The long, dark days of winter are coming to an end and the flowers are starting to bloom. Yes, spring is here at last.
To celebrate, here’s another selection of the terrible MOT fails Britain’s MOT testers have found.
Some of them are truly shocking and really show why the work they do is so important.
Fantastic failure
Have you ever seen brake discs and pads in this condition?
It’s a wonder how the owner didn’t notice that the brakes weren’t working properly. They were so bad there would have been little or no braking capacity whatsoever, which could have caused a crash.
Luckily, thanks to the hard work of the MOT tester who found it, this car was taken off the road before any damage was done.
Rock bottom result
This bottom arm on a Morris 1000 had been ‘restored’ by a customer who then decided their car needed an MOT.
Nick’s garage failed it on an amazing 26 points, including this one! That’s a lot of failures for one vehicle, and means there was no way it should have been on the road.
Whoever had been fixing it clearly didn’t know what they were doing. Time to take it to an expert to fix it!
Bald ambition
Matthew sent us this picture of a tyre on a 2009 Mondeo sent to his garage for test. With nearly no tread on this 8-year-old tyre, it’s surprising it could grip the road at all in the rain or wet! And he tells us the others weren’t much better!
The law requires car tyres to have a minimum tread depth of 1.6mm in a continuous band around the central three quarters of the tyre. Manufacturers often mould tread bars on tyres to help judge the depth.
You should make sure your tyres are safe and legal before you bring your car in for MOT. Not only will it make your vehicle more safe, it’ll save you the cost and wasted time of a failed MOT.
What a cracker!
Sam from a garage in Northampton sent us this photo of a 2005 Suzuki Alto. When it was being inspected with its front wheels jacked up, the hub assembly and damper fell apart due to being totally corroded away.
This shows the need for regular servicing and maintenance on your car.
A big thank you
Of course, the majority of motorists do a great job of looking after their vehicles and don’t send them to the garage in the state these ones were.
A big thank you to this group of MOT testers for sending in your stories. If you’ve tested a downright dangerous rust bucket or outrageous vehicle failure, please send them to socialmedia@dvsa.gov.uk along with:
- some large and clear photos of the defect
- a brief description of what you found and what could have happened if the issues not been sorted out
We’ll include the very worst ones in our next MOT horror stories blog post.
64 comments
Comment by D. posted on
For DVSA,
For the diesel cars for the future or new cars or for the old cars the emissions plate value to be added to the "MOT inspection sheet"?
and this will sort looking for the plate value on the car on the bonnet wheel arch etc....and bad cars ...
many thanks
D.
Comment by Dan posted on
A tyre like one pictured above i see almost on a daily basis!
Comment by richard posted on
Special Notice Password & Security . Can you give us some idea as to what 3rd party organisations have been shared login details etc with, so we can be aware.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Richard
We can’t comment, it was an issue we became aware of.
Comment by Michael Williams posted on
In the SN 02-2019 you state "Only fail a vehicle for missing heat shields if there's a risk of fire with other fuel system components.Only fail a vehicle for missing heat shields if there's a risk of fire with other fuel system components."
However our local VE's have been saying that the manufacturer would not be fitting heat shields unless they needed to. So if a shield is missing it should fail ( As long as you are sure one was originally fitted).
Also how can we know if there is a RISK of fire, is that only for heat shields around fuel tanks etc.
Comment by Pete posted on
I asked this ages ago but got no reply. Are we meant to know the thermal dynamics of every exhaust and fuel system of every vehicle now are we? This is still a very grey area if you ask me. I would say if the vehicle is not a ball of flames when it comes onto the ramp then it's not a fire risk.
Comment by Graham posted on
Just because an exhaust heat shield is missing next to a fuel tank, that dosnt mean there is a fire risk which should justify a fail in my opinion. There is only a fire risk when there is fuel leaking onto part of the exhaust were a heat shield is missing. I think the fail should be broadened to just fire risk. What about when there is an oil leak onto an exhaust, this is surely more of a fire risk, yet we have to advise this. DVSA NEED to give some examples of how bad the fire RISK is before failing. So heatshield missing next to fuel system component? Or heatshield missing next to fuel system component that is leaking onto exhaust?
