You may have heard us mention this a few times over the last few years but we’re now getting near to implementing the roadworthiness directive. This follows recent Department for Transport (DfT) consultations.
Most of the changes from this directive will need to happen in May next year, but for now, we’ll provide you with an overview of what we expect to change. We’ll focus on the detail over the next few months
What this means
The directive is a very broad set of rules that covers everything to do with the on road condition of vehicles. It won’t mean huge changes for us, but there’ll still be changes in the world of MOT, including some positive steps to tighten-up the rules on emissions.
One of the changes related to the directive is how 'historic vehicles' are dealt with - something DfT consulted on.
As a result of this consultation, the government has decided that there’ll now be a ‘rolling 40 year old’ exemption from MOT, instead of the current fixed pre-1960 rule. However, this will only apply for those vehicles that haven’t been modified.
Changes to the MOT test
The directive will change how we categorise defects. From 20 May 2018, they’ll be categorised as either ‘dangerous’, ‘major’ or ‘minor’, to help focus drivers on what’s more important.
Whilst this will help us explain to them how to look after their vehicles better, we’ll need to be careful not to make things complex for us all.
Dangerous and major defects
‘Dangerous’ and ‘major’ defects will cause the MOT to be failed. We’re still working on how we’ll make this look for drivers, but we want to make sure that the dangerous defects stand out on the documentation. This is to make it clear to them that they shouldn’t drive the vehicle away in that condition.
Minor defects
Where ‘minor’ defects are identified, these can be considered along the same lines as advisories are today.
We’re still doing some research on how these sit alongside some of things we currently issue advisories for, and how best to display this information to drivers.
When things are clearer, we’ll blog about this again. Some of you will see us as we’re out and about doing our research, so please feel free to ask us about it!
Advisories
We’re considering ways of allowing observations to be noted that aren’t aimed at the car driver.
An example of this might be if there was something like an undertray fitted that was stopping a tester from getting to parts that they would otherwise inspect.
This could be useful information to have noted for an MOT appeal, but it wouldn’t appear on the notes given to the car drivers, because it’s not information aimed at them.
It would be good to hear your thoughts on this, so please leave your comments at the end of this blog post.
The other area on advisories that we’re considering changing, is whether we move away from manual advisories - if all the ‘test related’ and other standard ones are available and easy to find. This may be a contentious change for some, so we’ll set out our thoughts in more detail in a follow-up blog post to make sure we get your feedback.
Emissions Testing
There will also be some changes to the emissions test that will lower the limits for diesel cars. This will mean some changes to diesel smoke meter settings or software. We’re currently working with the garage equipment manufacturers to enable them to get ready to do this work.
We’ll update you on what needs changing later this month, to give you at least 6 months to schedule this work in.
The inspection manual
All of these changes will mean that the manual will change. We’ve already been getting feedback on an early version from our VTS Council members, and we’ll make sure this is captured in the revised version, ready to be published shortly.
Vehicle categories
The directive will require us to move to the standard EU vehicle categories, which will help to bring consistency, from vehicle approval through to on road use. However, we’ll keep to the MOT classes for garage authorisations, for now - so this shouldn’t change the way how we do testing too much.
Research with garages and customers
We’re determined that the directive, and the changes it will bring, should make it easier for us to accurately record MOT results and provide information that will help drivers to look after their vehicles.
This means that we’ll need to do a lot of research with garages and their customers, so expect to see us out and about.
In the meantime, we’d appreciate your feedback, below in the comments section, so we can plan the way ahead.
299 comments
Comment by MOT JUICE Barry posted on
Keep the manual advisories PLEASE. We use them very successfully to protect us and keep customers well advised.
Join me in voting to keep them
Barry. CCM Garages & MOT Juice
Comment by Tony S posted on
We need manual advisory's.
Get a lot of BALD Tyres at the edges, the edge on a lot of tyres is not measurable becos it starts it's life with less tread than the primary grooves.
Can't really advise close to legal limit, becos legally your not allowed to drive with a bald tyre, you can get a fine and 3 points for any tyre that is bald, even if it's at the edge, So we need to type it in.
