It’s been a while since we gave you a roundup of what’s happening with the MOT world and what we’ve been working. Over the next few months, I’d like to start sharing more regular updates with you to keep the industry better informed of our plans – especially the improvements we’re making to our digital services.
In today’s blog post, I want to give you an update on using advisories correctly, information on connected cameras and give a final nudge to those of you that are yet to complete their annual training and assessment.
Keeping Britain’s roads safe
The MOT is widely recognised as helping maintain Britain’s high standards of road safety - a testament to the hard work you and your colleagues do every day.
But, the way test results are recorded doesn’t just reflect on the test itself. It also reflects on the motor trade, the garage at which the test’s conducted and the tester themselves.
So it’s important to get it right by ensuring comments and details are factual and relevant.
A key part of the test is using advisories to tell drivers of emerging issues that could affect the vehicle’s safety and performance in the future.
Advice on inputting advisories
We’ve become aware that advisories aren’t always used properly. There are three main issues that I want to share with you.
Using free text when it’s not needed
MTS (MOT testing service) has a range of standard wording for advisories listed against the components that are checked during the test and additionally has a list of pre-defined non-component advisory items that can be easily selected. All you need to do is search for the term you want and there’s a good chance the wording’s already there. Please don’t use free text if there’s already something in the system.
Putting the right things on
Advisories must be meaningful and relevant and are for the issues you find - not the ones you were unable to find. We have looked at some test data and have identified that on a significant number of occasions the same advisory defects have been repeated when a vehicle has been tested a year later. This obviously questions the validity and value of these items. Additionally, there’s no value in stating things like a vehicle’s standard fitment undertray stopped you from taking a full look under the vehicle.
Taking action against inappropriate content
You may well have seen media reports that some testers have used advisories to insult customers, make irrelevant comments and swear. It doesn’t need to be said, but this reflects badly on the MOT, the tester and their employer. DVSA is expanding the list of words that can’t be used for advisories on MTS. If we become aware of testers using them inappropriately, our enforcement teams will visit the test station to check that this is not the only area of their operations with poor standards. This could lead to the suspension of the tester and sanctions to their employer.
We know that testers find the manual advisory feature helpful. But if they continue to be misused in the ways we’ve outlined, we’ll consider removing the feature.
Getting mileage right
As you know, we recently introduced a new feature to MTS to help identify mileage errors. If the reading input by the tester is considerably different or the same as that recorded at the last MOT, an interrupt screen will warn them.
When this screen is shown, testers have to confirm that the reading they’ve entered is correct or edit and correct the reading.
We’ll do a further blog post to discuss this issue in more detail in the next couple of weeks.
Developing new connected equipment
Over the past year, we’ve been investigating and trialling the use of connected cameras in garages. Using a device with a camera built in, like a phone or tablet, will allow the you to take a photo of the vehicle’s number plate that you’re testing and upload it to MTS.
This will help reduce record keeping errors as you won’t need to enter the registration plate manually. This should also help save time during the test.
What’s next for connected cameras
Following the first successful trial last year, we’ve been reviewing the findings and have made some improvements and are we're now planning to carry out a further trial. I want to thank all the garages who took part in the first trial to help us understand more about how this could work. Your feedback has been incredibly useful.
If there are no significant issues identified in the second trial, we plan to launch this feature as the primary method of registering tests.
We’ll let you know how the second trial goes and, if we decide to adopt connected cameras for all MOTs, we’ll give you plenty of warning of any changes.
MOT training and assessment
It’s been great to see that the vast majority of you have completed this year’s MOT training and annual assessment. The deadline is 31 March 2023, so there’s still time to get it done if you hurry.
Call for evidence and consultation
I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank you all for giving your thoughts to the Department for Transport on their consultation and call for evidence on changes to the MOT. There were over 4,000 replies, which are now being collated by DFT and analysed. We’ll share more about the outcome of the consultation and call for evidence when we can.
That’s all – for now
I hope you’ve found this update useful. As I said, they’ll be much more frequent now; we have a great deal we’ll be needing to update you on in the coming months and I look forward to letting you know about the improvements to the MOT as we roll them out.
We’d also like to know what you want to hear about – let us know in the comments box.
115 comments
Comment by Iain posted on
It seems to me that if undertrays prevent inspection of safety critical components the value of an MOT is greatly reduced. If the MOT is to be a real and meaningful safety check undertrays should be removed from the 3rd MOT onwards to check for corrosion and damaged components etc. That might encourage manufacturers to make trays easier to remove! Electric cars having a focus on good aero are likely to have almost complete undercovers.
