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 martin posted on
You have the opportunity to educate them on correct usage of manual advisory's while doing QC checks.
Comment by martin posted on
Thankyou
Comment by John Darby posted on
I make it my policy not to leave an advisory of any sort if I can help it. The thought of garages leaving advisories makes me shudder. Three good reasons why garages leave advisories be it manual or the pigs ear DVSA created in the manual is:
They can't make there mind up whether they should pass or fail the item so lets be safe and pass and advise.
They should of failed it but feel they can get away with an advisory
And lastly the're after work.
Advisories stink of bad practice.
I went on one of those MOT testers forums and one gentleman claimed he saved somebodies life because of his advice and I responded that the vehicle should have failed then.
We all know that when testers can advise that horrible to repair cv gaiter or that front to rear brake pipe hidden over the top of exhausts, gearboxes and undertrays they can get away with an advisory.
One chap at our garage suggested there should be a box that say needs a service, so we can tick it if we feel the vehicle is in need of mechanical help.
The test is a qualification to allow the user to put it on the highway not a service.
When you passed your car test the examiner didn't put pass but I advise poor hill starts on your licence (he probably wanted to) No he determined you made enough effort and you passed your test. If the authorities want to go down the road of advisories or different levels of passing then the traffic lights system used in our trade to assess the testing station could be used or that old qualification system they use in schools A,B,C,D,E or fail.
I remember years ago a ministry man telling me I should advise the sills on a Vauxhall Chevette because they were hidden with a stainless cover WHY? It came for a test not an assessment not a level road worthiness not a valueless degree of safety.
Don't kid me I've been in the trade a long time and I see the cars that should have failed the year before. We all know it happens.
Stop this madness.
Comment by martin posted on
wrong on so many counts or you are blessed with vehicles that meet the fail criteria perfectly every time.
Comment by richard posted on
"Advisories stink of bad practice" what absolute rubbish. Any trade will issue an advise or note to say they saw something that may require attention, why should the mot scheme be any different. Your doing a dis-service to the customer by not leaving an advisory on something that you have noticed.
"When you passed your car test the examiner didn't put pass but I advise poor hill starts on your licence (he probably wanted to) No he determined you made enough effort and you passed your test"
I guess you've never taken a driving test in the last few years, the driving examiner will issue an"advise" , he/she may have marked you down on a minor on the pass sheet in one of the driving sections.
Comment by Tony S posted on
An advisory tells the customer that it has passed the test but you really need to be changing that part sooner than later.
Lets go back to the tyres that are bald at the edges and you can see the pattern of the cord, but a skin of rubber is still covering it.
Not allowed to fail it at this point, but once the car has gone round a couple of roundabouts, Hello Cords.
Not all Testers see the customer to tell them this and service advisers and bosses tend to forget to tell them some things or maybe wish to not tell them!
So the Testers needs to be able to cover themselves.
Only other way is to totally ban/cut the use of advisory's, going on to any test paperwork and free up the Testers.
I've also been here a long time and know when to Pass Or Fail,
Some bosses want you to fail instead of advising, to get the work.
Comment by martin posted on
Why do keep deleting my comments they meet your criteria.
You on the other hand are not and are censoring those you do not agree with.
At least I know my observations are hitting a nerve thereby proving they are correct.
Comment by mark mitchell posted on
martin is right vosa needs to listen to the ground troops were the ones thats on the system all we know what works and what does and what improvments are needed they need to come out off there class tower and talk to the grunts that are on the front line but theres no one left at vosa to do this i think
Comment by Graham posted on
Exactly! I cant find one posotive comment on here about removing manual advisorys, there over 250 comments! Take it on board vosa!! Listen to the people on the front line, not the suit wearing, pen pushing briefcase men 🙂
Comment by DARREN posted on
totally agree,so many dvsa sites have been closed and staff been made redundant that there is hardly anyone left
Comment by martin posted on
Yet again you prove that you are out of touch with the people you claim to support.
You ask for our "thoughts" and you get them, most of them telling you that YOU are wrong.
Is this another smoke and mirrors exercise so you can claim we were consulted and then do what you want to do anyway.
Manual advisory's are not the problem the system we have to work with is the problem.
Removing manual advisory's is treating the effect not the cause.