Lots of other scenario's like this.
(did you notice my typo's)
Comment by colin comerford posted on
Great idea regarding rolling 40 yr exemption. Also like the minor /major marking on the paperwork as majority of customers/car owners don't really pay any attention to Advisories as long as they have a new mot for 12 months.
Comment by Jim posted on
No mention of 4 year testing for new cars has that finally been ditched
Comment by Ian Ellis posted on
I fail to see the need to split the MOT failures into 2 categories: "dangerous" and "major". Both are failures which will require correction immediately so the MOT can then be passed.
Comment by Paul T posted on
Exactly! Its preposterous! Another big wig college graduate making decisions for us poor uneducated grease monkeys!
Comment by Steve Shaw posted on
We'd like to know what will constitute modifications on older vehicles such as;
Polyurethane bushes?
Non original seats/ re-trimmed interiors?
Harness type seat belts?
Specification changed from overseas to European spec?
Electronic ignition?
Colour change?
Comment by rob crane posted on
advisories are aimed at the owner / driver to make them aware some potentially, possible dangerous if worn items have not been checked because access was not possible due to an under tray or cover being fitted.
to remove this advisory from the owners / drivers paper work could be a dangerous step for all.
Comment by Shaun philbey posted on
Removing manual advisory’s I think will be a bad idea it is useful to let drivers no something about their vehicle condition which is not necessarily related with the test I often get asked why wasn’t I tiled that on my mot and to say it doesn’t matter doesn’t always please the customer
Comment by Nigel posted on
I would like to be able to still be able to input manual advisories I think this a very useful tool in get ing information to customers about the condition of their vehicle for example with tyres they could have plenty of tread but be worn badly on the edges. Another one is maybe just one exhaust bracket broken. Also perhaps the customer would like to know if any undercover was preventing a full inspection of the underside it could be included the same way as child seat are recorded not allowing full inspection of seat belt.As for the dangerous and major fault surely if its failed the mot its already become a major fault and we have the option of ticking a dangerous defect box anyway so not sure how this would benefit
Comment by george brammah posted on
there should be something put in place for removing the covers so brake pipes can be inspected know a few thats burst
Comment by Richard Owen posted on
I think it would be a shame to remove manual advisories. It is such a handy tool.
Comment by Trevor posted on
Do the changes also apply to HGV and PSV testing?
The evolution of OCRS and Earned Recognition systems means minor faults are likely to have a dis proportionate effect on compliance.
This will probably lead to a flood of appeals and legal challenges? Should this happen time and resources will be wasted. The important thing is doing the job and ensuring vehicles are safe not arguing over the small print.
Comment by David evans posted on
Manual entered advisories are very important as not all items are on the mot system and it also gives testers the means to inform drivers about potential faults IE exhaust corrosion
Comment by Ian bienias posted on
Would like to see some advisories to be kept separate as customers don't need to know about some ie undertrays and headlights level adjusted, I don't think having 3 types of criteria is good we should just have fail and advise to give clarity on the certificate, having 3 makes things even more subjective.
Comment by Mick posted on
You MUST NOT remove the manuel advisories from the cusomers coppy of there pass or fail certificate. As a class 1/2 tester I know that there are many items that are covered by the Road Trafic Act that are not covered by the class1/2 testing manuel but are included in all outher test clases. As the class 1/2 test stands I have to issue a pass certificate on a bike that I know dosn't conform to the RTA. Hear are 2 examples of items of a fail for a class 4 vehical which by the RTA apply to ALL vehicals, speedometer illumination, numberplate illumination (under 50 cc vehiclels exempt), therfore I NEED the manuel advisories to inform the customer of ther Legal requirments even if I have given them A pass for a vehicle that is breaking the Law.
Comment by T Gallacher posted on
Advisory notices (manual or predefined) need to be recorded and aimed at both the customer and for DVSA records. Whether the customer understands the implications or not, they need to be made aware no matter how trivial (an under tray fitted obscuring otherwise testable items) or serious (a dangerous oil leak) a defect may be. Manual advisories should remain until DVSA have every possible defect defined in the system and let’s face it, this won’t happen in one go.