Comment by Andrew posted on
Test fees ,How can we charge more for the test when the garage across the road which is NOT a test station,blatently advertises mot tests for £37.?
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Hi, If you can e-mail us the details we can investigate if a garage is falsely presenting itself as an MOT test station.
Comment by Stewart Sims posted on
Interesting to see you are trialling use of cameras. As a side project I developed an app which allows MOT testers to send results to customers augmented with photos and comments (you can find it by searching 'Visual MOT', although unfortunately it's only available on Android now as I couldn't justify the cost to keep the Apple version running).
My intention was better clarity and record of issues recorded on the MOT. I always felt that this would be something that could be incorporated by changes to the MOT test one day.
I did get some feedback from testers with a mixed response. The idea of photographing number plates (and perhaps odometer mileage) is one that was raised which I didn't include in my app. I think if you can incorporate that combined with image recognition which automatically transcribes the number plate, then it would be a big time saver.
As for photographing other things for evidence, it will be interesting to see how your trial goes. It seems a no-brainer to me that with everyone having a smart phone these days, an extra few moments taking photos and recording the issues found on the MOT is a great idea. Obviously MOT testers / garage owners will be concerned about the impact on their working lives and business though.
The big question is can the MOT system be upgraded to support this and the amount of data that could potentially be uploaded and the cost associated with it. That's why I opted to try out an app which doesn't upload any photos (they are sent in the form of a report direct from the device to the customer so no file storage or backend needed).
Anyway if anyone from the DVSA or MOT world wants to talk about this, do let me know. The app will probably drop off the app stores altogether in the coming year as I didn't get enough uptake to justify doing more with it. It was a bit of an experiment really. That said it was fully functional and I hope it made a few people think about how MOT testing could change and be brought up to date with modern technology.
Comment by Martin posted on
You are wrong about undertrays which are known to mask potential faults on some models.
You are showing your ignorance on this matter.
And before you carry out your five grand plans is there any chance of correcting the appalling grammar and spelling mistakes in the mot scheme.
It is embarrassing having to apologise to customers on your behalf.
Comment by Ian posted on
After 30 years of testing including training new testers, I did my last mot last year, I'm now glad to be out of testing, to me it seems that the focus on safety is being ignored for the sake of bureaucracy, its true to say that modern vehicles are safer than they were 25 years ago, but the mot test seems not to reflect this, the problems of plastic shielding obscuring vital testable components needs to be remedied by both manufacturers and DVSA, whilst other issues for example such as windscreen damage are extreme, I've yet to find a vehicle so bad that clear sight of the road is obstructed, there are many hair splitting testable items that really have no impact on safety or the environment for example ECU lamp on.
Comment by Jim posted on
Not convinced that a photo of the reg plate would achieve anything. OrIf someone wants to produce a fraudulant MoT, it would be simple to receive a picture of a reg plate from outside the garage via Whatsapp, email etc to use for the test.
The advisary situation is silly, why put the option to use advisaries if DVSA don't want them used? Seems like the thinking is not joined up. All advisaries are useful to the presenter, even the fact that factory fitted trays are present. It clearly says that certain components could not be examined at the time of test. Perhaps the presenter could ask for the components under the trays be examined when the vehicle is serviced. Maybe this type of advisary needs more clarification in its wording.
Not going to mention the fee situation as that is just plain daft
Comment by brian dunn posted on
a few years ago undertrays fitted was part of non component items list which i use regularally it was removed for no reason
Comment by Andy W posted on
Don't agree with having to buy more equipment and no fee increase to help fund it. That needs urgent action.
Agree with security side of photographing plate to stop "ghost" MOT tests.
Hoewever...
This will add more time to the test not save it, only takes 5 seconds to type it in rather than loading an app on a mobile device, take a picture, upload then start logging on on the desktop pc in the office. You are still required to get the chassis number off the vehicle not a job card. Pain using phones to log on & off IMO.
Agree with factory fitted covers don't need advising, we know they're there so DVSA should back the tester if there's an issue. Use for sump/tank/sill guards on competition cars etc. Been testing 20+ years never had an issue.
