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 Steve Harding posted on
Just reading the comments, I don't think you have got it right, again.customers appreciate being made aware of the manual advisory items, the only customers that don't are traders. Most customers don't appreciate that the mot standard we work to is lower than a snakes belly obviously only until it goes wrong and the NT gets dragged over the coals. I personally use the manual advisories often, not because i cant be bothered or am unable to find items, they are not there, and its simply that i have seen and i believe that the customer should be aware, The other thing to consider is that a large percentage of vehicles only visit a garage once a year, and the 'as bad as as it can be' test is carried out, so now with this new idea they will go away blissfully unaware, yeah that's progress and another step in the wrong direction,
Comment by Dr ALAN YATES posted on
I dont think you should remove manual advisor section, one it does help us tge testers out here who look at some really badly maintained vehicles !
And when we do re tests on welded components like sills and chassie sections we find the repairs are done but are covered in heavy underseal !
I use the coment on the advise of this if i cannot see all the welded repair clearly
So again i feel the testers will be left wide open for criticism if we pass this without a advisor coment !
Has you state in your videos about repairs on corrosion!
Comment by Rob G. posted on
Sounds fair enough to me. I think what DVSA are trying to stop is MOT testers adding advisories that are not part of the test. The 'normal' advisories will still be there to add, just not manually added ones
Comment by concerned posted on
Rob the advisory section does not in anyway cover the every day needs of testing. The manual advisory tag allows us to,for example,tell the vehicle presenter that a component is ok now,today,but probably won't be in two months time after a British winter
Comment by Damian posted on
Manual advisories are a great idea , when telling customers that you cannot see most of the car for plastic covers and that we are not allowed to remove them . More relevant things need to be added to non component advisory sections if you take manual section away.
Comment by Parviz posted on
Parviz
Can this new page cover everything?
I think a tester can explain and advise a problem in a more simple and effective way regards.
Comment by Ken Mcintosh posted on
The manual advisory is a great idea to inform some drivers that don’t have a clue about vehicle maintenance and also the manual advisory is the testers insurance policy if there happens to be a grievance over a pass cert.
My advise is get it written down that way it gives you at least one leg left to stand on.
Comment by Davib posted on
Would you buy a ball joint that has play in it and fit it? No! Now it becomes a failure. No more advisories sounds like 4 2 2 is on the way in!
Comment by Pete posted on
Unfortunately their is an issue with computer generated advisories, e.g. brake pipes, failure is 'excessive corrosion', advisory is 'slight corrosion' and there is a BIG difference between slight and excessive. Some brake pipes are corroded between the two extremes, hence the need for manual advisories. The same applies to steering and suspension components.
Comment by Nad Chaudhry posted on
In my opinion manual advisories save a lot of time as long as technical terms are in order and the issue is described accurately .
Any information for the presenter is valuable and should not be hidden .
A more accurate search system will be beneficial however time will tell. I'm quite happy with the current way of getting the message across .
Comment by steve mot swansea posted on
updated search yes great idea
leaving out manual advisories, ridiculous idea
eg.badly worn shoulder on a tyre,a competent tester
knows this tyre will be on the cords in 1 to 2 months.
advised, but hidden from the customer
i dont understand why ,,is the advisory system not working ?
Comment by Kel Hickman posted on
I think that the system we have now works perfectly well , if the tester feels that they need to advise an item manually to notify the customer of a possible fault i cannot see that there is a problem as long as they are geniune issues rather than unnecessary comments. Our customers are very grateful that we note these however it seems to me that the change is about showing less faults when people check out the test history of a vehicle. I prefer to cover my back rather than suit what someone may not want to see written down but its the tester that has to defend themselves if there is an appeal or a possible accident investigation.
Comment by Mel Paul posted on
Completely agree, cover your back!
Comment by Steve posted on
I can see more work for the dvsa ve’s when the appeals tests start rolling in.
Comment by Alan posted on
Yep, that will be fun, when the customer gets a puncture, goes to the tyre depot to be told it shouldn`t have passed MoT, the customer appeals and loses, then gets charged by DVSA for another test...