Comment by bert posted on
why is it sometimes the mot certificate prints out 2 sheets of paper and on the second page it is completely blank apart from the VIN number and signature bit, what a waste of paper, does anyone else get this?
Comment by Martin posted on
We have to pass vehicles as dangerous as these and worse because of omissions in the manual.
That along with spelling mistakes and appalling grammar in the text is not good seeing as it is a UK.GOV document.
I have lost count of the amount of messages sent informing you of such.
Comment by steve posted on
Any chance of this years topics for the annual assessment please , some of us need to get on with things
thanks
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Steve
You can find this year's topics here: https://www.gov.uk/mot-tester-training-assessments/training. We also sent an email alert out to MOT testers about this on 2 April 2019. You can sign up to get email alerts on the latest information from DVSA by clicking on 'Sign up for updates' from the home page of this blog.
Comment by Paul posted on
emissions from diesel cars.. why don't you let us testers enter the plate value (where present) when entering the test results
Comment by Derek posted on
Great idea, Then when the owners take the vehicle to a different station who use the higher default setting this may eventually highlight an obvious cheat opportunity that needs investigating in my opinion.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Derek
Allowing testers to record plate values would not be deemed a reliable source for future tests.
We’re exploring options for obtaining specific vehicle data from the various manufacturers.
Comment by Simon R posted on
Hi Julia, im slightly confused here, the special notice we received recently (02-19) tells us to do exactly that. Are you now saying that we should disregard any emission limits that somebody else has entered on a failure sheet when retesting a vehicle in case they have got it wrong?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Simon
Retests should be carried out to the value recorded at the initial test as specified in the special notice.
We will not be providing facility to record the observed value at a specific test in the future, but ways of obtaining manufacturer data direct from them are being looked at.
Comment by Paul posted on
reliable source?.we can input brake weights so why not emissions value?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Paul
Manufacturer data will remove the need for testers to do this, even if we considered it as an option.
Comment by greg caira posted on
I would like to see headlamp levelling as a MINOR failure rather than a major one.
Many drivers don't use it or even know of the controls and repairs often require expensive headlamp replacements and/or body control modules.
Surely this is unnecessarily burdensome!
Comment by mark posted on
totally agree this is not a danger to anybody or anything as long as the aim is correct i would like the view of the dvsa why this is a failure
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Mark
The Major fails in relation headlamp levelling devices are a requirement of the European Roadworthiness Directive, with which we have to comply.
Comment by Paul posted on
In the Blog.. What we’re doing to improve the quality of MOT testing
12 November 2018
Julia (DVSA) posted on 03 December 2018 (in reply to castrolrob)
You recently posted a comment as follows: 'if a headlamp adjuster switch is removed for retest is it a pass/fail/advise what?'
You would ‘pass and advise’.
its the 12th comment from the bottom
Comment by richard posted on
Thanks for that Paul, found it, things get lost in all the chatter. Perhaps its time for a dedicated FAQ where things get answered quickly & easier to find rather then waiting for a response that might or might not get answered.
It'll be interesting to see what the failure rate is on this item as I've had 4 in the past weeks that have failed & not cheap ones either where you can replace just the adjuster motor, its been whole headlights.
Comment by richard posted on
also some clarification on what if one headlamp has been changed to a manually adjusted one as the motor has packed up ie screwdriver/allen key to adjust it & the other headlamp has the switch to adjust it still connected & working.
Comment by Michael Williams posted on
Brake wear indicator warning lamp has been removed as a failure.Iin a large percentage of vehicle you cannot see the brake pads. So if you cant see the pads and the warning lamp is on, I am telling the testers to issue a "Dangerous" manual advisory, advising the presenter to remove the wheels to fully inspect the pads ASAP. DEBATE!!
