards,
Neil
Comment by Malcolm posted on
Can someone tell me kick up headlight wrong way where is it on system could.nt find it other day.
Comment by Charles Sweeney posted on
The first day of the new tests, May 20th, saw 1,898 tests, which is actually the busiest Sunday since it was introduced, so looks like it got off to a good start.
https://motstats.co.uk/mot_test_days.php
Comment by Ken Santi posted on
At the moment my biggest hate is that coil springs are only marked as a major failure, all well and good if the vehicle has a full spring bed but so many cars, BMW, Citroen, Ford and so on only have a partial spring bed for the pig tail of the spring, I've had a couple in with the spring broken and just hanging on which should have been marked as dangerous !!!! (Spring moves, slides down the strut taking out the brake hose, ABS wiring and inner sidewall of the tyre), please give us back the option to mark dangerous items as assessed by the tester instead of options by IT people who have only read a Haynes manual !!!!!
Comment by Mickey posted on
As a class 1/2 mot tester I agree with other fellow mot testers that some previous dangerous have been taken out. Example either I am no longer able to read or I am missing where it now says steering notchy wheel raised. I think this as well as tyre valve detiration especially in classes 1/2 very dangerous. So why had this been either put else where in the manual or is not included. Has anybody there ridden a motorcycle with notchy head bearings.
Comment by Derek Cochrane posted on
I see headlamp image incorrect is no longer a fail ???
Comment by Simon Smith posted on
Hi Derek
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 'projected beam image is obviously 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
Comment by Paul bufton posted on
Rang standers team and they said to use headlamp light intensity not according with requirements derek
Comment by Richard posted on
Woah there is someone from DVSA out there !!!
Firstly i think the way we've been treated via these blogs is horrendous. You take ages to moderate posts, if at all & then you shut down the only form of contact we have to ask for clarity on some points, by not allowing us to reply via the blog.
This blog needs to be more active, not waiting for days ,weeks for a reply ,if at all.
Neil says "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."
Of course there were less calls, you try getting through on a busy Monday morning ! We haven't got time to sit on the phone waiting for it to be picked up.
We got the chance to do a phone questionnaire a week or so ago about the new set etc , I have to say, from us you didn't do very well on it !
Comment by Neil Yeo posted on
some of the advisories have double barrelled meanings...ie shock absorbers misting of oil or negligible damping effect. will this be changed to make things more precise?
Comment by PAUL STRINGER posted on
I would like to know about EML lights.
We have to fail a car if the light indicates a fault or does not come on. What year is this from? most items like this have a start date. Would a 1986 Ford Escort have a EML? A 1998 American pick up truck or even a 2000 Ferrari?
Also some new cars throw up a EML when a service is due. So are we failing a car because it hasn't been serviced?
I called the helpline and after 25 mins of looking, no one could give me a straight answer.
Comment by Steven posted on
Agree with the points made by others with regard to both brake flexy hose ferrules excessively corroded no longer a RFR, and tubeless tyre valves badly deteriorated (i.e. perished to the extent that a couple I have manipulated in the past have burst during the test!).
Some form of reply regarding these possible dangers to road users which now just get passed and have to be manually advised on would be nice from the DVSA bods please.
Comment by Colin posted on
Over all the system has obviously changed quite a bit which I am fine adjusting to as required but the improvements seem to benefit you guys in assessing us as testing stations, rather than helping us improve the tests we carry out. I can not believe things like brake hose ferrules being excessively corroded ( astra for example where you can almost snap them with your bare hands)are no longer a fail or am I missing something? C/v gaiters have become difficult to find on the system and are extremely common fail items.??please reply
Comment by DJ posted on
C.V joints/gaiters are under section 6, 6.1.7 -transmission
Comment by Zabz posted on
Cv gaiters are now under body and scroll down to transmission.
Comment by Simon Smith posted on
Hi Colin
Hi Derek
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 corroded brake hose 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.
CV gaitors have now been called 'boots' to find the rfr's through the browse journey, select 'Body, chassis, structure>Transmission> Drive shafts >Joints' or use the search facility 'cv' will return the associated rfr's.
