Skip to main content

MOT testing service - one year on

Posted by: , Posted on: - Categories: MOT testing service
When the service launched it only had the basic functions - testers could test and purchase slots.

This September saw the first year anniversary of the MOT testing service. When the service was launched last year we experienced some performance issues and a number of system outages.

However one year on, updates to the system have increased the stability of the service and we’re still working hard to keep it running smoothly.

Back in September 2015, the service only had the basic functions - testers could test and purchase slots.

Over the past year we've regularly engaged with users and have added a lot more features based on this feedback. By using this we've designed, prioritised and tested new features - as well as conducting a lot of work to improve the reliability of the service.

What’s been added?

Throughout the year you’ll have received messages letting you know when the service would be unavailable. Quite often this was for minor system updates that helped to make sure the service remained stable but sometimes it was to introduce new features to the service.

So far we've added the ability to:

  • check site assessment scores and rating
  • record your annual assessment scores on the system
  • update your authorised examiner and vehicle testing station details
  • set up and adjust direct debits for slot payments
  • see up to date information on slot purchasing, slot usage and test logs
  • see data on test times, national averages, vehicle tested age and components failed

What’s next?

Over the next few months, we’re planning a few more changes. The next big update that you should already be aware of, will be the introduction of MOT security cards which we're starting to roll out in pilot areas.

We’re also working on improving how you enter test results. These new changes should save you time by making it easier to find and add any defects. It’ll also make removing defects simpler when carrying out a retest.

Adding a defect screens on the MOT testing service
Adding a defect: how the new test result entry screens will look

Other updates we’re planning to introduce in the future include how you search for vehicles and print duplicate certificates. These are in the early stages of development at the moment but when they’re launched they should help to further improve your experience of using the service.

We’ll also continue to work on ‘behind the scenes’ improvements - including improving the payments service. We know that this service isn't as good as it should be and we’re working on making this better.

Keep sending us your feedback

All the improvements we've made to the service have been led by your feedback. This is gathered from emails, online questionnaires, live feedback on the service and user research.

Please keep sending us your feedback as it helps to identify feature improvements that you most want to see.

The easiest way for you to send us your suggestions for improvements is by using the feedback link on the MOT testing service - alternatively you can email

Sharing and comments

Share this page


  1. Comment by Rob marchant posted on

    Incomplete Spring has gone as well

  2. Comment by Graham posted on

    So after making alot of staff redundant and privatising the training and refresher courses, i take it this has freed up alot of money. Even though im sure you could afford to lower slot price, im sure you wont, so i hope your not considering raising the price?

  3. Comment by Richard posted on

    Being an NT and a software developer I think your dev team need to look at streamlining how the system responds to us - e.g., on selecting an item/defect/area on the new changes you refresh the screen and we have to scroll back down to get back to where we were - this also applies to the system in general. When EE have to do this several times it can be quite annoying - this is clearly evident when we retest a vehicle with multiple failures (sorry defects now!)

    Why arent you using Ajax for synchronous calling to make things smoother or at least jump back down to the last added/amended item (scroll to element) to save us having to do it.

    The lateral defect selection screen (which is identical to the eBay system - commented above) is 'ok' but having the screen refresh each time is stupid.

    Ask your developers to learn some more html5/Ajax which is now standard functionality across all browsers and operating systems

    Also please ask us via a blog or vote if we want things changed - or isn't this a democracy?

    • Replies to Richard>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Richard,

      Thanks for your comments, I have passed them onto our development team. The new test result entry process has been developed to provide a platform that is usable for all our users.

      The process is agile and future iterations will look to improve the service. The first iteration will be released shortly and it'll remove the need to scroll down the screen when removing defects during a retest. Future iterations to improve the test results entry process will be scheduled following a review of user feedback after it's been released.



  4. Comment by Graham posted on

    How about some information on unladen weight of vehicles which may meet criteria of dual purpose vehicles. The only manufacture i can find with this information is landrover. Or even better, get rid of dual purpose vehicles! If its over 3000dgw make it class 7 not matter what, its only and extra couple of £

  5. Comment by Martin posted on

    I want to enter my assessment score but they only want "whole" numbers.
    On group A I didn't score a convenient whole number so they want me to enter false details to suit their system which I refuse to do.

    Despite trying to send feed back (site times out) and letting the phone ring for 40 minutes when I did get the right dept I still can't contact them.
    I suggest you sort your system so we are not required to lie.

