I’d like to start by thanking you for your feedback on our last blog post. Looking through your responses, one topic really leapt out at us - manual advisories.
We understand that lots of you want these to stay as they are. So we wanted to take this opportunity to explain in detail why we think there should be changes to how they work.
The need for change
One thing we can say for certain is that changes are needed in this area. As explained in the last blog post on the Roadworthiness Directive, we’ll need to change the categorisation of defects so that they’re rated as dangerous, major, or minor.
With a minor being very similar to an advisory, we need to look at the existing way advisories work.
We’ve been doing research with motorists and visiting garages to talk to testers about how and why they use manual advisories. It turns out there are a lot of reasons they use them. Some are good, others are less so, and we’re determined to resolve them.
Finding the right defect
The first thing we have found out is that a lot of you are using manual advisories to make up for things you can’t find as you browse down through the defect lists in the MOT testing service.
We’ve had a look at how you use the MOT Testing Service to see what’s been going on. What happens is that people search for the defect, find that they can’t locate it, and then finally enter a manual advisory.
You shouldn’t have to use manual advisories because you can’t find the defect in the MOT testing service. In lots of cases, we’ve found that a manual advisory has been used when there’s already one listed.
Therefore, the issue isn’t that the defects aren’t listed, it’s that they need to be easier to find.
How we’re fixing this
To fix this, we’re designing a new, improved browsing list that should be much easier to use. It should feature a more intuitive structure and clearer wording. We will keep you updated when it’s ready to test.
We’re also going to back this up by revamping the defect search. We aren’t happy with the way it works right now and haven’t promoted it widely. Some of you might not even know there is a search option.
So, we’re going to completely overhaul the search feature to make it both useful and easy to use.
Protecting yourself
The second thing we found out is that a lot of you are using manual advisories to avoid unfair criticism, either from us at DVSA or from your customers, and to protect yourselves from possible repercussions.
This is fair and we understand the need to protect yourselves. That’s why we’re thinking about setting aside a specific area where you can make test observations about what you saw, or couldn’t see, while you were testing.
The customer wouldn’t see this information, but having it noted down could prove useful if there were any issues down the line. We’ve done research with motorists that shows most of them don’t find this information helpful.
Extra service
Another thing we noticed is that you like to provide your customers with a great service. If you spot a problem that isn’t part of the MOT, lots of you still want to tell them about it. This is because you take pride in your work and want to do a proper job. That’s great and we absolutely encourage you do that.
We just don’t need to see it on the MOT. It’s a structured test and only things that belong in the MOT should be included.
If you want to tell your customers about additional issues you find out while conducting an MOT, please do so. You can just do it in the same way you tell them about issues you find while servicing their vehicle. Consider it part of your customer service, not part of the MOT.
Proceeding carefully
We realise this is a big change and we’re not going to do anything rash. Each of the new features we’re building will be extensively tested and we’re going to put a package of support in place so you're not disrupted by them.
Watch this space for further updates.
Changing for the better
There might be a bit of a learning curve, but we’re confident that the changes will help you. Our improvements to the MOT Testing Service will make it easier to find the right defect, which will remove the need for manual advisories.
You’ll also be able to protect yourself from any unfair criticism using the section where you can record any extra observations you make during the MOT.
And you’re still more than welcome to deliver extra value to your customers by making them aware of anything else you find during your inspection. In fact, we encourage you to do this.
As ever, we welcome your feedback. Please feel free to leave a comment below.
331 comments
Comment by Tony S posted on
As I said on the last post, see a lot of tyres bald at the edges, not a fail becos of the way the tyre was manufactured, not close to Legal limit but beyond the Legal limit, so we need to be able to make this manual advisory. Also when a tyre is Badly Perished and Cracking, not a fail but needs to be advised,
Some of these could be considered as dangerous, who knows when a bad tyre will blow so should they now fail becos I consider them to be Dangerous!
