Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, and someone, somewhere, is merrily driving along in a dangerously unsafe vehicle.
Luckily for us, our nation’s MOT testers are working every day to find dangerous problems with the vehicles motorists bring in.
As an early Christmas present for you, here’s a selection of the juiciest things they’ve found over the last few months.
One completely corroded fuel cap
Cam in Gloucestershire sent us this photo of what he called a “slightly insecure fuel cap on a 2002 Nissan Micra”.
Needless to say, he was understating the problem for comic effect.
As you can see, the fuel filler neck has corroded away and is almost completely detached. This could have allowed petrol to spill onto the road, creating a fire hazard.
Well done Cam for making our roads that little bit safer this Christmas.
One badly chewed seatbelt
This photo of a seatbelt on a 2010 Yaris was sent to us by Andrew.
His best theory as to what happened here is that the owner’s dog chewed through it, meaning it'd be useless in a serious accident.
One van held together with duct tape and cardboard
This is a photo of an underside of a 2004 reg Transit van that an MOT tester named Stuart sent us.
It might be a little hard to see because of the angle of the photo (the grey in the bottom left corner is the floor), but parts of the van have corroded away, leaving gaping holes.
The owner has then tried to fix the problem by stuffing the holes with cardboard and holding it in place with duct tape!
Here’s another photo, to show you just how bad the underside of this van really was:
This vehicle was obviously not roadworthy and thankfully it was taken off the road as a result of Stuart’s work.
And a pair of corroded radius arms
For the final part of this edition of Horror Stories, we have a two parter. Both are radius arms from different vehicles, both are corroded right through.
Here’s the first photo. It’s from a 2004 Vauxhall Agila and was sent to us by Philip in London:
Apparently the owner tried to argue that it was safe to drive! Philip disagreed and failed her vehicle. Judging by the photo, he was right.
And here’s the second, from a 2007 Nissan Qashqai:
According to Terence, who sent us the photo, the arm on the other side was just as corroded.
Radius arms come under a lot of stress when in use, so both these vehicles were clearly unsafe.
By taking them off the roads, these testers have done their bit to help keep Britain’s roads safe.
The response to the last edition of MOT Horror Stories was amazing and some of the photos you sent in were truly hair-raising. Sorry we couldn’t include them all.
If you’ve tested a particularly dangerous, ridiculous or outrageous vehicle, please send your photos to socialmedia@dvsa.gov.uk along with a brief description of what you found.
129 comments
Comment by Clas Wraith posted on
The tester could advise that although you may still have a valid Mot certificate you are knowingly driving an unroadworthy vehicle which is an offence and your insurance may be invalid. Once it failed it is recoded at Dvla so the police and insurance can easily obtain the information.
Comment by Colin johnson posted on
I am very surprised that insurance companies have nothing to say about older vehicles and no m o t as most of them have agreed value if a 20 grand vehicle was a total wreck because of a 100 quid track rod end or steering arm i am sure they would have something to say
Comment by DARREN posted on
totally agree any car no matter what the age is should have a mot ,what will happen when one of these cars that have not been checked over in years suddenly they have brake failure, I really hope that the ministry will change the ruling for every other innocent person on the roads
Comment by andrew posted on
I agree with road tax exemption, for classic cars,but as for the mot bit for vehicles newer than 1960 on (40 years) , are the insurance companies going to riggle is something happens , and the unqualified owner has done their own self cert
annual check ,
Also some members of our community who try to live as cheap as they can, will look to obtain a car that is tax and mot exempt ,even though its
a rusty death trap,
Comment by Rob (weonlymot) posted on
Captions on trailing arm photos are the wrong way round. The top one is off the Qashquai, the second photo is the Agila. Have seen a few Agilas/Pixo arms like this but never a Qashquai. Stay vigilant!
Comment by Chris (DVSA) posted on
Hi Rob
Thanks for pointing this out. We've switched them around now so they should be right.
Chris
Comment by tarsem lal posted on
Nice read, need photos in some cases to give examples
Comment by Ed Jolly posted on
That Transit sill was no doubt not a fail last year, but could have been manually advised for being holed outside a prescribed area. (Not forgetting that manual advisories are only there to cover the testers back, and therefore don't have to be used) It's only the vertical part of the step that is within the prescribed area, so therefore probably wasn't a fail last year.
I tested a 2005 Transit last year which required one patch of welding to the offside front inner wing in order to pass. The van was clean underneath with little, if any, signs of corrosion. The same van came in for MOT this year, failed on several areas of corrosion, the worst being the nearside rear spring mount which had completely disintegrated and the spring was resting against the floor.