We're looking at improving the browse journey to make it easier for testers.
A Special notice will be issued detailing the changes when we're ready to implement them.
Regards
Simon
Comment by Marie aitkenhead posted on
Agreed.
Comment by Louis Simeoli posted on
nothing about the condition of valves and tubeless valves-which we ve found in a dangerous condition on numerous occasions!
Comment by Simon Smith posted on
Hi Louis
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 damaged or misaligned valve stems 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
Comment by Ken Robbins posted on
The changes and updates have worked out very well.I did expect we would get problems but you seem to have done a very good job this time.The amount of information leading up to the change i found very helpful with very little i could fault apart from the odd fault wording that you have mentioned.I was surprised that manual advisories have not been taken off yet but i assume you are still adding advisories that are needed on the system.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback.
For the advisories we have added more pre-defined ones and will look at what manual ones still get left, then we cam adjust. A bit further down the line, we'll look at what needs are remaining for observations on the condition of the vehicle and so on. But we don't intend to rush any change in quickly - we will give things time to settle and then make the adjustments.
Neil
Comment by david b posted on
and if dvsa could actually notify us testers of these adjustments mr barlow that would be greatly appreciated
Comment by gbrown posted on
mot changes a joke,leaving feedback a waste of time as no one ever replies and lets see how many changes get made to the system and manual because it was not ready at the time and have you ever tried ringing the call centre.....(I think you need another line putting in) and why not reply to the email address given below
Comment by Russell Barker posted on
Using data for site assessments is a better idea than the outdated old site assessment and theoretically should speed up the time of the assessment too.
I don't think it's a good idea observing tests again; we have 3 testers, I'm sure most have more, this would take longer than the previous assessment! I presume you would observe all testers not just one: or what's the point of it?
We do annual assessments to asses our standards don't we? And they're getting more involved and harder each year.
All in all looks good, but think we should just watch we aren't over regulating here.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi Russell,
Thanks for the feedback.
We will provide more details of our plans around risk ratings in a future blog.
The reason we are keen to include an observation of an MOT, or similar, is that risk assessment is really about trying to assess how good an MOT garage is at managing testing to the right quality.
So the data can tell us things about the patterns of performance, and a reasonably short review of a garage's systems can give an indication of how well a garage manages things. However - we may also want to retest a vehicle, or observe a test so we have more confidence of how testing is actually done - which is the important thing.
Inevitably this won't be perfect as we won't look at all testers but the data will point us towards which ones may be best to look at. And, I do appreciate we don't want this to become an excessively disruptive activity. Hopefully it can be a constructive process that helps improve how test quality is managed.
Neil
Comment by Russell Barker posted on
Here what you're saying Neil, but it should be the same for all testers. If one is being watched doing a test or having a previously tested vehicle retested, then all testers should. Unless you have reason to believe they're testing to incorrect testing standards, or acting fraudulently: that's differentand and I'd be fully behind that.
We're all under enough pressure these days sitting exams each year. Don't get me wrong I prefer this type of training and see why the exam has been put in, but if I fail the exam, I've had the same set of rules as every other tester who also has to do it. Observing only some testers and potentially tripping-up under pressure and potentially getting points, when others aren't being watched I think is an unfair system.
Either way, we'll do what we have to do, just my opinion.
Russ?
Comment by Paul conroy posted on
I agree with you Russell keep it simple and it will work much better
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi
I also agree we should aim to keep things simple.
As I say on observing tests - over time we will get to all testers. But we won't see all testers test every time we go to a garage as it will take too long and be disruptive.
My focus is to try and keep these types of checks as helpful as they can be. I do get that being checked is uncomfortable - but it is a necessary part of trying to improve test quality.
Cheers
Neil
Comment by Al posted on
So , aren’t you putting some fail items back in on the system which when we have rang up about we are told oh they haven’t put that back in we will amend on the next update!
Seems to me reading what you have put in your post that now your focus is on test centres and testers, one point is a mot test takes as long has it takes , bad cars are bad cars. So looking at what you said the good testers which check vehicles properly are now high lightened because of the time it takes !