Also see quite a lot of child seats fitted loosely, belt is holding it but it is Loose, I consider this to be Dangerous, So should it now fail!
I could go on but I'm going home now
Comment by brian posted on
I got points by the local mot inspector person for not advising on tyres cracking he said use the manual advises it you get out of jail back up ,manual advise on anything,computor system want fixing first , or keep it simple, we had 40+ years of pen & paper that worked with no problems, but that's too easy for dvsa (jobs money etc)
Comment by andy cripps @ phillip waters posted on
The manual advisory is very useful for people checking the MOT history - there are lots of MOT specific advisories that are manual and very important in giving people faith in the MOT scheme - what we all want. example - uneven tyre wear that can cause noise on the road like a wheel bearing - coolant weep from rad - there are dozens more.
I worry that the 2nd hand car trade ( who hate advisories and like to hide behind a "new" MOT) are providing the main pressure to remove manual advisories. I'd bet it isn't testers and i'm sure 95% of our customers like the advisories written down to help them. They are taking their car to a professional and rightly expect a professional job - telling them about what you observe is vital.
Comment by nick azzopardi posted on
system works, and agree with others only motor traders dislike adv
on mot certificates
leave alone
or keep a seperate box for adv notes
Comment by M Heppinstall posted on
Well I am what people call the end user ie customer and I like the idea of having advisory’s on my mot was able to put a lot of them right on an older car I put for test .one year down the line some of these would have been a fail and probably cost more to fix
Comment by ARCHIE GOODALL posted on
I BEEN TESTING 30 ys.....IT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME...............
Comment by Bert posted on
Can’t believe after the majority of comments I read on the last article we all wanted manual advisory’s left on the system you’re still removing it, sounds like you don’t listen to our comments at all,
Comment by John Trayner posted on
More pen pushers trying to justify their existence by manipulating the Mot process, if the spent some time observing testers and see what we are up against they would not be so quick to change things.
Comment by Brett posted on
I’d like to see refresher courses come back again! As for manual advisories, I don’t see what the problem is? The system can be very limiting when it’s a grey area with regards to safety. Time and effort would probably be better spent analysing other areas of the system.
Comment by steve posted on
i actually like to leave a manuel advisory, its sometimes easier to type it in the box if its a fault you don't often find.
Comment by James redmond posted on
Information is key, telling a customer about an arising problem face to face is all well and good till it goes wrong, then they come out with the “old chestnut” well it was only motd a few months ago!!!! Contry to your beliefs they do not read the part we’re it says on the day your car met the criteria!!!!! Maybe some emphasis on this would be a step forward!!!!
Comment by Alistair Brackenbury posted on
It would be helpful to provide an advisory for "noisy" wheel bearings, which may not be "rough when rotated" but could quickly deteriorate. We get vehicles which have particularly noisy wheel bearings, that are apparent on road test and also with load off and the wheel rotated.
Also I think it would be useful to have an advisory for "brake binding slightly" or maybe "resistance felt". This would be useful where the RBT isn't registering a binding brake, but it is apparent that a brake isn't releasing properly for whatever reason when rotating the wheels.
Comment by Graham posted on
I get lots of old rotten farm vehicles in my garage. Instead of advising each bit of corrosion (to cover my rear end) individually, one simple manual advisory works alot better
Comment by Robert M. Boyer posted on
Don't agree about not putting non MOT advisories on the MOT certificate. Mostly a tester does not see the customer which means it has to be noted in a different way so as the receptionist can relay the information. So how? For instance, split rear wiper blade is not part of the MOT but surely it can be considered a safety item?? I think it should be part of the test!! Sorry!! I only advise on safety issues, even if they are not part of the test. Hope this is useful?
Comment by Andrew Welland posted on
I think manual advisories are quicker to type than to search and I also think letting the customer know of future problems to their vehicle is good for the customer. There will always be a fine line to what needs to be noted as an advisory but from my experience, most customers are more than happy with the added information and they feel that they have piece of mind.