I'm a stringent tester, I follow the rules and advise where needed. Corrosion can occur at an advanced rate, that step will likely have had someone stepping on it day in, day out, putting pressure on an already weakened area, causing further damage over 365 days.
Comment by Steve posted on
I've been testing and customer facing for 25 years and whats been most apparent, is that the M.O.T has been mis interperated by many.
I believe that a strong push to educate people on what the M.O.T test actualy is, in terms of its standards, how they are made, how they are met and what it means about the vehicle would be so helpful to everyone.
People often walk away with a fresh M.O.T pass with the feeling that their vehicle is In good health for at leat another year!
How dangerous is that ?!
Btw, I also see many vehicles during servicing that are way younger than 3 years that would fail a test !
Maybe mileage/ hours of use with a maximum of 12 months should be considered ?
Comment by Brian Brock posted on
Testers are far too keen to leave advisories, lots of these are purely to cover their backs and or frighten the owner's into spending money that is unnecessary , either it wants doing or it doesn't, either its safe or not safe, that is where experience comes in, experience from real mechanics, I have been testing vehicles since the MOT was introduced, brakes lights and steering, I have been involved in the repair of motor cars since 1953 and certainly dont need some jumped up youngster with loads of qualifications on paper but nothing coming through to his hands to tell me whats safe and whats not, Make the cost of the MOT compulsory no discounts these are just to get work, not a fair MOT test
Comment by castrolrob posted on
whether testers are keen to leave advises or not I can pretty much guarantee that at least a couple of the above pictured corrosion defects will have little or no corrosion advises from last year,mystic rob further predicts that the owners concerned bought em with a nice fresh mot last year and had no idea.how about it dvsa?you have the details of the vehicles concerned and anyone in this trade will tell you they didn't get like that in a year and even with the best will in the world would have been due a very stiff(while we are still allowed to!)advisory and NOT the one that says slightly corroded!,whoops that would mean a manual advise!.were any of the garages that conducted their previous tests given a long hard look?even if you cant appeal>3months they have gotta be worth a sniff.you ask us for intelligence but im willing to bet you aint used whats in front of you.i must see similar on transits in particular on a weekly basis,most come from up north where things rust more quickly or if tested local its always the same half dozen or so suspects,most testers reading this blog will tell you similar.
Comment by Dave posted on
Ive just tested a transit with large sections of the O/S sill corroded away but its not near seat belts or suspension or steering or brakes if there where no manual advisorys would you have thought "who missed this last year"
Comment by castrolrob posted on
it would be a pretty poor tester who when faced with a vehicle with holes in it wouldn't advise it in or out of a prescribed area,my comments are based purely on the fact that most trannys in that shape I see will a,be rotten elsewhere/everywhere,b,have been purchased by the owner with no or minor advises on corrosion and c,that prior ticket will typically be Scotland/coastal/wales/London under an arch somewhere or the above mentioned local suspects.have seen em 4mnths after the guys bought it with clean prior ticket with precious little van to compare it against.dont get me wrong,some of em will simply be poor testing or folks that see so much rot day in day out that they cant be bothered advising anymore.others are downright fraudulent and trannys are amongst the more common that I see.any comments from the audience are more than welcome but I reiterate that I wont be the only guy seeing this
Comment by brian posted on
what about a ford ka another rot box of recent times see lots mostly falling to bits literally driven by young people usually their first car
Comment by Richard Coveney posted on
Well said Brian, totally agree with you ,qualifications over experience
And common sense!!!!
Comment by mike lowman posted on
I never did understand when the ministry sets a price for the test why you all go and cut price it. As far as I can see there is no need lower the price, and no test for old cars is just plain dangerous over the years I have seen lots of restored cars, or parts that have been cleaned and painted but still worn out.
Comment by Roger posted on
Automatically assuming these are the original suspension arms from the previous year could get any innocent tester into serious trouble. Have you all forgotten about the still widely used secondhand part.
Comment by Sudhir posted on
Whenever we take car for MOT to a garage they will try to find fault where there is none , to make money. Please take your car to council MOT centre they just not test their own vehicles but of any member of pubiic. They only test but not repair. They have no agenda. They will pass or fail thats all. If any thing not upto requirement they will advise you to get it repaired and to bring it back, they will test it without any further charge. I always take my car to council MOT Depot. Google for your nearest centre.