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Michael
Some manufacturers design the brake warning lamp to illuminate when there is 3 to 4mm of pad remaining. Clearly, this is significantly more than the 1.5mm requirement for MOT and a ‘dangerous’ advisory would not be appropriate.
It is also important to make sure, in the case of multi-function brake warning lamps, the lamp isn’t illuminated due to the parking brake being applied or low brake fluid.
Comment by Graham posted on
When we log a car for test can you show us when the test is due. We only get to see when it was last tested and date of first use. Date mot is due would be helpful, if mot is overdue we can let customer know and help to make sure it dosnt happen again.
Comment by 2002 posted on
One of the training firms which is on Facebook is telling every one this years training has to be done within 4 month or your RAG score drops down one level and if you have not done it by 8 months you may drop another level again . This will on work on tester who are green to start. Is this true.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi there
The comment you make refers to the quality inspection process during a site review for garages themselves. Poor management systems for training can affect a garage’s risk rating but this has nothing to do with the testers themselves. Where testers are concerned, we always advise that they do their training and assessment in good time and not leave it to the end of the year to do.
Comment by Tony . Exeter. posted on
To DVSA.
Your recent clarification and flow chart regarding windscreen damage is nonsense! You say "Even the smallest amount of damage can cause problems" ie smaller than 10mm and fail, or larger than 10mm and pass. Similarly damage smaller than 40mm can fail , and larger than 40mm can pass! Your flow chart should be :- Is there damage> No > Pass.
Is there damage> Yes >Does it significantly affect your view of the road > No > Pass.
Is there damage > Yes > Does it significantly affect your view of the road>
Yes> Fail...….. The 10mm & 40mm are totally superfluous!!
Comment by Graham posted on
You only consider if the damage is bad enough to materially affect drivers view of the road if its bigger than 10mm / 40mm. The flowchart shows this. The note below regarding small damage is reminding you that damage just over 10 / 40mm may not look bad now, but could be worse if that sun catches it etc. Personally im very lenient with windscreen, Drivers now how bad the screen is, if its causing them issues then they should replace.
Comment by Graham posted on
I recently failed a caravan on an end outline marker not working. The mot testing service dosnt say end out line marker, it just says outline marker (which we dont test), where as the manual says end outline marker. An outline marker is the orange lights down the side of a vehicle, end outline marker are the white and red ones. Can this be sorted out, as technically we shouldnt be failing these as its worded incorrect. Thanks
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Graham
Just to clarify for you, outline markers are not the ones down the side as these are side marker lamps - these provide visibility from the side.
The ‘proper’ name for the lamps in question is ‘end-outline’ marker lamps, but this has been shortened to ‘outline marker’ lamp on MTS. There is no other lamp with ‘outline’ in its name.
I hope this helps.
Comment by Graham posted on
Okay fair enough, thanks for getting back to me. It would be much easier to follow / understand if the mot manual and mts are worded the same, so may i suggest when something is shortened on mts, can it also be shortened in the manual aswell please.
Comment by greg caira posted on
The recent changes (last week) have LOST the mot expiry date from the vehicle information screen. Why is this? I found it a useful piece of info. Why does it not get included in the inspection sheet ? and why no vehicle colour on the inspection sheet?
...also , one of my testers uses a tablet and is complaining that you've changed layout to make it LANDSCAPE rather than PORTRAIT which he finds much more awkward to use!!
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Greg
We are looking into the items that have disappeared and will rectify as soon as we know why this has happened.
Comment by bert posted on
hi DVSA could the manual be a bit clearer on TPMS,
The inspection of the tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS) is for M1 vehicles first used on or after 1 January 2012.
The TPMS warning lamp (see diagram 3) can operate in many ways depending on the vehicle type. You must only reject vehicles if it's clear that the lamp indicates a system malfunction and not simply indicating that one or more of the tyre pressures is low.