Not impressed at all with that to be honest .
You put the new system in and expected us to work with it , which I might add we do and take time to find and report things back to you and now we are being watched !
There’s been no mention of some of the items good points we have made , being actioned ,
We should work together on the new system and get the basic items which should be there back on or amended to help the testers , not to bring something else in to watch how long a test takes .
Comment by Roger Peatman posted on
Is every question/information/enquiry, submitted in this comment box, read and acted upon by DVSA ? - if not, it's a worthless option. - we want clarity in writing please !!
Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Roger,
We try and respond to as many comments as possible. Please can you let me know if you have a specific question you want answering and we'll get back to you?
Kind regards,
Olivia
Comment by Graham posted on
There are alot of inconsistencies between the new manual and failure items. eg ; stuff being worded different in the manual to the fail, stuff being in the manual saying fail, yet there is no fail present. A big one is the corroded prescibed area fail wording. Tyres close to limit advise may need attention, tyres below limit dangerous fail, not very well though through. This system needs a very thorough check over by experienced testers, not office staff who have never tested, sort it out please!!
Comment by richard posted on
No offence Olivia , but if there is only yourself,Julie & Neil trying answer questions, then your never going to get through them all. You shut down a live ongoing blog that no one could replay to that had loads of un-aswered questions that would have been helpful to us. Perhaps its time to have a dedicated team to go through the questions & reply to them.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Richard
It does sometimes get challenging to reply in a timely manner when things get busy – and we are trying to improve our ways of working across the team. We often tind that many comments cover the same points so we'll try and answer at least one that covers the issue, rather than necessarily adding a reply to all. But thanks for the feedback – we’re always trying to get better!
Comment by david b posted on
as this blog is for vast majority of testers is the only way we can communicate with dvsa and with what little help we get anyhow, i hope a dedicated team gets set up to answer our questions and queries on here asap
Comment by kerry posted on
were all finding it a lot better 🙂
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Thanks for the feedback.
Comment by Bert posted on
I think more of the questions we have been asking on the previous news section should be answered not just the ones you feel should be answered as there are a lot of still unclear items to be answered
Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Bert,
Please can you let me know which specific questions you want answering and we'll get something back to you.
Kind regards,
Olivia
Comment by Dan Roe posted on
Hi Olivia, can you explain why tyre valve condition has been removed from the test items, this is extremely wrong in my opinion, many are in bad repair bordering on dangerous. I know we can manually advise but why have you removed it in the first place???
Comment by Bert posted on
i asked previous about testing cars with seats folded down and can't get up due to volume of items in car, i thought i read we had to refuse to test under new laws, but i can't find any information about it now.
also the new emissions for diesel cars, does the manufacture figure have to be on chassis plate? as a lot of cars have stickers under the bonnet but how do we know if the bonnet or other parts are original to vehicle
Comment by Stephen posted on
My car's registration is RV02 URJ which is a 1.9 Tdi Diesel Engine.
My car was taken for an MOT by Roger the owner of Glemsford Motors to the local Mot station.
The car failed The Mot by reason of new legislation and inspection rules.
The rule was that the Engine Management Light should illuminate on ignition with all of the other warning lights and then go out on ignition.
Because the tester had specific instructions regarding the type and style of the EML which did not appear the car failed.
My car has a standard dash layout which is fitted to the whole range of VWs and as such is supplied with an LED light and signature EML logo in the round of warning lights appearing.
Roger duly ran a diagnostic test on the electrical system and found to his surprise no error codes, not even one which could explain why the circuit to the ERM light wasn't working.
The problem was that the car was roadworthy in every respect having had it's emissions physically checked and confirmed that emissions were within statutory limits. The engine was working perfectly but the failure of The MOT meant that it couldn't be used on the road.
Roger referred to an VW electrical specialist who electrically diagnosed the cars system and confirmed that it was working perfectly. The fault wasn't present and as such the specialist offered no explanation.