Comment by Karl Hopkins posted on
That’s a great idea about haveing a seperate box which we can put out observations without getting moaned at by customers ??
Comment by Clive posted on
Which they will take about as much notice as they do advisories mate
Comment by Malcolm Rymer posted on
Yes I agree with all the comments made, for to long most testers have had the same predicament which area is the defect covered by, an advisory
defect how serious, also other items noticed which there is no provision for
reporting ether on the VT20/30 or as a side note on our system not displayed ect.
Comment by Austin Reeves posted on
I have always thought that Advisories were meant for items that although not a failure now, could be before the next MOT test. Such as tyres close to wear limit. If a vehicle does 30,000 miles a year they will definately be worn before next test. I carry out checks on Taxi operators it really galls me when they present vehicles for test and their tyres are down to chord. Especially when tyres were an advisory at last MOT.
Comment by Paul Hooker posted on
This problem has come about because some VTS,s advise items that have nothing to do with the MOT test, I think the best one I have seen on an MOT cert was "rear interior curtisy light not working"
Comment by Justin posted on
You don't need to use the manual advisory option for that, there's an advisory option already listed.
That's the reason why they are changing it
Comment by Mohan Dadral posted on
Happy to see stats & views have been taken into account, however, as always time will tell if this is way forward.
Regards
Mo- Old boy from Humes Ave Garage
Comment by john posted on
Why not create a sheet where non mot related items can be listed and be done at the same time as mot related advises? Like being able to note things example :-
Clutch starting to slip or biting point high
Water ingress into vehicle boot ot foot wells .
Radiator leaking or in poor condition.
Engine timing chain noise
Engine noisy or knocking or engine oil leakis
These sorts of things.
Comment by Sean Murphy posted on
Oil leak is a common occurrence, but using the current advisory you are unable to pinpoint where the leak is!
Comment by DAVE posted on
Love it, quote We understand that lots of you want these to stay as they are.So we wanted to take the opportunity to explain in detail why WE think there should be changes to how they work .
WHY ASK US THEN
Comment by Steve Neill posted on
It is interesting to read your views, and I can understand the need for clarity. However, what you seem to overlook is the indifference of the general public who view their cars as utility items and a necessity rather than a privilege, and the role us MOT Testers play in consumer protection. What with this and the rolling 40 year MOT exemption which will - it seems - now apply to modified vehicles as well - and let's face it, the phasing out of leaded fuel means 99.9% of all "historic" vehicles are modified - as if May 2018 it will be very much buyer beware...
Comment by matthew veness posted on
sounds good, looking forward.
Comment by Mark posted on
At the annual refresher course we were always told we could advise anything why do the dvsa keep back tracking.Plus regarding the changes to dangerous major and minor that's like going back to the old days where you had black and red failure certificates and you say this is progress it's just making it more complicated I think it's just to keep civil servants employed andwho cares about the tester,even our vosa man says a lot of these changes are not required and I suppose he is at the grindstone like us.
Comment by D Tedstone posted on
Why can't you just leave it alone it works perfectly well as it is just leave it alone I can see we will be handwriting manual advisories out if you can persist on interfering with the perfectly good system
Comment by Timothy john jani posted on
Totally agree with you.
Comment by Lee Rumney posted on
If testers are having to use manual advisories because they cannot locate the defect in the manual, then really they shouldn't be testing or at least send them away for more training.
You can protect yourself as you've written down your findings on the inspection check sheet, just like you did on your old VT40s to show DVSA incase of a query.
Nothing wrong with the system now but if you need to make it idiot proof so my 10 year old son can use it, fair play!
If anything, put undertrays or engine covers fitted obscuring some testable items in manual advisories.
I'm afraid by the looks of things, the high standards set by then VOSA,now seem to have diminished.
Comment by Paul B posted on
How in the world of common sense , can we ADVISE that something is dangerous on every MOT.
This naive adjustment can only cause, vehicle owners to be duped into premature repairs by unscrupulous garages.