Comment by Ronnie posted on
Why should the garages fund Anpr cameras ? Dvsa should police cars have them ! A camera that scans a car that provides a correct match through the various data bases and linked to the MOT Test system will save time and get correct details and stop fraudulent tests not done on the premises
Comment by Andy Haworth posted on
There’s nothing worse than a mot tester using the abuse of his power, one rule for all no exceptions
Comment by Michael DUNCANSON posted on
test fee increase long overdue. if it takes about an hour all told with paperwork, washing hands parking up etc. if you charge more than £50 an hour labour it can be a backwards move regarding income recieved over a testers working day. good testers dont come cheap! ask anyone who works freelance. upwards of £150 a day for them or at least £15 an hour for the staff that work onsite everyday. please consider upping the cost.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Howard posted on
A champagne system run on lemonade money. It will never work the way you want unless the scheme is properly funded. Like a lot of authorities in this country there are certain taboo's that you will not aknowledge let alone discuss.
It seems you like to encourage abuse of the advisories to fund the MOT scheme - " Your vehicle has passed the MOT but here is a list of defects (as long as your arm ) which need attention "- , rather than charge a realistic fee.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Chris H posted on
The camera system won't make the slightest bit of difference in time taken to test. We already log onto vehicles using tablets and phones and it takes only a few moments. I suspect this is part of DVSA's enforcement to make sure that a vehicle is at the testing station and no one is doing anything naughty and not have to pay wages to their staff to do so many checks. While I applaud the theory behind it, I will only agree to the inception of this idea if DVSA pay for it. After all , they have already wiped £30k of the value of my business if I want to sell it by virtue of the fact all new connected equipment would be required by the new owner. With regards to advisories, many of those already on the system are not fit for purpose. For example, tyre worn close to the limit/worn on edge. Which one is it? Is their tyre worn down because they have done 20k miles on it, or is it nearly new but the tracking is out and it's unevenly wearing the tyre? Do we just let the customer guess? Not that any of this matters if we go to two year MOTs because my business will be cut in half and I'll have to shut down.... Anyway, back to work.
Comment by Ron posted on
In my opinion, the advisories facility is seriously flawed and is not fit for purpose. I won't go into it here and now, but I have many examples I could list.
Comment by Simon R posted on
I really don't think taking a photo of a number plate is going to save any significant amount of time. I assume we`re still going to have to enter the chassis number and sometimes finding the chassis number can take some time. If DVSA are really worried about saving us time how about a list of where to find chassis number/plates on particular makes and models, also a database of diesel smoke limits rather than us hunting about for stickers and plates with readings on? A few years ago it was mentioned that DVSA were looking into supplying test stations with the diesel smoke limits but I assume no further progress has been made on this?
Comment by Philip Marrinan posted on
Good to see what is in the for us testers but as you pointed out the use of advisories is being misused by a minority of testers so there for DVSA want to penalise all testers for their foolishness. When I became a tester 28 yrs ago the vehicle examiners on the refresher courses alway stressed upon us to remember if in doubt always Pass and advise, at least saw the issue and if there was a re inspection by dvsa there was a record of the issue , And that was our safety net so now how do we cover in this situation, it's always the minority that causes problems for good testers and that's wrong ,come down hard on those that do wrong
Another point I would like to make is I see a large number of cars coming for test with their current test expired several months previously, there should be something in place on the system to reduce the time on the new mot to reflect the time without to insure it penalise the motorist not to happen again, eg if a motorist comes in for mot 3 months late then he or she get a fresh mot for 9 months instead of 12mths with dvsa controlling the expiry date unless a sorn notification is produced
Also I would like to know if the removal of advisories is being pushed forward by the motor manufacturing industry to stop bad reports on their cars, because basically that's what us testers are doing reviewing their products and bad reviews{ advisories} means bad sales
Comment by Richard posted on
Philip exactly what I was thinking regarding the manufactures with advises, or it could be that the less advisories listed looks good figure wise for when they try & push for the 2 yearly mots.
Comment by Stephen Thompson posted on
How about suspending these testers that use advisories to abuse customers? Completely absurd!
Comment by Ian posted on
Unfortunately, i have to disagree. You say there is no value in adding advisories like undertrays fitted. There are more vehicles now fitted with such trays which have the potential of masking safety critical defects. For example, if you look at models within the Mercedes range, metal brake pipes and rear subframes are rotting out, the brake pipes are posing a huge problem as they are bursting! Also Porsche/Audi rear lower arms which also hold the rear springs in place are rotting out to the extent the springs are falling through! These also have a cover on them not allowing a full inspection. These are being obscured by undertrays. In addition, the testers are sometimes unable to check up to 65% of components they need to as part of the test, yet you still expect testers to sign and say that at 'time of test' the vehicle meets the minimum standard.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
As mentioned in response to similar comments, any advisory must be of value to the vehicle owner. Simply recording that a vehicle has a undertray that was a standard part when it was built does not.