Comment by Dave Siddons posted on
Do not agree with anything that prevents a car from being driven away from garage. I may wish to complete the repairs myself. Many garages are already corrupt with respect to MOTs. This gives them free reign to fail subjectively and guarantee work at whatever they choose to charge. Bad idea.
Comment by brad posted on
I have tested a car today and the brake pipe burst while carrying out brake roller test, So you think the customer should be allowed to drive it away (it has no service brakes at all) ????
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Brad
This has always been a difficult one as a VTS has no power to impound the vehicle. It is important you explain to the customer that they are committing an offence by driving a knowingly defective vehicle on the road. The introduction of the dangerous deficiency next year and an explanation of the impact of this will help.
Comment by John cole posted on
I am often advising on tyres that are worn below the tread on inside edges but still within legal limit and exhaust systems being corroded but not blowing or not insecure but are not recognised on the advise menu. Because these items are not on the dropdown menu I feel they are being overlooked by testers who are reluctant to enter them manually.
Comment by Michael May posted on
All vehicles which are in a dangerous condition should immediately be prohibited from use on a public road as are h g v vehicles currently,as a repairer of some 30 years experience I have seen some horrific example's of badly maintained and or repaired private vehicles that I personally would not drive anywhere.
Comment by Chris Rudge posted on
Advising that undertrays are fitted ought to be conveyed to drivers.
They may wish to pay extra to have the trays removed & refitted to allow vehicle full inspection of the vehicle.
Some drivers rely on the MOT as an important safety check, not just a box ticking exercise.
Comment by Daniel Vick posted on
I don’t feel removal of manual advisories to be a good thing as many items don’t have the option to advise, they’re either PRS, failed, or not mentioned at all. I’ve always been told manual advisories are to draw the vehicle owners attention to defects found outside of the mot test scheme or not listed as advisory, but are we to assume now we aren’t to do this now? In some garages the tester doesn’t get to speak to the vehicle presenter so is unable to verbally address any issues found and that being the only option seems stupid to remove I.e. windscreen cracked in view to the sky etc or rear wiper blade does not clear the screen etc, most vehicle owners see any damage or defect as a failure and some raise issues where their car has passed when they feel it should have failed and an easy explanation provided via manual advisories would have settled that argument.
Also why are propshaft universal joints still not a failure? I see many where they are badly worn and wearing the yoke away but still unable to fail them unless they form part of the suspension I.e. Jaguar, these types and driveshafts are failable items but not standard rear wheel drive or even 4x4 propshafts and when they do fail they cause catastrophic damage and also accident and injury, we had a case near us where a transit van had a propshaft universal joint fail causing the propshaft to detach from the gearbox dig in to the road and turn the vehicle onto its side, also a land rover defender where a front propshaft failed causing the propshaft to come through the floor and break the drivers ankle, surely these are defects we as testers should be able to fail? As you know many vehicle owners will only maintain their vehicles to mot standards and being informed of an “advisory” will be left to see if it fails the next year until rectified.
Even with the 1960 rule I still see many older vehicles for tests as many insurers are insisting on an Mot before issuing cover so I can’t see a rolling 40yr changing much.
Comment by Nigel Taylor posted on
Personally as a garage that does a lot of hot rods /yanks etc it is a good idea to have these type of vehicles mot,d and checked every year and most of my customers respect what I have found or advised on over the years .The minor advisories I agree should be introduced as many things don't make a car unroadworthy but to get rid of the advisories all together is suicidal ! ...
Comment by Colin Gossage posted on
Manual advisories are important to testers because a set list of someone else's observations will not always satisfy the need. As time passes, vehicle defects and construction may change and the list of advisories will not, as has been seen, keep pase. The clear objective of this change is to restrict use of the advisory element of the system, reduce storage and save money, not improve. By the way. What adjustment is to be made to the slot fee for the cost of MOT training. Now that DASA is not providing any?