Yes there have been times that MOT legislation has made me pass a vehicle that I believe is unfit for pupose, and so I have made an advisory, and noted it as dangerous.
These are the areas DVSA should be concerning themselves with , and not tinkering with nonsense that will just create more confusion .
Comment by Robert shotton posted on
I use manual advseries on trade cars or sale cars mainly. To cover myself in case of a complaint .such as brake pipes covered in thick underseal so unable to inspect properly. As I do not know who the car belongs to or who is buying the car.I will have no contact with the owner to inform them of advisory if it is not on mot certificate. Although I will inform the person who presented the car.they may not pass on the information. If a fault occurs and the vehicle loses its brakes who dose the owner complain to?.although I have covered myself by putting it on the system. dose the owner start an appeal against myself or is the advisory public record?
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Robert
This is only a proposal at this stage. The intention is that advisories to do with the condition of the vehicle (so aimed at the motorist) would still be put on the certificate and appear on the MOT History. But, information such as that which you describe, would not do so as it is not a defect. If the customer wanted to appeal, the process would be as now - they would appeal to DVSA, and when we investigate we would find that you had noted, for example, brake pipes were not visible because of thick underseal. In which case that would be taken account of as part of the appeal. The reason for suggesting this change is that from our research with motorists who are the end customer here, observations that aren’t related to a defect are confusing when they appear on certificates and MOT History - motorists are unclear if they are something that needs fixing.
Comment by Tony S posted on
What you will find is that a bad back street mechanic will cover things like corroded brake pipes and poor welding with underseal just to get it though the test.
So suppose that corroded brake pipe, covered in underseal, bursts and causes an accident, maybe someone gets badly injured or worse, killed.
I'd say that's why the unsuspecting customer, that now won't see the hidden advisory, needs to see it
Comment by CRESCENT posted on
so it doesn't matter what feed back you get you will change things anyway.whats the point in feedback.
Comment by brian posted on
dvsa will do what ever they want, feedback does not count
Comment by J a chester posted on
The only thing I can see is that a lot of people will find the system long winded
And where as we understand the need to keep up with EU standards
I am on dvsa council so I am aware of the need to change But I can see a lot of people struggling at first maybe because it does seem very complicated untill it’s explained and broken down
Comment by John posted on
For the section (other comments you would like to give your customer as an advisory like you would in a service) it might be helpful to have a section (tab) for advise to change this part , that will print out after you have issued a pass certificate, then it won’t be on the certificate
Comment by Bill Smith posted on
For goodness sake please include a spell checker. I spend lot of time copying "advisory items" and pasting them in an invoice but then spend ages correcting spelling and grammar mistakes so that the garage invoice looks professional - unlike the MOT certificate.
Comment by David Morris posted on
This is a shame, and an unnecessary change because our customers feel the benefits of the extra advisories that we write and we find the only people to object are in fact traders and people wishing to sell the car who want a squeeky clean MOT. The system works fine it has been a great improvement and when it gets updated, maintained and changed is when we incur problems.
Comment by sean posted on
I agree with your comments, especially about traders & people wishing to sell their cars. also if traders find out about "hidden advises" they will be asking testers to use these instead saying "you'll be covered if there is a problem". please leave manual advises alone.
Comment by s terry posted on
So basically you have listened to an awful lot of testers comments that they want manual advisories to stay as they are, and you are now saying that you are just going to change them anyway as you were always obviously going to do, and its just annoying that a lot of testers disagree
Comment by gavin riley posted on
I agree totally. Also the ministry can't possibly get every single detail down in an advisory list, that's when manual advisory is so important.
Comment by Paul posted on
Second that thought!
Comment by Andy Reynolds posted on
Sounds really positive and can't wait to use the updated search tool. A great idea about the hidden box for NTs to put test notes. A definite step forward. Keep up the great work.
Comment by Robert Sadler posted on
Very helpful thank you.