Comment by Stuart posted on
Why hide things , if something not right people should see it. There's 2 kinds of people 1,who wants a bit of paper and the 2nd wants to keep there car or bike 100%. System getting to complicated. Pass fail and advise its simple...
Comment by Keith posted on
Keith Why not leave it as it is all the information on one paper . Sorted
Comment by Justin posted on
I think this is a good middle ground for all as I have had customers moan for advising when under trays, engine covers or outer sill covers are fitted that are obstructing testable items.
I think there should be a fail option for when a tyre is too old.
Comment by Sk posted on
Be nice if you could stop mot tester put the wrong milage and reduce the descrepency may be able to rectify it if some one does get it wrong
Comment by Tom posted on
I think manual advisorys should stay. There was an article in mot matters talking about over advising on mot's which can devalue vehicles and then explained only to advise on components that are close to failure but then they list the advisory as 'slight play' which I don't think lets the customer know how close to failure it might be in some cases.
Comment by Paul Hooker posted on
The search for defect still works if you use the numbers on the old VTS device I:E if you type 7032 in serch bar up comes No plate lamp not working or 7003 front position lamp not working. 7015 rear position lamp not working. it will be great if dvsa can improve the search for a defect.
Comment by Dgafrob posted on
Ok, so where in the perfect system is the relevant advisory for a perished valve stem? An item we as testers are required to check, but other than a advisory for ‘damaged’ which is not technically correct, there is no advisory available for deterioated, or perished valve stems!
Same applies for tyre sidewalls and treads with regards to perishing!!! I’ve long since lost count of the times i’ve seen badly perished sidewalls and perishing in the tread of the tyre (usually Continental’s), but not exposing the construction cords etc! However a tyre in perished conditions is usually well aged and far from ideal and most definitely requires at least an advisory!!!!
And what about an exhaust, that although is still secure has a failed, snapped or heavily corroding mounting etc! The advisory i could of used for this was actually taken off the system some time ago!!!!! Why??? Now other than a manual advisory there is no way to record an exhaust with a snapped hanger bracket, or extremely corroded silencer close to fracturing and possibly falling off, but secure and not leaking at the time of test!!!!
All of the above items I regularly use the ‘manual advisory’ system for because to my knowledge there is not a suitable accurate advisory listed!!! And all of the above in my opinion are pretty important items regarding safety of vehicles!
There are, and will be plenty more examples that would justify a ‘manual advisory’ that would be in the best interest of NT’s and customers to have recorded!
It is idiotic to remove this vital backup facility in the system!!!!
Comment by Tony S posted on
Fully agree, well put
Comment by Peter Goodspeed posted on
Seems like a good idea as such! As all testers know the only time we get problems if any is when a trader brings a car for mot they obviously want no advisory’s & when we use them & quite right too, they moan like hell and say it devalues there cars etc etc.
We need to protect ourselves so the hidden advisory will help. As if vehicle returned for complaints later the trader always says the tester said it was ok!!!!
And passes the buck to us.
It’s difficult to please everyone in a competitive market so this may help nicely.
Comment by Nicolas Chiddle posted on
There are some things that are definitely missing that hopefully will be added before this takes place.
Comment by Wess posted on
You guys live in Ivory towers .. and its going to be the public that has to pick up the pieces when it all go's wrong. Your demeaning the MOT test as a basic safety check.
Comment by G woods posted on
I think this is all for big car sales show rooms because they do not won't to spend the money on the cars people do find these advisers good and do act on them . Some people do not get there cars serviced
Comment by Peter Chidley posted on
Agree wholeheartedly, Keep advisories if regarded or defined as safety related. If you dispense with the only sector to benefit will be vehicle traders who as we all know prefer 'clean Mot certificates' ie with No advisories at all .
Let us keep a level professional playing field whereby if an advisory is felt worthy of recording, the end user is notified via the VT20 (even if not interested at the time )
Some of the drop down advisories are rarely used , there should be room for more additional modern / more relevant specific items to be included, which in turn could mean less manual entries.