    • Replies to Martin>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Martin,

      In the event of a decimal score, you can round the score up to the next whole number. However, you should keep your certificate with the actual score along with your training record.

      I have also passed your feedback onto the development team. If you are having trouble using the feedback link on the MOT testing service you can also send us feedback by emailing



  6. Comment by Bert posted on

    reading some of the comments i'm in favor of the return of the VSI, to many cars with electric handbrakes and not enough info on the testing procedure

  7. Comment by Barry Holmes posted on

    I read a comment and reply about QC recording, saying that it was not used effectively. That may be the case, but having taken it away we have had to resort to all manner of solutions, like bits of paper, and there is no more information on them than on the previous system. At least if you could bring it back we have something which is consistent and you can then improve upon it, but leaving us without it is poor.

  8. Comment by Ralf posted on

    It would be good if we didn't have to keep choosing which site we are at every time we log on, why can't the system default to a site we choose or not alter until we choose a different site? It's really annoying.

    • Replies to Ralf>

      Comment by Chris Ives posted on

      It is far too easy to log a test onto the wrong site if you have multiple site's on your account.

  9. Comment by Alan heckford posted on

    Do class 5l still have to pass a separate test ? As out testers can all log on now

    • Replies to Alan heckford>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Alan,

      The rules haven’t changed. To add class 5L you’ll need to call your local DVSA area office to arrange a demonstration test.



  10. Comment by dennis davies posted on

    bring back vsi / our system is very slow on broadband/ annual training and assessments should by every 3 years / all so they should be free like it was

    • Replies to dennis davies>

      Comment by Alan hill posted on

      everything you say I fully agree with , DVSA listen to your testers

    • Replies to dennis davies>

      Comment by Ralf posted on

      I like the new training and assessment structure, it should mean some of the weaker testers who never bother reading any DVSA information will get struck off, just hope DVSA doesn't bottle it and not dismiss testers that haven't passed by April.

  11. Comment by craig posted on

    vsi really needs to come back . theres no way you can know all of the oddball features on every model . For instance jacking modes on audi's , handbrakes on range rovers etc etc

    • Replies to craig>

      Comment by Graham posted on

      Here here, how on earth can we refer to manufacture every time we log on. You say you asked the 'trade' what they though of vsi, but i dont remember being asked. Vsi was very helpful and should come back

  12. Comment by Lee Bielby posted on

    A lot of good work gone into the system. I'm sure it will evolve over time and continue to make our jobs easier.

    • Replies to Lee Bielby>

      Comment by Chris Ives posted on

      Better hurry up I retire in 2 years!

  13. Comment by paul posted on

    ps The MTAETA forum VSI is an example of what can be done by testers.

  14. Comment by Dan posted on

    Generally the system is working better and everyone now seems to be using it ok, I would like to see a quicker way of knocking of fail or advisory items on the retest screen without keep reloading the page.

    It would also be a good idea if DVSA could overhaul all the paperwork nonsense surrounding the system, like having to keep paper copies of emissions reports for 3 months, in an age when most emissions machines are able to keep a digital log, is really silly.

    Maybe the public could also be able to print off a copy of their MOT test certificate at home rather than keep having to come and see us, in an age of open information.

    • Replies to Dan>

      Comment by Chris Ives posted on

      Are you required to keep a paper record on site if you have a digital copy?
      Clarification please DVSA!

  15. Comment by david posted on

    please can you bring back the VSI information-
    for us testers its a vital and helpful tool. we cant be expected to know every single quirk for every make of vehicle. the information the VSI gave us is a great help.

    • Replies to david>

      Comment by paul posted on

      agree with david, please can you bring back the VSI information - Finding out whether or not a TPMS light is indicating a system defect, or just a tyre with low pressure may not be easy. An ideal example of where that 'Vehicle Specific' information that DVSA withdrew for the new computer would have been really useful! brake instructions would be nice,accurate jacking data would also be helpful,correct brake weights should have been a given from the off,cat/dpf information could be occasionally useful,cat c/d marker could be helpful for the punters who may not be aware that its such,engine code for the vehicle on vsi could also be useful.
      How about DVSA enable individual testers to put together a usable VSI database on a DVSA platform..Testers are the ones that see things in real time and in the real world and can make changes, alterations and updates almost immediately.

    • Replies to david>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi David,

      We've already had user feedback that better technical information linked to specific vehicle models would be useful - in particular around unusual braking configurations and warning light sequences.