Vehicles should undergo regular servicing, maintenance and safety checks to ensure their roadworthiness all times and not rely solely on an MOT test as the only method of checking this.
Comment by Ian posted on
So making the owner aware that components couldn't be checked, and that they should make sure to get these areas checked is of no value to the customer.
Comment by Russ posted on
I’m pretty sure when testers advise under trays are fitted, They advise ‘Under trays fitted not allowing full inspection of ********’ In over 20 years of testing I’ve never seen an advisory stating ‘under trays fitted but it’s a standard part’
Also since when does a tester assume a vehicle is being maintained/serviced/safety checked outside of the annual MOT? You’re basically saying the MOT is pointless because the customer will get it checked another time?
Customers do not know what is and what’s not fitted to their vehicle… So surely advising them accordingly helps, no?
I think the DVSA need to take along hard look at the replies in this thread as they are clearly out of touch with what is actually happening in the real world!!
Comment by Jim posted on
If the advisary regarding trays is not helpful to the presenter, then I suggest that the wording is not fit for purpose. The advisary should be expanded to explain its purpose, so the presenter understands the information recorded.
Comment by Lee Heywood posted on
There is so much wrong with the basics of the testing scheme yet dvsa still try to address the problems that are not there. You must be aware with all the inconsistencies. You hardly use the special notice facility anymore and deem fit to just send a message. It's very frustrating for diligent testers who are committed to the road safety application of the test.
Comment by JOHN PITTS posted on
HI I DONT THINK THE CAMERAS WILL WORK I THINK THEY WOULD BE MORE OF A INDERANCE IE GETTING IN THE WAY DROPPING ON THE THE FLOOR ETC AND MORE COST THE MOT STATIONS
Comment by John Neil Roberts posted on
I have an issue with you stating that undertrays fitted should not be advised, what`s to stop a vehicle being tested, the undertray not being recorded then it being removed and severe corrosion being found and reported, what protection does the tester have to prove that during the test it could not be seen unless he has proof from the advisory that it could ot be seen. To me, all covers preventing inspection should be noted to cover the tester.
Comment by Mike Shaw posted on
Absolutely correct. I had a run in with a customer whose subframe was holed and rotten. He threatened everything under the sun and I would be reported to VOSA etc. I showed him the mot advisory Undertrays fitted obscuring some components underneath the vehicle.. These were attached to the front subframe and up into the wheel arches.
He had removed them to work on his car. If I had not added this line , he could have said they were not there. I wonder which way the investigation would have gone.He tried to get us to fit a new subframe and cover its costs. Lots of cars are now missing engine covers and undertrays
On a refresher the instructor said most emphatically about advisories " Write them down.Cover your , because we won't.".
Comment by Richard posted on
I had tested a Mercedes that had undertrays fitted, passed the vehicle, it came back 2 days later with a leaking corroded brake pipe that I couldn't have seen as it had a full length undertray fitted. Much explaining was done.
I was told by me VI a few years back to stop advising on the vt 20 certificate that engine covers & undertrays were fitted, so what I do now is put a note on the inspection sheet they were fitted at the time of the test, although we don't have to, I keep them for 3 months & then bin them.
Comment by John Neil Roberts posted on
these are real life replies from testers pointing out the importance of advisories on undertrays, the same can be said of engine covers, care to reply DVSA?, not trying to start an arguement, just want to know if you still feel they are unnecessary.
Comment by John Bryden posted on
this is what I do, as you say- if there is a problem later you at least have a record of any covers etc. also note anything that you can't tell/benefit of doubt given items. I staple these to the emission test VTS copy so easy to locate
Comment by Richard posted on
Fully agree that stopping discounted test fees is needed. Flat fee no discount would ensure we can all afford to buy all this connected equipment you are rolling out. Bearing in mind as the regs roll out any equipment we have that is not connected is made completely worthless.
Stop companies discounting MOT tests and level the playing field
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Richard posted on
Good to see Matters of Testing back.
"significant number of occasions the same advisory defects have been repeated when a vehicle has been tested a year later."
What is the reasoning DVSA not wanting to see advisories repeated?
For example tyres are just over the 1.6mm & brake pads say 2.0mm, shock absorber has a light misting of oil & the car does little mileage between tests then the same advisories will get repeated.