Comment by Andrew Deaville posted on
Sounds like, once again, DVSA are trying to over complicate something that at times can be a pain to use! Hiding things, not hiding things?????? What's that all about? Its just going to make things worse in the long term. When are DVSA going to get a grip and realise that this industry is hard enough as is and that most 'sites' are actually a garage with an MOT station and not the other way around????
I miss the refresher courses too, meeting other testers, talking about weird and wonderful stuff they've found while testing, was great!
But instead of trying to work with and educate their testers the then VOSA decided it would be better to waste millions on changing their name, constantly updating and messing up the computer system, then CPD came along! Something else not properly thought out! Most of the testers I've spoken to have to do their CPD at home in their own time because there just isn't enough time in the working week!
Please, please, please DVSA take a step into reality, actually listen to your testers and get a grip!
Comment by Bob posted on
The problem here is for example you test a 10 year Mercedes e class or a Bmw 5 series & dont advise on under trays fitted & the car is involved in a accident or when the car is sold on eBay or gumtree when the rotten you have not seen & has burst under heavy braking or the sold car has been to another garage removing the under trays & Saying This Should Have Not Passed The Test Mate the next thing you get the customer asking why were they were not seen & the DVSA on your back . One solution would the be flag it on VSI on your check list that Under Trays Or Sill Covers Fitted Preventing Full Inspection of Various Components & give a copy to the customer & if they throw it in the bin cause the car is up for sale or they are a trader the liability is on the customer
Comment by brian posted on
I totally agree with Bob a lot of the mentioned items used to be on the advisory
list why have they been removed
Comment by Lee Heywood posted on
The reason I use manual advisory’s is because the wording available is simply not suitable. As an example “ Slight play “ doesn’t get anywhere near correct when the play is close to the allowable limit. Protecting ourselves with our own words is also very important if an appeal was to occur. Using someone else’s words to convey what you experience is not likely to be sufficient.
Comment by Dan posted on
Good idea for the tester to have a hidden box where they can make notes to cover themselves but manual advisories need to stay though
Comment by Kevin Dobbins posted on
Why not have a completely separate sheet for advisories / recommendations therefore we as testers have given the relevant information to the customer thus doing our job correctly.
It’s then the customers choice as to wether they hand that over to a potential buyer or not.
Comment by Mark johnson posted on
The ones i usally do manually a lot are undertrays & engine covers fitted and tyres cracking.why dont you put the top ten most used manually advisorys used on the system that way we are covered as testers,just writing them on the check sheet and them remembering to tell your customer isnt going to work,but if its printed there is no way its going to be forgotten
Comment by brian posted on
totally agree
Comment by BARRY posted on
Being a DVA examiner in Northern Ireland I follow these blogs with interest as we use the same lighting regulations + Construction & use as mainland UK, your advisories seem to be the same as our minor defects policy which are defects that aren't going to get anyone killed. The list is not exhaustive but more than 3 constitute a fail as they are testable items covered under road worthiness. MOT testing is carried out to the minimum standards as required by law at that particular time, not tomorrow or next year. Adding advisories for tyres nearing legal limit etc is not required or legal, a tyre is either legal or not, friction material on brake pads/shoes is above 1.5 mm or below, I have seen taxi's arriving for test with the same wheels tyres brake pads discs used on a vehicle the previous day swapped over just for MOT and used for multiple MOTs, knowing full well that as soon as the vehicle gets its Cert the new parts will be replaced with old, as it's legal at the time of test and meets the requirements in can't put and advisory telling what I know to be true because it's no longer a testing issue but Enforcement/Goes.
Comment by Tony S posted on
The best thing that can be done then is to remove advisory's altogether, that's probably what their aiming at.
Will have to completely re-write the book!
Comment by T.Shere posted on
I always use manual advisories. I think my main one is tyres wearing on inner edges.
Comment by Bill Bournemouth posted on
Another pointless exercise, just like the no disc road tax now costing the government one hundred million a year, why fix something that’s not broke. Always looking for something to fix even when there is nothing wrong with it. Still I suppose you have to justify your jobs and wages somehow.