      So we can better understand how to meet this need, we have some work planned for investigating this later this year.



      • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

        Comment by paul posted on

        Hi Thomas (DVSA),
        In May of this year DVSA commented & I quote:"On vehicle specific information this is an area of potential improvement that we will be starting to look at over the summer - initially to make sure that we fully understand the user need and then determining how best we may meet that."

        Why didn't you investigate this when you said you would?
        Regards paul

        • Replies to paul>

          Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

          Hi Paul,

          Thanks for the comment. Sometimes other bits of work take longer than planned - so summer was an estimate which changed. However, it's still an area of priority and we will be looking at it.



  16. Comment by paul bufton posted on

    a link to matter of testing in resorces section on home pages would be useful

  17. Comment by Andrew posted on

    As a VTS council member who was in at the start, I feel proud to be able to say I was part of this project, and I feel quite protective over it. I think DVSA have done a remarkable job in creating a system that is not only easy to use on any platform but also a great asset to the motor trade and the public.


  18. Comment by Justin cooper posted on

    The quality control system is not great also the calibrations which I have always been told were massively important can't be done, also the qc checks?

  19. Comment by castrolrob posted on

    would be nice to be able to knock off fail/advises on retest without continually going in/out of the same page but that's a relatively minor niggle,use of the system isn't our main issue.the peripheral problems are the biggest bugbear and they aint gonna change anytime soon.

    • Replies to castrolrob>

      Comment by CCM Barry posted on

      If you have multiple fail items you can knock them off really quickly by scrolling to the bottom of the fail items and quickly clicking them starting at the lowest one and moving upwards, at best I can get about 6 items at a time ... its good sport enjoy

  20. Comment by Stephen posted on

    The new system's ok,
    But with regards to the MOT why can't child seats come into it. Some of them are fitted by someone with 2 left hands very insecure or incorrectly fitted. But all we can do is advise.

    • Replies to Stephen>

      Comment by billy spanner posted on

      O no no no, leave child seats out of this, some are quite complicated to install and without the manufacturers install guide could cause all sorts of problems. Let the parents look after their own children.

      • Replies to billy spanner>

        Comment by darren posted on

        very true once you start messing around with child seats your just opening yourself to a lot of know that saying.. it was alright until you touched it......stay well clear

  21. Comment by shaun posted on

    the new mot yearly test needs to be more clear .how what every body i speak to havnt got much idea how to get this done .i am still trying to find out .very confuseing i think this needs more time and more clear ideas .

  22. Comment by Emlyn posted on

    Can we have vehicle specific information back please....had a 2010 Mercedes e class in for mot and couldn't work out how to operate headlamp washers... Customer didn't know either...finally found out have to press windscreen washer 10 times!!!...Would have saved time having a vsi ..also which diesels should have cats fitted as standard ect...We've got specifics to check but no information.

    • Replies to Emlyn>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Emlyn,

      Thanks for commenting. We've had feedback from a number of users that better technical information linked to specific vehicle models would be useful. So we can better understand how we can meet this need, we have some work planned to investigate this later this year.



  23. Comment by David mays posted on

    About time vosa put QC back on system don't you think?

    • Replies to David mays>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi David,

      One of the flaws we found with the old QC recording system was that garages rarely recorded finding any areas for improvement and therefore the QCs didn't result in developing testers' weaker areas. We're keen that garages do put in place quality checks that reflect their particular circumstances - and this should be linked to improvement activities (such as training).

      If we can use the digital service to help support this we will, but we don't want to drive a 'tick box' mentality.



  24. Comment by David posted on

    The current system to me is fine, its easy to navigate round and yes a few tweaks are required to help make it more user friendly, but overall its getting better. I can see none component advisories have been added, however I surfed over them and thought they are too unorganized to use and be of any benefit to assist the testers at this time. If the mot refusal notification and the mot certificate are legal documents, then the information printed on them should reflect the same legal standards, what I mean is lets get the advisory text printed in order with some professional clarity, its no good writing about a light defect from section 1, then something from section 7, then something from section 2, etc, if you see what I mean, its unprofessional and the motoring public must laugh at some of the quality of the written information provided on these so called legal documents.

  25. Comment by Jobe posted on

    Hi, I am 66 years old am I'm still testing. I've gone through a lot of changes with the M.O.T system and to be quite honest I do not find the system now has many problems at all! However I do think it would be a good idea to introduce a new smart card, as in these days high technology can lead to people easily obtaining information or even hack into them easily I would think. Please look into it.
    John boy

  26. Comment by Gary posted on

    System is now very stable and runs smoothly. Whilst it is good, improvements can always be made. Look at how the MOT computerisation began! - Look at it now. Brilliant..........