Comment by J a chester posted on
Will all age related faults rely on the amount of new parts fitted
No front brake light needed over a Age will depend on new parts fitted ?
This seems a area not to be taken lightly
Has from what as been stated we could have two moterbikes in before 1986
One being totally standard
One not one with no front brake light and legal and one with lots of new parts and not legal
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi there
As now, vehicle age will be determined by the vehicle registration date. The 40 exemption from test will apply to vehicles manufactured or first registered more than forty years ago and have not been substantially altered. These vehicles will be known as Vehicles of Historical Interest (VHI) and guidance for owners of substantially altered vehicles of this age is currently being developed by DfT.
Comment by J a chester posted on
How will the old but with lots of new parts affect vehicle with old type number plates as it stands now they are legal up to 1972 but if what you are saying about new parts will this affect that rule
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi there
As now, vehicle age will be determined by the vehicle registration date. Old type number plates currently have a rolling exemption of 40 years.
A recent special notice (2-17) explained that black and silver registration plates were acceptable on all vehicles manufactured before January 1977. The 40 exemption from test will apply to vehicles manufactured or first registered more than forty years ago and have not been substantially altered.
These vehicles will be known as Vehicles of Historical Interest (VHI) and guidance for owners of substantially altered vehicles of this age is currently being developed by DfT.
Comment by B w jennings posted on
I'm concerned that there is nothing in the advisory to cover a tyre that is still legal but could be 50 miles from exposing cords due to wear on one edge only .
Comment by castrolrob posted on
there is,you type in tyre ON limit/worn to internal structure(which used to be a fail but lets not go there)but unfortunately that's a manual advisory which takes up yet more of our increasingly limited time and as such will probably be removed from the test to save us poor dears from having to worry.......removing manual advisories is insanity that could only be justified by providing us with a proper and accurate amount of pre allocated advises on the system.there are few items indeed that could be an advisory instead of a fail but precious few on the system that are any real world use to us.if they want them set up so they aint on the mot history then so be it but they are our only way of covering our posteriors.while on the subject BRING BACK THE COVERS ADVISE!I AM FED UP WITH TYPING IT OUT BY HAND 10 TIMES A DAY
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi there
Thanks for your feedback. We'll explain our thinking on this one in more detail in another blog shortly. As you suggest we will need to make sure that the ‘preset’ advisories cater for the things you need – and this will then save you time in typing things.
Comment by Alan Canham posted on
I would have thought that manual advisories such as under trays fitted should still be seen by the driver, surely they have a right and need to know that all items may not have been inspected fully, I cannot see any reason why they should not be informed of any possible defect on their vehicle.
Comment by S Calvert posted on
I used to always 'advise' where undertrays and engine covers were fitted, until our last VE visit. We were then told by the VE that if that particular make and model of car was known to have them fitted as standard then there was no need or requirement to Advise that they were fitted.
Since then we've heard conflicting advise..........
Comment by joe posted on
still with the European directives. why change vehicle class now? tester advise not on a certificate is a good idea. and emissions?! can't get much lower can they?
Comment by D wheatley posted on
I Think the drivers view of the road needs tweaking as I picked up points for failing a car on insecure wipers that were ripped at least two inches on either end the examiner that checked it said I couldn't fail it because it was still clearing the screen but I didn't fail it for not clearing screen but for being insecure surely if the rubber is not attached along its entire length it is insecure
Comment by Robert j wilson posted on
Time to retire I,am thinking
Raw falkirk
Comment by Roger Chaplin posted on
This all seems to be good for testers and car owners if done the right way
Comment by Stephen evans posted on
Just a way to pick on older diesel vehicles that the government encouraged us to buy
Comment by Paul posted on
Funny how the DVSA use the words, make things too complex for us all, under the heading "changes to the mot test" what a load of twaddle being an mot tester has rapidly got more and more complicated over the last few years particularly since the introduction of the new annual training nobody really understands it fully i suggest reverting back to the old way and sit in a classroom with trainer. Also i disagree with the removal of manual advisories as there's no way on earth you could possibly think of every advisory- stop meddling and Leave it alone.