Comment by Tommy posted on
Please remember the mot is minimum standard. So something has to be really bad to fail. Basically at the end of it's safe working life. However in the case of corrosion I always advise if something is getting bad. It covers me if anything untoward should happen. How people ignore an advisory when it involves their
and others safety is beyond me
Comment by Jim posted on
What a farce our roads really are when your car can fail an mot for a hole in the bodywork the size of a 5p because it's 'unsafe' & you have thousands of farmers on the road with old tractors that don't require an mot test and have huge spikes attached to them half the time.. Joke!!
Comment by Mr a posted on
Although a yearly mot test can be a nuisance it's also a good opportunity to make sure vehicles are up to a good level of safety. I would much rather keep it yearly as even when you keep your vehicle in good road worthy condition this can change quite rapidly just from pot holes or kerbing wheels. Not to mention some of the replacement parts are of dubious quality these days. Also remember you do have upto 4 weeks to put vehicle in prior to old mot expiring....so come on no excuses 🙂
Comment by Anthony posted on
Speed limit UK 30 mph to 70 mph. No vehecle in UK should b able to go faster fit speed limiters less accidents simple won't happen though all about cash
Comment by Dave Page posted on
Why can't the Ministry of Transport send out a reminder for Mot test? The DVLA do it for road tax & Insurance companies also! I'm sure lots of people including myself, have overlooked the due date before now.
Comment by Chris posted on
Hi Dave
DVSA does have a service that reminds you a month before your MOT is due by email or text message. Here is a link: https://www.gov.uk/mot-reminder
Chris
Comment by Graham posted on
Disagree with the seatbelt comment by dvsa. It wouldnt be useless in an accident, seat belts are super strong even when cut. Vosa bloke told me only fail seat belt if cut is more than half width of seat belt. I would fail the one in pic, but only just.
Comment by David Keigwin posted on
It's also shocking that so many believe an MOT TEST is a service, when it isn't, to regularly service your vehicle is a must for your Safty on the road,
Comment by Carlos posted on
We have customers who regularly say the locking wheel tool is on passenger seat when I ask why they replied don't you take the wheels off during an mot ?
Comment by A voice from far away. posted on
Having been a NT (motorcycles) for almost forty years I too have seen a number of horrors, thank god technology has caught up since the days of the paper MOT during which I have wrote out a few red tickets in my time.
Complacency is the greatest enemy among testers who would rather use their judgement (in error) than check the testers manual if unsure about something. There is no excuse for this as the testers manual is on the website which anyone, even with a tablet computer can access.
In today's economic climate it's our customers who pay our wages therefore we do need to look after them. It's far better to carry out minor adjustments, change lightbulbs &c rather than fail a machine and have loyal customers leave with fleas in their ears.
Yes the machine would have initially failed and a refusal notice issued, the customer would have been contacted requesting authorisation, the minor repair/adjustment carried out and a pass certificate subsequently issued.
Keep safe.
Comment by Paul posted on
Why is the mandatory MOT being removed for cars over the 40 years old then? Do they all pass first time!
Comment by RICHARD SANDOW posted on
Good comment, surely these are the type of vehicles that will suffer with the corrosion as shown in the pics
Comment by D puller posted on
Cos cars over 40 years are usually cherished well looked after and do very little miles per year
Comment by s. vine posted on
you may think differently if a farmer in his forty year old Defender pulling a trailer full of pigs had steering failure, careered down a hill & just happened to go straight through your living room wall at 9:00pm on a Monday evening, hopefully you & your family would be in the kitchen at the time, this is exactly what happened to a friend of mine several years ago, 2 minutes earlier he was sat on the sofa with his son, the sofa was hit so hard it went 3 feet into the dining room along with the dividing brick wall, this was a vehicle the farmer felt didnt warrant being tested as he rarely used it, although it had passed an MOT 2 years earlier & covered only 400 miles since.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi there
While many vehicles more than 40 years old are well looked after, it is still the owner’s responsibility to make sure their vehicles are maintained, are in a roadworthy condition and comply with all aspects of the law.
Comment by Tony posted on
My neighbor has an old land rover, heap of old rubbish, used it once a year takes it round the block, doesn't need road tax, tyres are cracked, oil dropping of it, so what control is in Place to get these so called, classic vehicles of the road.
Comment by P. Rotyre posted on
Old Land Rovers are probably the most reliable, well built vehicles on the roads, i doubt very much it could be in that state of disrepair, they never go wrong, a little exaggeration on your part i think!!