At this point as the owner of the car I received the bad news that Glemsford Motors had pursued the matter at considerable expense only to be unable to resolve the issue.
I was devastated as the car was my pride and joy as well as my independence in a rural location. It seemed that the car was to be scrapped for the sake of a light. I understood the new guidelines was to protect The Environment and penalize polluting cars which were suffering from age or a lack of maintenance. I was resigned, however Roger asked me to leave it with him and he'd see what he could do.
Roger refused to accept that a perfectly roadworthy car could fail the MOT and as such sought to reason with the MOT Station who were adamant that nothing could be done. It was at this point that Roger contacted VW and explained the situation and pursued the question until a VW Electrical diagnostic engineer referred to the wiring diagrams for the model of golf in question.
The results were stunning. VW confirmed that this model of VW diesel engines has all of the components that petrol engines have of the same year but the components aren't connected electrically. The driver is to rely on the Glow Plug Light which illuminates on ignition as a warning of the Engine Management Sensors identifying a fault during normal engine operation.
With this information confirmed by the manufacturer Roger duly appealed once again to the mot station to pass the car as the car's design and operation were correctly functioning as intended. The MOT Station once again refused and stated that The Law and inspection regime were the only points of reference which were relevant.
Armed with the manufacturer's information Roger confronted The Ministry and the Chief Inspector responsible for operating the new Mot regime. After being confronted with Roger's argument and evidence The Chief Inspector decided to intervene directly and instruct the MOT Station to pass RV02 URJ.
The MOT was issued by the Mot station on the 28th of June. I was informed the day after by Roger and was stunned at the time and effort which he'd devoted to salvaging a very old car and my lifeline which I couldn't afford to replace. I expressed my gratitude knowing that both Roger and I understood the time and effort expended by Glemsford Motors was beyond my means.
It is estimated that there are over 200,000 VW deisel engines of the above type which operate without the now familiar Engine Management Warning Light . These are failing the MOT even as we speak and for no other reason than The Ministry has failed to accommodate the design in it's new regime of testing. These cars are not failing the emissions test, they are being failed by Government. Roger has made a start to stopping this injustice and his commitment to his profession and business should be recognized for what it is - Outstanding Professionalism and True Grit.
Comment by Charles Sweeney posted on
Shows how ridiculous the test has become. If it passes the emissions, it should pass.
Comment by Alasdair (DVSA) posted on
Hi Stephen
We are investigating this issue and will provide some guidance in due course.
Comment by Mark posted on
As usual no help what so ever I hope they do go for the fraudsters and leave the garages who are just doing their best
Comment by Mark posted on
Mark I agree so much with you
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi Mark,
Unsure what you mean.
We are implementing changes that will help us identify garages that need support to test to the right standards or who may be acting fraudulently. That should be a good thing.
Welcome clarification if I have missed what you mean.
Neil
Comment by mark posted on
you will never get rid of fraudsters just easier to go for the easy targets
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi
We are trying to get rid of them - and we continue to look at how we apply our rules to make it harder for them to get back in.
What we do need is support of the wider industry in their knowledge and intelligence of where fraud is happening. That will help us tackle fraud.
Regards
Neil
Comment by david b posted on
with all the changes made and the way they have been put to us by dvsa mr barlow we all need support to be testing to the correct standards these days.
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Hi
I agree. And we have focused our examiners on supporting and helping garages when they are out and about in the months immediately following the change.
Cheers
Neil
Comment by Marie aitkenhead posted on
Absolutely.
Comment by Andy posted on
disgusting you have changed it for far worse and leaving dangerous items out such as brake hose ferrules and canvas showing because they are deteriorated and not damaged as you worded them!
Comment by Richard posted on
just refuse to do a brake test ,there are many reasons not too, such as bulged tyre, just add this one as a reason, it could cause damage if it blew , the presenter will need to replace it then before he gets a ticket !
Comment by Neil Barlow (DVSA) posted on
Andy,
As Simon and Grant have replied to some of the comments above - we have picked up this feedback and will make some minor changes. This will be covered with a special notice.
Thanks,
Neil