Diagram 3. Example of a TPMS warning lamp
Diagram 3. Example of a TPMS warning lamp
Defect Category
A tyre:
load capacity or speed rating not in accordance with the minimum requirements
Major
load capacity insufficient for axle presented weight
Dangerous
Tyres on the same axle or on twin wheels are different sizes
Major
Tyres on the same axle of different structure
Major
A tyre:
with a cut in excess of the requirements deep enough to reach the ply or cords
Major
with a lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure, including any lifting of the tread rubber or with cords exposed or damaged
Dangerous
Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the requirements
Dangerous
A tyre fouling a part of the vehicle
Major
A recut tyre fitted to a vehicle not permitted to be fitted with recut tyres
Major
Tyre pressure monitoring system:
malfunctioning or tyre obviously under-inflated
Minor
obviously inoperative
Major
A tyre not fitted in compliance with the manufacturer’s sidewall instructions
Major
A tyre valve seriously damaged or misaligned likely to cause sudden deflation of the tyre
Dangerous
A tyre incorrectly seated on the wheel rim
Major
so i'm guessing if there's a fault i.e sensors missing in wheels that's then classed as inoperative and a major? not malfunctioning which is a minor?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Bert
You have guessed correctly.
However, the requirement will be changed in the near future so that ‘malfunctioning or obviously inoperative’ will be a major defect.
Comment by graham posted on
I agree the 26 items on the Morris 1000 highlight the fact that nomatter what anyone says whether it be the government or theDVSA ALL vehicles regardless of age should be subjected to yearly testing
Comment by Mr C R Evans posted on
I bought a car in early December 2018 with an MOT that was done in October 2018 and the only advisory was a near limit tyre on near side rear, when I took the car for service in late March I had a list of possible MOT failures that needed doing during the service to make the card road worthy I had to pay as much for repairs as I did for the car,I'm sure as was the manager of the garage that did my service the garage that did the MOT must have seen these problems and ignored them on behalf of the seller of the car,would it be possible to take the matter to a legal advisor.
Comment by bert posted on
A MOT standard is completely different to a service standard so it would depend on the items in my opinion
Comment by castrolrob posted on
the appeal requirements are within 1 mnth of the initial test for mechanical defects,up to 3 mnths for corrosion related items so 5 mnths later the chances of the ministry getting involved is zero.i don't think you've got much chance of any sorta comeback to the test after that sort of period from any source.please also keep in mind that the mot is the MINIMAL standard that a car should be able to meet any day of the week and is no guarantee that it remains roadworthy for the next 12 mnths,those sorta concerns would be more properly addressed to the vendor.worn tyres that are still above the limit will still pass,worn brakes ditto and so on.whenever buying ANY vehicle get an independent inspection(even if its only a mate with some mechanical knowledge)and NEVER rely solely on an mot especially one conducted 2 mnths prior.the sad fact is that many traders do indeed get their vehicles passed to order(something the ministry is trying to stamp out)but in your case the mere fact that 5 mnths later defects are found(and without knowing what they were I can only speculate whether they fall within the realm of the test at all)but you were still able to drive the vehicle up to that point suggests the initial test result cant have been too wide of the mark.also keep in mind that advisorys aren't compulsory.i use them to a large degree,others don't.useful if youre buying,summat that traders in particular are adept at losing when selling for all the obvious reasons.
Comment by chris posted on
hi dvsa,
Is there any info on metal number plates? I have looked in the manual and testing guide and also on gov. but cant find anything .
Vehicle i had was a 2009 bmw. both number plates were metal, all characters were correctly spaced etc, they were reflective, and even had BS marking and postcode etc (not part of inspection)
Any info on these type of plates would be great.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Chris
There is no legislation covering the material used for registration plates. Therefore, metal plates should be treated the same way as any other type of plate.