R Sadler Kent
Comment by D mays posted on
Hallo. Thank you for asking for our opinion. But why do testers bother we give you our advice then you change it anyway. So this is the last time I waste my time I think.as you do what you want anyway.
Comment by Jonathan Moore posted on
This sounds like good common sense to me,i wouldn't be happy about not having the manual advisory function at all. Customers from my experience are not bothered about what is put down in advisory information,they got a pass and that's all that matters!! Looking forward to seeing the new changes come in.
Comment by christopher digiacomo posted on
would it also be possible to put back the brake advice ?
ie, brakes only just met requirements, as we had for years
and was very useful..
keep up good work,
Comment by Ben hay es posted on
Leaving comments on what we find not relating to mots, I work as a technician in a garage and don't speak to or see customers so putting nots on the mot for them to be aware of is the only way I can make those points as the receptionist doesn't always remember to put them down or tell the customer about them ,
Comment by Adrian at Coastal. posted on
I am with you Ben, I am in the same situation.
Comment by mike cleary posted on
If works in practice it seems like a great idea ,some defects are hard to find even when useing find defects but that process is after you are finishing the test.
Comment by Glyn saunders posted on
I think all testers should be put back in the local test centres todo the two day refresher coarses .as testers get together and are able too chat about the mot system and have a inspector go through things thats going on ..
Comment by Ian Preston posted on
This will never happen again as every thing is down to cost nowadays.
Comment by Roy posted on
Could not agree more, worst thing they done was cut the refresher course.
Comment by Paul posted on
I think the comment from Glyn is so very valid,after being in the motor industry for over 40 years,the only training i have really benefited from were the mot courses. To be able to ask a trainer questions and talk to other testers for a day or two was a very valuable experience and I always felt that I had learnt something.
Now that we have this joke of a training exercise,we are left to our own devices to decipher any new rules and rarely see anyone from VOSA to help (not until there's a problem of course)
Comment by I Peter dickson posted on
I agree we had an excellent facility at Newcastle, which was great for talking to others about similar experiences
Comment by Tony Marshall posted on
Nice to see some good old fashioned common sense, a two day seminar where you get to talk to and receive critical updates etc from a human being. Not a bloody machine!
Comment by graham porrett posted on
I understand the reason you don't want other issues on the mot certificate but the tester is not the one producing the invoice and verbal comments get forgotten when the invoice is done and that info does not reach the invoice stage. So I think people will continue to use the mot for these advisories.
Comment by Barry gallagher posted on
I've tested around 35000 vehicles. I use manual advisory on majority of my tests. Customers love it. always feel like I can cover my back. Had many situations resolved because I have manually advised. In my opinion it should stay.
Comment by John Sopp posted on
I agree with you.
Comment by Roger Peatman posted on
One big flaw in the idea of hiding certain advisories from the customer,(via the M.O.T. documentation), is that it will deprive potential purchasers of this information when consulting the "Check History of Vehicle"
Comment by Keith M posted on
Exactly, when buying a car, motorbike or any vehicle you want to know about any potential issues in the future!.
Why DVSA need to know more than the customer about any potential issues and keep it on the quiet is anyones guess..
Comment by nick butler posted on
as a non computer person it may be usefull to bear that in mind when putting your ideas together as to assume things this can be an error I can not be the only person to have limited computer skills. albeit I have worked in the car industry for almost 50 years
Comment by Jan Tindale posted on
not wanting to cause offence but computers are part of mot testing now and as with the trade we are always learning as the motor industry improves so learning how to use a computer is part of the job
Comment by richard posted on
I still would not be happy about not having the manual advisories listed for the customer to see. I'm not sure what motorists you have been asking, but the ones I've asked are more then happy with the advisories being listed.
You say you've done research with motorists that shows most of them don’t find this information helpful , that's great until there is a problem further down the line with a vehicle & they say "well no one told me" & yet we have advisories hidden from them, more so these days people want transparency , not things hidden from them.
I feel this is just going to bring about more appeals & disciplinaries to the majority of the testers that do a good job.