Comment by martin posted on
We see this sort of thing day in day out being in the front line as it were.
I can see it coming as a bit of a shock to those stuck behind a desk.
Also the way you write these comes across as patronising.
Comment by J. Rambone posted on
you assume people behind desks have done little else my friend, i myself work behind a desk presently, but for years i worked at the sharp end & have seen things that would make your hair stand on end, i still have flashbacks to this day, dont judge people in haste, a couple of months in Vietnam during the conflict would have made you see things in a different light, thats where the boys are separated from the men with the first sign of gunfire.
Dont assume things about desk jockeys, you never know what lies beneath.
Comment by V S posted on
Last time i checked there was no failure for erosion in the manual!! But corrosion thats a different matter.
But there us no way those faults happened over i year.
Comment by Gary Sheehan posted on
I had an advisory about slight corrosion to the underneath of my Nissan and I immediately paid a mere £110 to have rustproofed and save future work. Money well spent.
Comment by i. butt (cardiff) posted on
you would be surprised how quickly corrosion can set in, especially on vans, you go to any cash & carry in the country & have a look at the vans collecting goods for local shops, i bet you almost all of them will be full of rust, its obviously something to do with carrying food, maybe it attracts vermin which try to gnaw their way into the vehicles. ???
Comment by Russ posted on
Who passed them last year? No way some of those took 12 months to get like that.
Comment by Petey posted on
Maybe an advisory last year and they didn't get it sorted
Comment by mark posted on
i know the transit is very corroded but is this area a prescribed area or just under body
Comment by stephen garratt posted on
MOT by post !
Comment by Will Eams posted on
If you were a qualified MOT tester you would know this area of corrosion is in the boot under the parcel shelf where the top shock mount secures to the body, its quite obvious to the trained eye.
Comment by Lloyd posted on
Transits do not have boots or parcel shelves
Comment by mark posted on
I am a qualified tester of over 33 years and if you think that is near a boot area youshould have gone to specsavers
Comment by Terry posted on
It’s a transit step within 30cm of the Seat, the seatbelt stalk is mounted to the seat
Comment by P. Rotyre posted on
My bad, i must have misread, i thought it was a Chevrolet Ortega rear sub-frame.
Comment by Peter Beecher posted on
It's a shame that when you report someone for not having an MOT, the DVLA say contact the police, the police say it's not a police matter and to contact dvla.
I have reported someone 3 times for having no road tax and no MOT since April 2017.
They are just not interested
Comment by Daniel Booth posted on
Couldn't agree more Peter. Then again, what is there to be scared of? Up to a £1,000 fine and 0 points on your licence for no MOT. The rules, laws and regulations need to be more severe to have the MOT Test taken more seriously.
Comment by Tony posted on
If they don't have an MOT they are officially not insured, pass that on to the police see if that gain's interest.
Comment by Glenn Massey posted on
Praise to all those helping to keep us safe and merry Christmas.
Comment by Graham posted on
Oh no! Everyone's kicking off about these manual advisory's! Quick do another post so everyone forgets!
Comment by Paul Gayton-badcock posted on
How could these faults have developed in one year! As usual people are more interested in making money in whatever way they can rather than road safety.
Comment by Frank Heaton posted on
I fully agree with Paul that corrosion was evident last MOT.
It is time the ministry clamped down on cut price MOT if an MOT is carried out to the book,the cost of equipment and all that goes with it is fair price.
Comment by fgf posted on
very good condition
Comment by J May posted on
If it's in your interest of safety why do so many people argue the toss when it's theirs and others safety at risk
Comment by Mathew Ellis posted on
Because they don’t want to spend money,plus normally no common sense!
Comment by Dom farley posted on
At least they are going for a mot.. its shocking how many people dont even know their mot has run out since the removal of the tax disc
Comment by Hanna Khabbaz posted on
Well done Testers & Thank You for keeping us safe.
Many Vehicles (incl. some Red Buses) on the road are obviously unsafe due to defective lights, indicators, & tyres not to mention missing Wiper Blades & Side Mirrors.
Some have bin bags replacing rear windows hence obscuring visibility.
Comment by Justin posted on
Unfortunately I don't think having a rear window is actually a legal requirement.
Comment by Tony S posted on
Try reversing safely or pulling off your drive on to a busy road with a blacked out rear window, can't see a lot down that nearside can you.