Comment by Chris Rayner posted on
Excellent site like to see pics so public can why it is important for mot test thanks
Comment by ackland posted on
call that tyre bald, it still has a hint of tread.my best was a skinny temp tyre used so long it was through to the cords the whole circumference of it!
Comment by Brian fleming posted on
Took my honda crv 2007 for its mot yesterday in derby the garage went through it throughly pulling this and that tapping everything possible sat there watching worried that it might fail as only had it 5month what a relief when passed with flying colours so make sure you check everything regularly just wondering if anyone knows what percentage of the mot fee do the department of transport take from the garage
Comment by bert posted on
£2.05p per mot that passes
Comment by Anthony Finn posted on
In my career as a Full time motor mechanic I have witnessed brake pads and discs 100 times worse than what has been shown on your website
I recall a Ford Transit with front o/s brake caliper piston being the only thing applying brake function no disc pads at all not even the metal part of pads
I still see brake pads worn passed the metal to Razor Blade thin
In my opinion minimum brake pad allowance should be increased
Comment by Martin burns posted on
The number of times i hear metal on metal when people apply their brakes is growing. These, are quality cars, mainly BMWs and Mercs, but also other cars.people dont care or are just pure ignorant of these things.
Comment by richard posted on
I'm going to have to post this here as you have closed the other pages to comments. why ?
Why have you changed the layout of the failure/pass page, you've put all the needless information at the top & moved all the failure items to the bottom, I know what station is doing the test as I work here. The big Fail in red, yes is helpful but not the testing station info or my name, move all that down to the bottom ,otherwise I have to keep scrolling down to see what I've done.
Comment by mark posted on
assessment time again so much for 3 topics i can count 7 this year and one of those has 4 topics in it
Comment by Christina Mackenzie posted on
What a terrible condition to have a car on the road but even more frightening is the matter of not needing to take it back for a re test!!
Comment by R.S.Hurry. posted on
Education,not condemnation,
Comment by R.S.Hurry. posted on
Look, anything mechanical is going to fail,why be so surprised at all these findings,
D
Comment by A Gibson posted on
Wi is a 44 tonne truck 1mm tread for a pass . A car 1.6mm. ???? British justice and logic
Comment by Wee nicky posted on
The reason hgv is 1 mm is the tyre tread is only a small thickness of the tread on the tyre and can be recut in some cases. Hgv have alot more tighter restrictions on the vehicles and by law get a inspection every 6 weeks so it like a mot
Comment by A Gibson posted on
A DISC BRAKE ON A HGV MOT CAN HAVE HEAT CRAZING AND WORN PAST ITS LIMITS THE SUPPORTING SECTIONS SO CORRODED THEY CAN SHATTER BUT THATS A PASS SO LONG AS IT REACHES THE DTP TEST FIGURES. A lateral crack is the only fail!!!! THAT CAN RUN 44T +.
Comment by Mervyn Smee posted on
The Suzuki Alto front suspension corrosion is the second one I have seen recently, I saw one in the local town which had obviously failed on the road as it had been dragged to the side. I wonder when that MOT was due, or done!!!
Comment by Robert Dey posted on
I think it’s a great idea to publish photos of failure defects.
Comment by Riccardo Pinardi posted on
Good feed back and just reinforces the work we the not testers do ,it all about having the car safety checked to the standards set out by our governing standards.
Comment by Len posted on
Love this area, keep it coming ?
Comment by Jonathan Hill posted on
And the government has got rid of the requirement for classic vehicles to have an MOT. Ridiculous.
Comment by Simon R posted on
The pictures show that yearly MOT tests are vital as some people never have their cars serviced. We should also be thankful that the owner of the Morris 1000 decided to take his car for an MOT test even though DVSA and the government have decided that vehicles like this no longer need an MOT test!! The article tells us what a good job us testers are doing keeping dangerous cars off the road, yet the owner of this vehicle doesn't even need to bring it back for a re-test even though it failed on 26 items as I have asked this question before on here.