When I first started testing way back, pen & paper certificates, I was always told CYA & always advise. You can bet your bottom dollar the one time I don't advise it'll come back & bite me.
Comment by P Brookes posted on
Time to get the presenters to ensure their vehicles are clean and ready for inspection like the heavy goods vehicle requirements and sign documents re Cam belt service requirement
Comment by Tom posted on
Hi the garage I work for, imports vehicles and I have to start a new MOT record every time so they can be registered for the uk. They don’t have any number plates so how would the cameras work.
Thanks
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
We understand that there will be cases like this when tests are required on unregistered vehicles. In this scenario you will still be able to create new vehicle records manually and carry out MOT tests.
Comment by Goff Thomas posted on
I would like to know why people with too much money have their engine remapped to produce this mindless popping and banging often excessively noisy and what effect on emissions? Also many vehicles are fitted with after market hid and high power led headlamp bulbs which are optically incorrect and cause severe dazzle! Most oe led headlamps are incorrectly aligned and the current base adjustment of 1.25% is too high! People driving with illegal tints on front side windows. Motor cycles with no silencers and mot stations don’t fail them. I think the mot system needs a shake up. These are just a few observations.
Retired AE
Comment by Keith Shepherd posted on
Thanks for the update,agree with most of the content,but as said in other comments,put up the MOT fee and NO discounts.
Comment by ANDREW RIPPA posted on
the manual Advisory issue,especially the undertrays of a vehicles,which is approx 1 third of vehicles underside,,with brake/fuel lines which u cant see for damage/corrosion/insecurity,. ,.????..and then passes mot test,,and something happens to vehicle a month later,.???,..
Comment by Paul Slaney posted on
An interesting read , the manual advisories are seen I’m sure by a lot of testers as a cover area .
As a long standing tester of 48 years I’ve seen lots of changes good and bad but the worst one is a lack of back up and reasoning from DVSA if something goes wrong with a car after test and is examined then it’s always the tester fault ! So as far as I can see testers will use the advisories as a get out of jail card until there are more broader advisories available this I assume will continue
Comment by Ron posted on
The problem with the DVSA is they don't seem to want to work with us, only against us most of time.
And what we end up with is a fear culture amongst testers.
Lots of advisories are totally unnecessary, they're used to cover the testers back. Which is not fair on the customer.
I see this with my own eyes day in day out and it's wrong.
People have other things to spend their hard earned money on, like feeding their kids and paying the mortgage.
Comment by james godfrey posted on
I’m a tester and have nothing to gain from a price increase but I feel the mot is undervalued. As for wearing cameras it’s getting more like big brother everyday. I for one will stop being a tester if that ruling comes into force.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Bob Evans posted on
YOU KEEP STATING "Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration." When will you pass these comments on and can we have proof of same please?
Comment by MH posted on
Please justify this sentence “Additionally, there’s no value in stating things like a vehicle’s standard fitment undertray stopped you from taking a full look under the vehicle.”
Anyone who remembers the old system with your 3 colour paperwork, Engine Covers & Undertrays were a tick box in the non-component advisory section to help cover the tester and station.
We all know clearly unlike the DVSA that the first thing to happen is customer returns and says you’ve MOT my car and missed XYZ. Personally if it were taken further and passed to the DVSA I wouldn’t be confident in them having my back and agreeing that you couldn’t have seen that because it’s covered/hidden.
Finally to add to that nothing to say someone wouldn’t go out of there way to remove said obstruction prior to having it examined by the DVSA and then to be told “well how did you miss that it’s clearly right there?”
Our current MOT system is average at best it still does very little to stop fraudulent or criminal activities nor does it prevent poor testers who simply do not know how to use it or even test to a decent standard. Many improvements could be made I just feel the people in charge of this have no idea what day to day testing really involves.
Yet bring out new rules like “vehicles first used on or after 26/01/2010 must have 3 rear view mirrors”
Where on earth was that plucked from? What was the thought process involved in making that decision?
I could have 2 identical model vehicles side by side but if one was registered a day early you can throw a mirror away 👍🏻
I am almost lost for words sometimes…almost, I hate to think how much of tax payers money went into making that particular decision.
Please start doing some meaningful work to improve on our MOT scheme and systems not garbage like that.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
As mentioned in response to similar comments, any advisory must be of value to the vehicle owner. Simply recording that a vehicle has a undertray that was a standard part when it was built does not.