Comment by richard posted on
why not have a additional box , such as non mot related comments. this would mean we can still advise the customer on potential problems.
Comment by Karl Stevenson posted on
great idea.
Comment by David posted on
So if testers write advisory’s in a box the customer can’t see and this customer fixes his car his self how will he know there’s a fault to fix he can only fix the fails then which would make it more likely to fail next time
Comment by Julian Eisel posted on
We just need better training to show people where failure and advisory items are that will help .I think this is a big mistake customers need to be advised of items that may not be part but are safety related this will be a big step backwards .
Comment by michael day posted on
excellent we like the proposals so far
Comment by Stephen posted on
Hi, That's great news. However with Extra service as you call it. I think like a lot of Testers , that we advise things, to inform the customer of an item because we don't actually see/speak to them and rely on the service desk to inform them, so for us to print out an advisory is our way of making sure the customer knows.
I admit the search bar is awkward sometimes and I much prefer to scroll down the list of items than type anything in.
Keep up the good work. Look forward to the next update.
Comment by kevin white posted on
Most people welcome change if it is for the better,
however the most important change that needs to be addressed is the consistency in the mot test fee,
Standardising the fee it would make it a fair playing field for all testing stations,
This concept works with both road tax and nhs prescriptions, so why is it so difficult to implement to the mot testing scheme?
after all, is government regulated as is all other fixed fees,
even if the fee was paid direct to the DVSA, then sent back to the test station that conducted the test
I look forward to your response
Yours sincerely
Kevin White
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Kevin
We'e aware that fees are diverse. We regularly feed these back to DfT and consideration of these may form part of any future consultations that DfT launches on fees.
Comment by Gary posted on
All I can say is I will be glad when I stop testing cars which will be soon at this rate. think this idea is utter rubbish
Comment by steve mot swansea posted on
agreed gary just making more work for the nt ,again
tescos pay about the same as nt tester 🙂
Comment by Dave posted on
The idea for a tester to be able to log a comment about something seen or not seen during a test, that doesn't show on the test certificate as an advisory is a great idea, as long as it can be reviewed at a later time both by the tester and DVSA independantly should it become an issue at a later date.
Comment by Brian McErlean posted on
I am not a tested but had a car fail a test because of the revised tests that required excessive seat movement to be checked. The car was a Mercedes with electric memory seats. There was play in the structure of the seat but no movement of the base where it was bolted to the floor pan. The MOT tester failed the car for excessive movement, after a complaint by myself and discussion with the company chief tester, who was ex DVSA, he passed the car with an advisory. In their case the tester wasn’t prepared to use good judgement in his assessment. Failure to apply good judgement by a tester happens a lot, particularly on sills or body work with small isolated corrosion holes were the outer sill or body workis clearly not structural but cosmetic but because its 30cms from a chassis mounting for seat belt or suspension the car is failed.
Comment by M, Godbehere posted on
if its manually or automatically record as an advisory then whats the problem , the point is that it is
Comment by Singh posted on
When are you setting standardised mot fees???
Seems like you want us to do more for less
I can see a sharp rise in reinspections with the new advisory scheme you are proposing
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi
DVSA continues to invest in the MOT service and carries out enforcement checks to help people stay safe on Britain’s roads.
DfT which owns the rules around fees, has been working with the MOT trade on a consultation on fees.
Comment by nick doncaster posted on
looks like a lot of work for you, lets hope ita all ok when it hits the screens.
Comment by DARREN posted on
why change the advisories ,you need to be updating the manual there are so many items in the manual that are so out of date
Comment by markT posted on
so you havent listened to what i/we on here, or testers for that matter, about the changes and have gone ahead and done this regardless..even though it would have been planned to be changed no matter what was said.
i for one as will others im sure..will continue to find a way to advise on items not listed under youre new terminology mainly as a precaution to protect/cover myself..as we all know..the customer is always right and we get 100% backing should an unfortunate event occur..NOT