Comment by Peter posted on
Out of most manual advisories I do ,it is writing down under trays and engine covers fitted. I have read that we all know that most modern cars now have these and we write them down to protect ourselves albeit we cannot see what is under them ! So if that could be put into a special box for us and we would still be protected if any event was to happen as Dvsa would know these cars.Most Mot,s would be a clean sheet to the customer,
Comment by Joe posted on
Cue the system going down for a week when you've made the changes.
Why would you not want the customer to know about faults on there cars its ludicrous to think they wouldn't. Who thinks of these ideas it's fine as it is leave it alone now.
You say you've asked testers ? Who actualy gets asked about these updates as I certainly never have and neither have anyone else who's commented on this?
Comment by Wayne posted on
Keep manual advisories I say! There’s better things on the system that needs sorting first! Like shorting the amount of clicks you need to print the certificate for one!
Comment by Peter Chidley posted on
Fully agree, advisories in general are a positive result of an observation on the day and should indicate pride and professionalism of NT's. I know of many who don't bother because it means extra effort.
The Mot is only a basic test 'on the day' ( and done too cheaply ) however in my experience most customers appreciate advisories , the people that are indifferent I perceive as those who only wish to spend a bare minimum toward keeping their vehicles just and just legal.
Whilst on subject of advisories i.e drop down list I can think of many possible items which feel should be included not done away with.
From experience we have seen a growth in MPV vehicles to be inspected. for example 3 row 7 seaters presented. Situation often arises whereby rearmost ( say Row 3 ) seats are folded down and belts not fully accessible to check condition & function----often because used to stow prams and other kids paraphanalia associated with modern living.
As an NT have always advised ( perhaps inherited from VOSA class 5 training )if I cannot check fully certain seats & belts.
May I suggest more 'dropdown' advisories to make our life easier not harder.
PS 1 Nail in tyre tread is fine however Screws seem to be just as relevant if not more common observation these days .
PS 2 Often observed are tyres which meet T. Manual criteria however appear perished on sidewalls and sometimes have date codes indicating product manufactured on a date years before the vehicle itself !
Please keep advisories and ability to record any safety related observations -- I am sure most of us NT's like to regard ourselves as professionals.
Comment by David posted on
Seeing a blueprint from DVSA before the go live date would be good. I also agree that the manual advisory system needs a review, as I understand the mot scheme, anything advised should be assessed on a wear and tear basis, so tyres worn close to the legal limit, lets make sure the 1.0 or 1.6 mm is written in the advisory text then the presenter of the vehicle understands the minimum criteria. I have seen tyres with 3.0 mm or more advised as close to the legal limit, agreed or not, everyone must sing from the same hymn sheet. It is a good idea to advise the presenter of the vehicle about the tyres when they are around the 3.0 mm wear mark, but not close to the legal limit at that time.
Manufacturers protective covers (under-shields) etc I think DVSA have to accept that where these are standard fitment, then some areas of the test will not be seen, and rather than clutter up the mot documents, NT's should be able to leave these items off the documentation without fear of reprisals from DVSA. If something goes wrong after the test in the real world, because "common sense" can't be used due to no visual inspection possible, then DVSA should point the finger back at the vehicle manufacturer, if they want to become involved, the tester is not to blame.
Everyone in the scheme as well as the presenters of the vehicles really do need to properly understand that the mot is the minimum standard, and I think DVSA could go the extra mile and explain this more clearly to Test Stations when they say, just above scrap is a pass, and very importantly, it is the time of the assessment of that test component that matters, and not the day of the test.
This is a very, very low standard for a pass, so the advisories must be worded correctly, and readily available to anyone who has a valid interest, like a prospective purchaser who needs to see them.
If DVSA decide to go down the road of hiding some types of advisories from presenters or purchasers of the vehicle, this might lead to legal implications if something serious occurs.
A reply from DVSA would be good, thank you.
Comment by Guy Moore posted on
I agree advisories should only relate to the MOT. It will be a big help if they are easier to find in the system.
Comment by Alex posted on
Manual advisories protect us the tester , inform the customer , proof that at the time of test a potential defect was found . Never personally have I failed to find a correct RFR , better training and understanding of the manual may be needed , I’m all for moving forward , but please let common sense prevail .