As with any appeal, the vehicle examiner would need to establish whether any missed defects would clearly have been visible at the time of the original test before considering taking any action.
Comment by MH posted on
As posted in my comment how can we be defended as many others have also said if these things are then removed prior to another inspection by the DVSA?
Add a non-component advisory that states due to manufacturer fittings a full examination is not possible.
If you feel it’s not necessary then you may as well throw away Child Seats fitted whilst we’re at it.
Nail in tyre, who cares? Just get rid of the lot?
You cannot make a person Service their vehicle in this country and a vast portion do not care for anything other than getting an MOT pass and calling it job done for another year.
Maybe the DVSA should remind the country of the Roadworthy Directive that must be obeyed 365 days of the year?
Comment by Bob Evans posted on
Stating that there is an undertray fitted is beneficial to the presenter as it tells them some parts could not be tested.
Comment by john posted on
No excuse for improper use of advisories , but i often have to further explain some of poorly worded failure selections
Can we have for example
Front tyre below limit instead of the pre populated
tyre below limit Front ?
Comment by Ian posted on
I don't see the problem with the same advisorys year after year, if a tyre is cracked one year it doesn't automaticaly mean it will be showing cords the following year to justify a fail, same goes for a slightly corroded brake pipe, tread depth, suspension bush etc i could go on and on.
Maybe you should be looking at the vehicle presenter for having a total disregard for advisorys until it becomes a failure.
Comment by James posted on
Cameras will save no time. The DVSA wouldn't be so keen on wasting time and money on connected rubbish and camera schemes if they hadn't had a pay rise in 13 years. It would be more prudent to fix the problems with the manual and have safer vehicles on the road.
Comment by Ian posted on
2 out of 4 of mot testers have decided to not to do the annual training and test. We do so few Mots that it's a waste of time keeping up with the changes. I'm one of them and more than happy not doing them . It was costing me in lost bonus payments for our main work.
Been a tester since 2000 . So that's 2 more to the large numbers leaving the MOT system.
Comment by Richard posted on
When doing a retest that hasn't left the building it states that the mileage is the same as the last test , why can't it recognise that the mot was done that day and the mileage probably will be the same or only a couple of miles over . Also why do you keep swapping the advisorys for tyres ie 1.6mm minimum and 1.0mm minimum one day ones on top then next day its the other way round .
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
You need to record the mileage at the time the retest is being carried out. The system can’t presume that the reading hasn’t changed during that day.
With regard to the ordering of defects, we are aware of this issue and are looking into it.
Comment by Philip Marrinan NT, AE & QC posted on
A very good point, Omg I thought it was just me that that was happening to, the order in which defects are listed keeps changing from day to day, just when you have it sorted in your head where a rfr is they have moved up or down the listing, tyres and none components advisories just to mention, it's a nightmare when time is limited,
Comment by Stuart posted on
Thanks for that Richard, thought i'd lost the plot too. I kept taking photos of the tyre layout. What happened to proof readers.
Comment by adrian moger posted on
one set price is the way to go.fair for everyone and no cheap and cheerful cut price mot,s just to draw in business.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Robert Miles posted on
Photo of both number plates will stop the idiotic practice of miss spaced numbers/letters on vehicle reg plates I see 10-20 a day driving too and from work ! Where do these people obtain a legal mot from !/ we ought to get our act together as we are supposed professional people applying a minimum standard for road users
Comment by Richard posted on
Aren't you aware that people change there plates as soon as it has got a pass on it .
Comment by Ronnie posted on
They have another pair in the boot or trunk as the American s call it
Comment by Michael Burnley posted on
Entering vehicle details via connected cameras what a waste of time and money its just a way of feeding in more big brother peeping over your shoulder and cutting back on your manpower and costs and putting the costs onto the garages that are already struggling with the cost of equipment. The fee needs to rise to reflect these costs and do away with the discounts on fees it only promotes dodgy tactics to recoup the money lost
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Robert Miles posted on
Fully agree a fixed test fee no matter who or where your are with a trade discount of 20% and no more to be applied
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Ron posted on
That’s an interesting one, the trade discount of 20%.
Did you know the if you are vat registered, you would have to charge YOUR customer 20% vat?
So if a third party takes your car for mot, and they charged the customer full price, that customer would have to pay more than the maximum fee. 20% more.
Comment by TOM posted on
DVSA Could raise the standard of its public image by improving grammar
and creating proper sentences on mot failure notices, advisories and add on test is often used to try and improve the standard wording.