Comment by mark posted on
totally agree
Comment by Paul T posted on
Here, Here!
Comment by Andy posted on
Good news about the rolling 40 waiver on MOT tests. I have just moved back to the UK from France, where there are no tests at all for 2 wheelers. It could be supposed that the roads would be awash with unsafe motorbikes. But this is just not the case. They seem to take care and a pride in their 2 wheelers and are not afraid or too tight fisted to take them to a workshop/dealer to keep them roadworthy. As the owner of 2 Classics that just missed the 1960 cut-off I particularly welcome the changes. Maintainance and safety checks are carried out on an almost daily basis on older vehicles in my ( 50 years on the road) experience.
Comment by michael posted on
Make it difficult for the cheats
Comment by Alan Fearnley posted on
I dont like the fact that cars over 40 years old do not require an MOT, this is a stupid idea and could lead to a lot more dangerous vehicles on the road, imagine some young driver buys a 1977 Ford fiesta and then starts driving it around even though it has been garages for the last 20 years, brake fluid has never been changed, how soon before he loses his brakes and kills someone? maybe even your kid or mine, All because he does not require a MOT and can jump straight in it without having it certified as safe, stupidity at its finest.
Teaching people about their cars through clearer MOT procedures would be a good thing bit to be fair your average motorist cannot even tell you what a ball joint is and leave all that to the garages they get to service their vehicles, what you need to look at is garages as I dont remember the last time I saw a garage take a car on a road test when being serviced let alone the last service my car had they didn't even notice the noise on my drivers door as the check strap was loose let alone the 3 MOTs it had with this issue not being raised even though it is a advisory point and was a quick tightening of 2 bolts to rectify, it wasn't until I fitted new headlamps and had the car in for a beam adjustment that it was noticed and fixed. Most issues are not with the MOT but with the garages that carry out the inspections and services, the amount of times I have had a vehicle in for a service and it failed an MOT the next day on something that the service should of pointed out is ridiculous and same goes for MOT pass and then a garage tells me that something is a MOT failure yet it was MOT'd less than 100 miles before the garage gets hold of it and it should of been spotted as it was obviously a problem that would not of Jus t occurred.
Reevaluating the MOT is Just a waste of money and resources that would be better put in to policing the industry so they are consistent with the rules that are already in practice and all I can see with emissions is that you will end up crippling those that cannot afford new vehicles let alone it has been proven that some of the older diesels are actually cleaner than the latest ones being sold in real life running tests. Too many people in offices making decisions that are not good in real world situations.
Comment by Mike Wattam posted on
Worth mentioning that the 'Brexit' supposition, will prompt many to think these new rules will be rescinded after we leave the EU.
However, after Brexit I strongly suspect the EU will insist that any UK-registered vehicles entering the EU must have documentary evidence they are tested to EU standards. Therefore the new standards must continue to apply after any 'Brexit' implementation.
Let us not forget that these improvements although they will be financially hurtful to both customers and the garage trade, will improve safety and pollution - both paramount objectives.
Comment by Mr colin Richard Davies posted on
Sounds a good move forward but i feel it would be more impactful to have a couple more descriptive headings such as the fourth being (Continued road safety precautional attension advisories) or any heading that relates to “don’t overlook”to relate to those advisories all to often overlooked, brushed aside or forgotten till the next MOT is due, main target being slight play in ball joints and bushes, the defects that i as tester feel that less than 30% get rectified even after stressing the need for repair soon.
The fifth heading being just for informative (Noteworthy advise) the heading under which you could advise on issues that are more informative of the overhaul condition and life expectancy of the vehicles condition due to corrosion throughout or engine issues, that area that kind of pre-warnes the presenter to budget for a replacement or major repairs to come.
I feel the categorising of the documents are a lot more informative as the important stuff will stand out more, The other big issue and I do feel is a very big issue is the Welsh sentences amongst the English is very overpowering, people I talk to and myself feel that this makes the document to congested and hard to absorb, make the welsh copy optional on demand and in doing so will greatly reduce the amount of inks and paper consumed in Wales therefore better for the environment to.