Comment by Adam posted on
The whole point of an advisory is to let the customer no what may be going on with there vehicle as they are the ones that have to maintain there car and keep it safe. Don't see the point of hiding it from there surely that could affect the safety of there vehicle
Comment by Gary M posted on
Any help in recording defects should be hailed as a positive move. Yes occasionally it is difficult to 'find' the advisory on the system and we note the defect as a 'manual' advisory which is not really the correct procedure but we do it because of the possibility of repercussions.
Any help to cover ourselves is a great move. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Andy posted on
I like the idea of the changes.
Fixing the search function is definitely needed.
And I agree that we have to stick to a structure that has been set out.
We testers often come across things we don’t like or agree with (like a slight misting of oil from a shock advised for years that now has no damping effect, or enough fluid in to be a major leak and able to fail it) all we have to do is follow the rules set.
As for the additional comments for the none mot related issue, I think we must have an option to print this page to relay to the customer.
Comment by Martin posted on
I would like to see a change with advisories. It all well and good to advise customers with minor defects, but when they come back to you after test was completed and book in to get the advisories repaired they also want these taken off their MOT (unfortunately there are some really fussy customers) it would be nice to be able to remove these advisories and update the vehicle record. Once it’s a pass it cannot be changed. It would be good if you could be able to edit the MOT after the test was completed or have a couple of days after the test to amend or remove advisories
Comment by Andy posted on
I think Martin has a point about being able to amen advisories after the fact, I'd go further though.
Being able to add advisories would also be a good thing.
Comment by Graham Stewart posted on
Easy way to solve this problem would be to have an advisory box on each of the fail items.
Comment by Paul Chubbock posted on
I do a lot of tests a week and a number of times I use manual advisories because I can't find the right wording for what I want to advise , Inner rack ends being one. I know you could say slight play detected at steering wheel but this is not really the terminology.
I would also agree with one comment here sellers of cars want clean sheets , buyers on the other hand will look at a reason to get rid of a car if they don't like it after a week by nitpicking every fault to you with the threat of putting the mot to appeal, this happened to me on more than one occasion.
I have also been to court over an mot that had advisories where the owner of the vehicle did not want to go through the appeals process and decided to take a private prosecution instead. He did lose the day but I had no help from the department as it was outside of their system of appeals.
Comment by Philip Dunmore posted on
So, in your proposed system. We record an observed defect that doesn't fall within MOT parameters. You then hide that information from owners and prospective purchasers.
Could be very nasty for DVSA if something goes wrong....
Comment by Marc Bayliss posted on
This sounds fine for class 4 and 7 which is updated constantly. However for class 1 and 2 i find that i need to use manual advisory alot more due to lack of content in the defects.
Comment by Jan Tindale posted on
yes sounds like a good idea to me a solution for everyone i'm not fussed if the owner reads it or doesn't as long as its been recorded somewhere
Comment by Pete posted on
It seems to me your pushing through changes regardless of what advise we give you. We need manual advisory to advise on safety related items we find during the MOT, you simply wont be able to cover all the items we find.
And what about new owners of vehicles that get the 'new' not allowed to manually advise pass certificate ........ The vehicle is 100% roadworthy / safe for next 12 months? That's what this system implies to them.
But no worry's we will be able hide behind the 'Oh it was advised at test but your not allowed to see it its a secret' in the case of an appeal or worse...
Comment by Guy Gibson posted on
Items like bald inner and outer edges on tyres, where you can see a change in the rubber profile.....you know this is close to a failure..... but you have to pass it..... There are definitely missing items that I would like to see on the system.
Comment by Harjinder Hoonjan posted on
In this age of computerised technology it is imperative to have a system in place which has the facility to search for a particular fault at the touch of a search button. Not only to speed things up but to search accurately the right fault item.
Good technological development. Its well overdue and keep up the good work.
Comment by Scott posted on
We’ve been doing this for years...
MOT related issues on the MOT.