The the pre recorded message on the DVSA help line explaining the delay due to 1 minutes silence on NOV 11TH was still active weeks after .
DVSA Should lead by example .
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
To make the selection of defects easier for testers the service will use generic wording for some defects. This allows the tester to use free text to specify the exact defect.
Comment by Eric Shaun posted on
It says you could use a phone to take a photo of the registration plate for the connected cameras.
Does that mean the requirement for a 10 inch screen to conduct an MOT will be abolished?
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
There is no limit to the screen size for a mobile device or tablet to access and use the MOT testing service. However, it is currently designed to run on tablet with a minimum screen of 9 inches.
Comment by David Self posted on
Updates really help to guide and focus given the amount of information to be absorbed. I would also like to add my 10 pennyworth on the issue of fees which, as has been pointed out, have not risen in over 13yrs despite our costs having risen exponentially over the same period. £54 is a nonsense and does not represent a reasonable return on output. I continue as a service to my clients. The fee should also be at a set rate for all . I cannot see how any station can charge £35 and run a business given the costs. I also do not understand why my business should have to subsidise either the motorist or the DVSA.
Comment by Michael Williams posted on
You say there’s no value in advising things like under trays, but if that undertray is then removed and corrosion is found which the tester couldn’t see, this could lead to an appeal, and as the tester has not advised under trays fitted it becomes their word against the complainants word . What side would DVSA take ?
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Any advisory must be of value to the vehicle owner. Simply recording that a vehicle has a undertray that was a standard part when it was built does not.
As with any appeal, the vehicle examiner would need to establish whether any missed defects would clearly have been visible at the time of the original test before considering taking any action.
Comment by S Wade posted on
What would happen if you test a car with under tray with a very corroded brake pipe and tray gets taken off and pipe fails. I agree that you shouldn’t have to advise under tray fitted but we were told to advise things like this to safe guard ourselves
Comment by Ian bienias posted on
Good update. I think you should remove the manual advisories section but make sure all defects have an advisory option so there is no need to ever not find the correct defect. The undertray advisories should be noted on inspection sheets or make a section for notes that can stay on the system but no go on the vt20 or vt30
Comment by Gerald Desmond Briggs posted on
Thanks as always for the updates. Informative and showing the way forward
Comment by P GOODSPEED posted on
Some good information keep it coming! cameras good idea & will stop dodgy tests to some point.
My biggest gripe is mis-spelt number plates we have to fail them & customer goes mad or has another set in boot! to put on and take off later.
we all see them daily and the customer says POLICE don't care be on for years never been told off until now!! Makes testers look bad if Police never enforce it.
Annoying as hell !!!
Comment by mark williams posted on
I say it again ref connected equipment. The amount of money garages are having to spend out is astronomical on linked equipment. We are in the process of putting in new ATL equipment to replace old worn out ramp and feel every one should charge DVSA recommended price and everyone is then on same rate. When you have several garages in the same area all and some are charging as low as £25 for MOT and Woucher for £19 its a joke.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Nick Aris posted on
Very useful information, clear, concise and easy to follow
Comment by Mike Butland posted on
I think the blog is very useful nothing like a bit of guidance to smooth the way forward.I would also like to see enforced mot fee after all you can’t shop around for cheap vehicle excise duty I also think cheap price mots devalue the service
Comment by Mark Huish posted on
I agree about having a fixed fee for MOTs it's ridiculous that some garages are charging low prices they are undermining the mot scheme to get people into there garages
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Ron posted on
Well, we all know why they do it.
Comment by m smith posted on
I totally agree with you, a fixed price MOT no discounts by any body, previous replies by the DVSA have said that the garages operate in a free market, that remark only devalues the credibility of the MOT system.
The Dep't for transport need to keep to the original reason the MOT was introduced ie safety and NOT say they are introducing changes to save the motorist money.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Steve posted on
100% agree
Comment by PGM French posted on
Agreed. The severe discounting of the test fee has been a bone of contention for decades. A minimum fee must be the cure. I would suggest £65.00, with free retest.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by BOB EVANS posted on
Totally agree about pricing.but does dvsa not want testers to cover their backs with advisory of under trays, after all its a fact that they stop us seeing/testing several items fully.
Comment by Michael higgs posted on
Can we develop some kind of plug in device to see if a vehicle has been mapped There are too many garages mapping out egr and cats out of the system,
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Looking at how we test vehicles in the future was part of the Department for Transport consultation that has just closed.
The responses to this are now being analysed and will be used to define any future changes to how vehicles are tested.