Comment by Paul Mifsud posted on
From my experience I'll make the test result as binary as possible, Pass or Fail and Advise, leave as it is, just tweak it a little. In my opinion ADVISE is a stronger word. Some vehicle presenters might think that a Minor defect is not important and thus can ignore. As for non component related items ,please increase the list,covering as many scenarioes as possible, one example that I wish to see added is : Engine covers and under trays fitted obscuring testable items from view of test.
Comment by Paul T posted on
It doesnt matter how they try and catagorise any advises imo as a good tester or garage will alwasys explain their advisories in detail and tell them honestly which advises are the most important. Like ive said in another post they are trying to be clever and making tests too complicated when the original system worked just fine..Every so called "modernisation" they give us sets us backwards.
Comment by John Scott posted on
I think the roadworthy directive is a good thing and a positive move towards informing the the driver in a clearer way as to the condition of there vehicle, I do however feel the manual advisory should stay, I have many times come across reasons for this that has not been listed as advisory’s and had no adverse affect on the vehicle but felt the driver should be aware it.
Comment by Kevin Bryanton posted on
I think manual advisories need to remain as they allow us testers to draw attention to defective non testable items - eg spare wheel condition, bodywork damage (which can prevent accusations against the tester/site), insecure wheel trims and other items.
Failing this, I would suggest that you will need to incorporate such items into the test menu in order that they can be notified to the presenter.
I am not making criticism. merely suggesting. I think you have done a superb job with the system and your ongoing improvements are welcome.
Comment by Kevin Nicks posted on
As with anything to do with Governments, this is all getting far too complex, for MOT testers, customers and for yourselves, should anyone speak to DVSA they will get conflicting advice too, depending on who they speak to.
The custom car/Hotrods/slightly Modified car world is already in turmoil about the up coming changes as it is.
This will turn into a complete shambles.
I could give you advice as to how to change things, but it is not my place to do so is it?
You have my email address should you want to discuss.
Regards
Kevin Nicks.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Kevin
Dft is working on this definition now - and we will share when available.. It will then be for a owner to declare whether it does or doesn’t meet that definition.
Comment by paul posted on
Sounds like another load of "dumming down" the MOT to me. don't punish drivers for pollution because we are easy targets. target the air lines
Comment by Mick posted on
There's nothing wrong with our MOT system as it is as long as the tester doe's his job to VOSA standards .
A rolling 40 yr exemption and 4yr for 1st test is asking for trouble , just look at the percentage of failures for these cars to prove that.
People are now buying classics just because they wont have to look after them.
Comment by Colin posted on
Interesting to know what the rules are, regarding noise emissions.
Many cars are fitted with extra large exhausts and you can even buy gadgets that make a noise.
Comment by BOW posted on
All good in moving forward However i am not sure whether it would be wise to remove manual advisories as we will no longer be able to document some of the more "out of the ordinary" important advisories, and of course not to advise the more general "non important" advisories such as under trays etc.
Comment by Lo posted on
How can a car over 40 years old not need am MOT? It could have faulty brakes, worn tyres, high emissions and could easily cause accidents.
Comment by Dave posted on
Hi Lo,
I agree, I am not a current Tester but carry out warrenty type inspections so need to apply MOT testing principles and owners tend to use 1 rule how much will it cost me ( or rather how can i spend the least ) so i am forever seeing split ball joints , worn suspension bushes that have been there for months. Any mechanically propelled vehicle should have an MOT to be on the road no matter of age , distance it travels or how often. THEY CAN STILL HAVE DANGEROUS FAULTS. That is all what we are all here for to make sure all vehicles are safe to be on the road.Dangerous is dangerous no mater how you want to word it.
Comment by Paul T posted on
Sounds like your over complicating things to me. I already hate the new training system which takes my work home with me as training at work is too hard when we are so busy! Now your considering removing manual advisories? Daft idea imo. Why are you making life for us testers so hard? The refresher course was much better and eliminated any "grey" areas in the testing criteria and also gave us opportunity to relate problems with other MOT testers. Im getting to the point where i no longer want to do testing and i know many others who feel this way. Your trying to fix something that wasnt broken. Also good luck with lowering the limits for diesel emissions. We are gonna have alot of very unhappy drivers because we cannot get their emissions lowered! We are not magicians!