  27. Comment by r j cockcroft posted on

    hi bob in bradford i would like to say the new system is fine but please stop changing things, i think i speak for a lot of the older end of testers that we are already ready neck deep as we are. we are not computer whizz kids! i have one employee who has no contact with the internet or computers apart from mot testing and every time changes occur we have help him!

  28. Comment by Andy posted on

    A backwards step with the card, keeping it in a safe place, can we not just remember a 6 figure number. You need to make it easier to remove advisories from retests as well.

  29. Comment by Shamma posted on

    Big changed to go front .correct all the mistakes

  30. Comment by Mark posted on

    Struggling at first ..ok now its a great system. Well done dvsa

  31. Comment by Jason thompson posted on

    I feel the system is ok as is, but on retests why do we have to input the failures repaired individually??? Why cant we click on all an hit a button to say all repaired????

    • Replies to Jason thompson>

      Comment by CCM Barry posted on

      If you scroll down so that you can see all the fail items and start quickly clicking from the bottom upwards you can usually get them all in 1 go ... enjoy

  32. Comment by Rob posted on

    the system being new will have problems, but it seems to be running quite well, the only real criticism i have is that soon we have to do an exam and pay every year to keep our jobs, a refresher is a good idea to keep up to date and regulate testing, but charging us ?? and the new mot tester scheme, a few grand to train a new tester ?? i feel this is going too far

  33. Comment by Trevor posted on

    Looks good. The same for the PSV and HGV sectors would be helpful.

  34. Comment by Clive posted on

    Any Chance of restoring the VSI on the system?

  35. Comment by mike ogden posted on

    what's the next money making change?

  36. Comment by roy peverall posted on

    hi, i think the system is ok as it is but sometimes the changes you do are good ,

  37. Comment by William Greenway posted on

    Hi I fine it hard to believe that same testers have been locked out of the system making the job harder going on contingent testing ie floating testers this should of been announced before this happened so that they could have been put on the system prior to this happening and carrying on testing as normal

  38. Comment by Matthew posted on

    Well done DVSA. I'm happy with the system. I like the look of the new test entry result page. That should make is easier and quicker to find RFR's. I thought I would post a positive comment because all the comments I usually read seem to always be negative, and I don't think the new system warrants all that criticism. I like it!! Let the backlash begin!!!!

  39. Comment by cheekyboy posted on

    the system is already easy to removed failed items on retest and easy to enter test results etc, why can you just leave things alone that don't need fixing??????

    • Replies to cheekyboy>

      Comment by jim logan posted on

      Only let's you remove one item at a time.
      A tick box system would allow multiple items to delete in one go

    • Replies to cheekyboy>

      Comment by Barry posted on

      The problem with removing the failed items is that you can only do one at a time and when you click the "Repaired" button it takes you back to the top of the screen, meaning you have to scroll back down to the bottom for the next item and gets a bit tiresome if there has been a few failures. A simple check box against the failed items would be much simpler and faster.

      • Replies to Barry>

        Comment by Andy posted on

        You can click as many as you can in the time the page takes to refresh, I can do three-four failures at a time this way

  40. Comment by mark posted on

    we didnt want any of these changes so not really listening are you

  41. Comment by darren posted on

    we do send you feedback but you dont seem to be listening to all the emails your sent and just carry on making the changes anyway.really what is the point

    • Replies to darren>

      Comment by Thomas (DVSA) posted on

      Hi Darren,

      We read all the feedback we get. We prioritise what to introduce based on volume of feedback and the benefit the change will give our users. We're sorry it can sometimes take time to get changes out. But we do need time to build and test software, and make sure changes suggested meet all our users' needs.



      • Replies to Thomas (DVSA)>

        Comment by darren posted on

        thanks for the quick response glad someone is listening

        • Replies to darren>

          Comment by richard bramley posted on

          can we have common failures top of the lists

          • Replies to richard bramley>

            Comment by Nick Gatford posted on

            Yes thats a good idea Richard Bramley, lets have "ball joint excessively worn" at the top of the list, not way down below "ball joint dust cover split", "ball joint securing nut no locking device " etc. Good to see we can now fail a spring for being broken, not having to choose between "cracked" and "fractured"