Comment by Paul posted on
You should not reverse on to the highway unless there is no other option, you should reverse off of the highway on to your driveway whenever you can
http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-reversing.html
Comment by Will Duncan posted on
Rear and side views none existing In vans, so no big deal from bin bag in the rear window of a car.
Comment by Simon posted on
Interesting insight, thanks
Comment by Gordon posted on
Thank god for mot testers
Comment by Mr Alan Cooper posted on
Hmmm all very interesting, makes very scary reading when you consider the extension of MOT exemptions for classics........
I'm not an MOT tester so no vested interest, just a classic car enthusiast who thinks the new rules are madness
Comment by Mike posted on
It's because so many MPs have classic cars and don't want the hassle
Comment by martin posted on
Most of the mot testers would also agree the new rules are madness Alan.
But what do we know !!
Comment by Skylar gray posted on
Hhhmmmmm, as an MOT is carried out on an annual basis it’s quite shocking to view the evidence which would have been displayed over a number of years, it would be interesting to look at the previous MOT history of these vehicles.....
Comment by Tony S posted on
Yer, wonder if they had any advisory's, might have needed a couple of manual ones.
Comment by Mike posted on
I work on high proformance sports cars and the owners have no idea how many tyres that are through to the cords, I'm forever showing them. Cars capable of 200mph with blow-outs imminent. At least they can afford £500 a pop.
Comment by david posted on
youd be surprised mike, I work as a mot tester in a tyre garage, the amount of tyres on high performance cars down to cords and yet STILL the owners moan about cost of tyres and begrudge paying for them.
I did an Maserati grandturismo a while back he had 4 tyres conti's cost over 1000 pound we didn't even make 100 on them. and owner had cheek to ask for free mot as he was paying 1000 for 4 tyres,
I said to him sir if u can afford a Maserati you can afford £54.85 for an mot!!
Comment by Dale posted on
I've started to think that like powerboats, bikes and aircraft there should be 2 levels of driving licence for the power of cars that is available say 200hp and above.
People are incredibly ignorant about driving fast in high performance cars.
Comment by P. Rotyre posted on
i doubt you could buy a set of tyres on a Granturismo for less than £1400 unless they were remoulds, any top end German sports car costs £1200 to kit out with Contis mate.
Comment by timmy2heads posted on
radius arms’s
Comment by Dazza posted on
Radius arms'
Comment by dan posted on
Last paragraph you say taking them off the road !!!!!!
We don't have the power's to do this so they could of still been driven away.
ive failed stuff that's dangerous and the customer turn's round and say's it's ok it's still got mot until such a date and they are still driving about in it.
Comment by Paul Mason posted on
Yes i too failed lots like that they just drive off crazy isnt it mot tester should have power to remove vehicle off road if its bad before they kill someone
Comment by Daniel Booth posted on
I ring the Police on these cars before they go and report them myself. Not every one, of course, but the ones that have dangerous defects affecting such items as brakes, tyres and steering. The thing is, we shouldn't have to. It costs us time and money. The law should support us more and literally keep these cars off the road.
Comment by brian posted on
my local p.c. o . had a understanding about these vehicles , but when I told my local vosa rep. he got very upset & told me stop ,because it was none of my buissnes
Comment by Bill Dodds posted on
And they want to make the first inspection 4 years? if that comes into power there are going to be some huge repair bills at the first test
Comment by Stevie H posted on
4 years for a first M O T inspection is crazy, as a D V S A - A D I "car driving instructor" my training vehicles cover in excess of 170'000 miles in that period of time, fortunately i take my vehicles in for regular servicing, check tyres, lights and all the usual daily / weekly checks, now imagine if i were not a responsible owner driver covering that mileage ..... and there are some out there ......
Comment by Mr Allan Burdett posted on
Sadly it shows how little some vehicle owners know about what makes a vehicle unsafe and not roadworthy. The question is how can this be satisfactorily addressed e.g. as part of a Driving School Course with an appropriate Video Presentation of some of the consequences that can and do arise. The saying 'a picture can save a thousand words' comes to mind here which could also be ' a thousand lives'.
Comment by Philip Hastings posted on
As a Fleet Driver Assessor, I am daily in vehicles which are not understood by their Drivers, nor in many cases are they interested to know anything about them. Many cannot even tell me whether the vehicle is a front or rear wheel drive, and some even ask ‘is it important?’ Dash panel lights are ignored or misunderstood, so it is unlikely that many will know or care about the condition of the vehicle underneath. I always ask the driver to undertake basic underbonnet checks before we start, and have long since ceased to be amazed at how many cannot even open the bonnet!