Comment by gary b posted on
agree paul the refresher course was better ,u got involved with other testers to discuss all areas of the MOT!!!
Comment by phil j posted on
best comment on here, spot on with that, my thoughts exactly.
Comment by david B posted on
100% hit the nail on the head paul. you myself and plenty of others testers share your sentiments exactly.
DVSA would to well to recognise that without us testers there would be no mot scheme...so look after us
Comment by CYRIL FOX posted on
There are quite alot of retired motor Techicians that maintain and repair their own vehicles.
These would not show up on records except on a MOT.
Are we to be penalised for doing so if you are consulting as it appears you might.
Dangerious .....I feel that not being able to drive your car home after the test wrong.
There alot of test station that do repairs could and would take advantage of this.
Retired Service manager
Comment by Jenny Hall posted on
As an owner of two classic cars, I feel that not having an M O T is a very bad idea. Not all classic cars are well maintained, and this could lead to dangerous cars on our roads.
Comment by Paul T posted on
You should take advantage of it and not worry about the MOT fee each year..Also theres nothing stopping you have a "mock" MOT done at any garage for a basic saftey check..MOT's arnt of high standard anyway compared to a general service
Comment by Philip Maddox posted on
Just another reason to make money out of the car owner. You wonder why people drive around with no mot or insurance. Pathetic
Comment by Singh posted on
When are you going to set a standard test fee that nobody can charge below? All of the above seem irrelevant. You need to start thinking about testers as well as the cars and their drivers!
Comment by markT posted on
my god...everyone has finally lost the plot.lowering emissions limits..over complicating fault/advisory/manual advisory items.why hide thing from the vehicle presenter ??? they moan enough as it is,what will happen when a fault occurs and they cant see any info on it on their test sheet yet dvsa can ??
Comment by Neil Lindsay posted on
Looking forward to having more detail on the changes as they come in but in the meantime could consideration be given to print size on MOT certificates. In general I feel that the font size should be increased for all the fields of information on the certificate but in respect of the new 'dangerous', 'major', 'minor' categorisations font varying font size would be one obvious way to emphasise the importance of each category.
Comment by bobpollard posted on
yes this is a good point re undertrays etc but nearly all cars now are fitted with them .
less cutts to the service lets get some bodys back in dvsa those lads did a brilliant job
Comment by Graham posted on
Keep the manual advisory! Sometimes a quick short manual advisory is much simpler for the customer to understand than a long winded text book one. I get alot of old landrovers in which are corroded but not yet excessive or holed. Instead of doing a single advisory for each bit it is much simpler to advise in general, under chassis corroded. This also saves customer having 20 advisorys instead of one. Definatley agree with the non customer advisorys which wont show on certificate, will definatley make us testers feel more confident testing, not having to worrys about what to advise and what not incase dvsa rock up and have a different opinion
Comment by John Williams posted on
All MOT advisory notes should be available for the driver to see as otherwise an owner would not be aware that the tester was unable to test something - perhaps on a car the driver had not owned for long.
Comment by Alan Mendies posted on
Please Please add a noise level test for exhausts its long overdue and needs to be addressed.
I do hope though that pre dpf diesels are not demonised to the point of being pushed off the road by this test!
Comment by Alex mcluckie posted on
I think the manual advisories should stay as there are some aspects which require them
Comment by Daniel Barber posted on
All though I am a fan of the manual advisory, I have often seen on certificates testers using over technical terms that I myself would find difficult to understand even after 30 plus years in the job, this should be stopped as I do not think its help full to the presenter or indeed the MOT system and I am concerned at the reason behind it. A simple traffic light system on advisories would be much better as we should now all have a colour printer in place. this would enhance the look of the certifcate and may make it a more readable item that a presenter would take note of, we can then talk a presenter through future jobs that may or may not be required.