Anything else, on the invoice. Simple
Also, how about adding this comment to the official MOT advisories ‘I recommend a service’
Comment by John Hemming posted on
I think if its worth mentioning its worth putting as an advisory but only in the context of the structure of the mot and not i.e. Engine management light on dash etc.
Comment by Marsh posted on
As an owner of MOT'd cars I should have the right to see all comments recorded on the database about my car. If a tester has an observation, it must be overt. It may have safety implications so why would you want it hidden? - Have DVSA asked motorist if they are happy that there are hidden observations about their vehicle, available to testers?? Would expect an expensive trip through the legal system very soon!!!
Comment by Ian clements posted on
Any vehicle safety issue, mot or otherwise should be recorded by advisory if not a failure, most responsible car owners would want to know about any concerns the annual mot uncovers, I can't see the benefit of hiding non mot vehicle concerns from the presenters.
Comment by Joe posted on
Totally ridiculous to change the system. It works so well right now and of course owners should be told what is likely to need replacement/repair soon. How else will they know ? Only by Testers sending a duplicate of what will be hidden. Crazy. That’s not going to happen, is it? Road safety will be the loser.
Comment by Gary posted on
A good idea to have the option to add a note to the mot
Test to cover yourselves. It’s a shame that a lot of testers I’ve spoken to recently are actually going to give up their mot licences as they can’t cope with the amount of change. Cars are changing all the time and so rapidly these days that you need to keep up with it. I can see there being a nationwide shortage worse than present for mot testers
Comment by castrolrob posted on
the reason I use manual advisories is that the pre allocated ones are either inappropriate,absent or badly worded,eg brake pipe slightly corroded.if it was slightly corroded do you think I would be advising in the first place?give us the advises for covers back,i must have to type that 5 times a day.if you wanna hide all this on the record fine,got no problem with that but it is our ONLY WAY of covering ourselves.your own department spent my entire 30 yr testing career imprinting this on us at every training/refresher session with good reason,i understand its inconvenient not to be able to pull/discipline us when we cover our selves but that's not our problem in the same way that teaching kids to pass exams instead of learning aint the teachers fault.he still has to tick the boxes hes given.so do we.as another example,shock absorbers inoperative DANGEROUS! please point me towards the preallocated advise if you would be so kind......
Comment by Rich K posted on
Most customers are more than happy to see advisories,wether related to the mot or not.The only people I've had problems with is people or traders selling the cars that want it to appear perfect with no faults or money that'll need spending on it over the next few months!!also helpful if you don't get to see the customer to talk to them or explain it.if our office staff had to sit there and type out all the advisories(related or not) they wouldn't get any other work done,seems a lot of effort and time for just a £54 mot fee.hopefully it will make it more economical,we will see!
Comment by Stuart Gilmour posted on
I have always thought that if I can fail an item I should be able to advise it if I have only just given it the benefit of doubt. However a lot of fail items do not have an associated advise tick box available. So have to type comments
which is time consuming. So any improvement welcome.
Comment by Clive posted on
OK I am pro change but I take offence to the issue of " covering ourselves" DVSA (as was )trainers advised us to do it.....so come on , it has been perpetuated by your own people.
Advisories are just that...most presenters do not give a damn about them only if it passes or fails and to believe otherwise is nativity in itself.I would love to know the sample size of the public you have used.
As anyone who tests will tell you it is frustrating when say in the case of inner track rods where you know it is bad...there is currently no avenue to fail it.....it is as I hope you would agree every bit as dangerous as an outer. Yet because we cannot see it we cannot fail it..despite it showing up on MOI for tie rod ends ( outer) and experience and knowledge.
I hope that you can accept the criticism as we seem to have to do even if it is not of our making.
Comment by Steve posted on
Great idea to improve the search function and to have a notes section. However it is a well known fact by both testers and dvsa that a LOT of potential advisories are NOT on the system and the ones that are don't always fit what we are trying to report. An example is deteriorated headlamps where the beam image pattern is only just visible which means the light output IS affected/reduced but the advisory on the system states that the light output is NOT reduced. This is just 1 example of countless possibilities and therefore the manual advisories should stay.