Comment by Tim Whitehead posted on
Len , i agree, fixed fee, say £50, & no free retests as well
Comment by Philip Dunmore posted on
Why £50? That is less than current maximum for a class 4 test. Many of us already charge this and have done for some years. Double your figure would be closer to a true costing.
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Georgi Georgiev posted on
I'm a MOT station owner and mechanic and as many of us I also think the MOT fee must be fix price for everyone and £54 is a way too cheap for a MOT(2008 I was paying £45 MOT on my own car but on that time the mechanics wages was £10 per hour(nearly twice the munimum) which mean 2xMOT's pays the day for 1 mechanic or MOT tester! New a days All MOT testers deserve good salary (minimum £18-20 per hour but how the trade to pay this money when DVSA keep MOT maximum price 54.85?! MOT price must be betwen£65 and £80
and to be fixed by the Government! If government willing to save people a money they must do it by removing the ''TV Licence'' which currently is 3times a usual MOT Fee instead trying to reduce MOT test once every 2nd year !
Comment by Rob Webb (DVSA) posted on
Test fees are set by DfT. We'll feed your comments to them for consideration.
Comment by Lyn Softley posted on
Thanks for letting use all know what your up to. hope you can do something about the advisory problem .
Connected cameras good idea number plates, chassis plates ,mileage.
may be even testers wearing cameras.
On training and assessment it would be good to know if tester numbers are falling.
With all that is going on with 411/422 I really think it is time for a large increase in the max price of the MOT to cover our extra costs, and to invest in new connected equipment.
Comment by Michael Carruthers posted on
My question is if DVSA can go on strike for better pay what about the MOT station
Comment by Michael Carruthers posted on
We already use I Pads to upload information to reception will this new system allow us to utilise existing technology
Comment by martin posted on
Taking a photo of the numberplate wont save any time. It literally takes about 5 seconds to type it in. A complete waste of time and money.
How about helping test stations, who are struggling with ever increasing costs by increasing the test fee that hasn't changed in 13 years!
Comment by Andy posted on
It's not about saving time, a lot of testers can't be trusted to type the right reg' in, or not take details straight off the job card.
Be good if it was designed to not recognise any plate with improper spacing or features. Gets that argument with the customer out the way before you start the test.
Anyway, it's the first step in using tech' to make sure the actual tester that's logged in is actually there doing the test.
Way too many dodgy goings on and it reflects badly on all the decent garages.
Come down on them harder I say.
Comment by martin posted on
i agree with you, however the article mentions no use of cameras to stop mot fraud. We h ave all heard stories of mots being conducted without the vehicle even on the premises. These testers should be banned for life. plain and simple. Maybe if the DVSA conducted more mystery shoppers and random site visits, this would help. Along with proper training.. you know like we used to do in person..
Comment by Andy posted on
well said Martin, its not exactly hard to type a reg number in, and just forcing garages to buy new equipment which isn't needed, whilst testing fees are frozen at such a low cost
Comment by Terence Murphy posted on
Maybe using a connected camera is a way to guard against fraudulent MOT's, you know, the ones that are issued on cars that haven't even been to the station, great idea in my opinion!
Comment by Simon R posted on
Of course thats the reason they want cameras used, why not just come out and say it, rather than pretending its to save testers time or to stop incorrect registration number being entered.
Comment by Charles Sweeney posted on
If this blog is only aimed at MOT testers and garages, just say so. I'm not a tester, I don't own a garage. I'm a web developer and I use the DVSA Trade API for test data. Members of the public are also free to read the blog. While you are asking a lot from testers, you might ask something of yourself, to recognise your audience.
If you only want to address testers and garages, email them directly.
Comment by Olivia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Charles, thanks for your feedback. The blog post is aimed at garage owners and testers, which it states on the homepage for the blog. We do send out direct information as needed, but use our blog posts to openly share the things we're working on so that anyone with an interest can see. Thanks, Olivia
Comment by NC posted on
Member of the public here. I find this blog interesting to read about the developments in testing and issues arising, thanks for making this information available.
Comment by Jc posted on
Read title correctly for trade and testers.
Comment by NC posted on
The blog literally states "Official advice and information for MOT testers and the MOT industry".
Comment by Len Guy posted on
A very informative update, and everything contained in it is justified, I’ve read about some childish advisories being added and totally disagree with them, keep up the good work and I’d still like to see an enforced mot fee for all garages ( no discounts ) but that’s not for here