Comment by Ad posted on
Accidents waiting to happen keep up the good work
Comment by John M. posted on
Top marks for the MOT examiners.
Comment by Wendy Pain posted on
Oh they understand OK Brian, they just think they can get away with it and they are above the law.
Comment by Barrie posted on
Corrosion to this transit van is in a serious state who the hell tested it last year?
Also the radius arms on both the Nissan and the Vauxhall are unbelievable, never in the memory of man has that happened in the last twelve months they are not mot failures they are death traps
Comment by P ATELVIS posted on
I used to work in a garage in India, those radius arms would have been ok for a few more years before they had a problem even with our very bad Indian roads, UK mot laws are a bit over the top, i would happily drive either car for thousands of miles without a problem.
Comment by John Little posted on
That's why we need the M O T's to stay at 3.1.1
Comment by B. Ridgestone posted on
I agree, or just leave it as it is currently.
Comment by Dave Simpson posted on
I don't get the comments by your editor about" thankfully thanks to so & so this vehicle was taken off the road" i was not aware we had the power to
prohibit .Which means in all probability these vehicles were driven in these dangerous conditions and government figures show untaxed vehicle use has increased & i would presume untested vehicle use has also increased. We the testers should be given the power to prohibit where a vehicle is in such a condition as to pose a risk to others and their vehicle can only be removed
by uplift by transporter.
Comment by Nigel Samson posted on
When i see corrosion like that on the transit, the question has to be asked How did it get through last year ? that much corrosion does not happen in one year
Comment by Gurmit Singh posted on
Well done
Comment by machutus lowe posted on
wow
Comment by B singh posted on
Nice to see boys and girls are doing their work and getting some praise well done
Comment by Andy Constantinou posted on
I can't say that i have seen anything of this age group with corrosion that severe
But well spotted.
Comment by Mike posted on
Probably lived near the coast, the sea can can eat away at iron very fast
Comment by R. Boyle posted on
It is questionable if this amount of corrosion developed to this state in one year from the vehicle previous test?
Comment by Tim posted on
What ever happened to regular maintenance !!
People just seem to think its ok to do nothing and are surprised when their vehicle fails its inspection.
Comment by Mikeyp posted on
this happens all year round not just Christmas
Comment by B. Ridgestone posted on
But mostly at xmas, prob about 90%
Comment by El posted on
would be interesting to see if the transit had a list of advisories from the year before or not as i doubt that sort of corrosion set in in 12 months ?
Comment by Mathew Ellis posted on
I had a Vw camper in my workshop two months ago,last years mot passed with no advisory’s.This year we motd it,I haven’t seen anything so bad in my 30 years in the trade.i asked the customer the question,who had been doing the previous mots.He replied a friend of mine!to this I replied do all your friends want to kill you and your family!
Think he got the message.
Comment by Justin Lloyd posted on
As an NTTA QS trailer centre, I get to see issues just as dangerous as these every day. It still amazes me that people can potentially be towing around up to 3.5 tonnes MGW on the trailer that doesn't need any kind of safety inspection.
The quicker we bring in MOT's for trailers the better.
Comment by John Eady posted on
Truly horror photos. The corrosion onthe suspension arms hasn't happened over just the twelve months.The corrosion must to have been evident on the previous test Where we're these vehicles tested before ?
Comment by richard posted on
This is the problem as testers we face, the general public have no idea what an mot entails,they should be educated, hence the idea of removing manual advisories & possibly introducing 4-2-2 is just plain daft.
A merry Christmas to all at DVSA .
Comment by Richard posted on
Sorry my bad that should have read 4-1-1.
Comment by Wilf posted on
At last mot testers getting some praise!
Comment by B. Ridgestone posted on
Praise indeed to MOT testers (if you can get one to turn up every morning).
Comment by brian aldershot posted on
well spotted! that's why we need mots, the driver of the tranny clearly did not under stand the danger of what he did. brian s
Comment by John Bryden posted on
but if it was a few decades older it would still be on the road as it wouldn't need an MOT. daft or what?
Comment by Mathew Ellis posted on
I totally agree,I get a fair mix of classic cars and newer through my workshop.Most of my customers with classic cars do let us mot them.I think this should be the case on all cars.You only need one component fail and it can be the end of many lives as a result!
Comment by B. Ridgestone posted on
My vast experience in the trade tells me that drivers of classic cars always drive sensibly & would not have an accident which could kill people, after all they're not flying 747's are they.