I suggest you take heed of what the people on the ground are telling you not what some desk jockey with shiney trousers has dreamt up.
Comment by Mel Paul posted on
Rest assured this is not going to be introduced for the benefit of testers. If an advisory, manual or otherwise appears on a certificate it is there for all to see and not hidden away in a computer file somewhere to be retrieved and explained to a customer at some inconvenient time.
An advisory on a certificate should be seen as an oportunity by car sellers to demonstrate to buyers how much they care by pointing out the repair they have carried out to rectify the problem. Yeah right! Remember people, whatever the changes COVER YOUR BACK!
Comment by Neil Yeo posted on
Lets face it, the MOT test is on its knees. Dvsa have no staff or buildings for those lovely In class tutorials. Everything has been passed onto the testing garage and in some cases even on to the individual tester. So many grey areas and sitting on the fence situations! It is not good. Failing a healthy anti roll bar link because the gaitor has a hole but we cannot fail a car with a non functioning shock absorber. what the hell has gone AWOL???
Comment by Pete Lancaster posted on
Yes, that's true.
Comment by John Darby posted on
Well said.
Also we can't fail excessivley perished tyres and they've completley messed about with the windscreen rules with a ridiculous get out clause. You can have so many seat belts missing but a number plate bulb out would stop driving. We don't enforce the pillion passenger security but we do check the size of the number plate. What's the test for?
Laws introduced by Garden Elves.
Comment by El posted on
Are you going to be adding an advisory under drivers view to cover damage to windscreens within the swept areas but not seriously affecting the drivers view of the road ?
As this is something i have to use the manual advisory option for .
Comment by Chris posted on
Hi
Thanks for the suggestion. We will be looking at the standard advisories available and adding more - so this is helpful. Thanks.
Chris
Comment by Shaun posted on
That's a good point, let's say there is a 4 feet crack around a windscreen but not in the swept area so in theory not part of the MOT test, but I would still want to put a manual advisory on the item
Comment by Gary posted on
Will you be adding Special notice 2-201,4 item 3, View to the front, into the manual? it's been out over 3 years and still not been added to the manual that I can see. The wording "and which materially affects the drivers view of the road" over rules a lot of the reason for rejection criteria and makes them a Manual advisory.
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Gary
A new MOT Inspection Manual is due for release in May 2018 with a number of major changes. One of these is to incorporate the SN information into the driver’s view criteria.
Comment by David Moore posted on
DANGER for all to leave out manual advice.
We've seen recently 2 vehicles that had no advice on the MOT certificates. On inspection I could have filled 2 sheets and failed them too. The DVSA did get involved.
But the customer's purchased these vehicles in good faith, relying on the MOT scheme to support their decisions.
Our customers rely on us doing the job properly and for us that includes giving as much 'true and correct information' as possible.
Comment by Brian Laugharne posted on
We as testers are reminded that we are testing to the MINIMUM requirement!! And not the highest !! So the item that is borderline requires the manual advisory both for the customers attention and to safeguard the tester who may have possibility of being dragged over the coals in the event of a complaint being made and then being told that this was an item missed??
Damed if you and Damed if you don’t, I agree it should not be over used ,but we should have a means of including observations for all concerned, on the grounds of safety!! in a day and age where common sense has been put in the bin!! and being now part of a no win no fee claim culture, and having to spend a fortune in legal fees defending yourself and integrity,I feel this part of the test is more than necessary , on a safety basis , because as I said before , we are carrying out the MOT and testing is to the minimum requirement . We are the people who have to face the music and the possibility of acquiring points issued against us. Due to the grey areas that exist in all testing classes, we don’t need any new ones added to the mix.
Comment by Clive Wilson posted on
Well said
Comment by john posted on
spot on
Comment by andy posted on
that was perfectly said,i agree
Comment by vim sudra posted on
well said hit the nail in the coffin.
Comment by Brian Laugharne posted on
We as testers are reminded that we are testing to the MINIMUM requirement!! And not the highest !! So the item that is borderline requires the manual advisory both for the customers attention and to safeguard of the tester for possibly being dragged over the coals in the event of a complaint being made and then being told that this was an item missed??
Damed if you and Damed if you don’t, I agree it should not be over used ,but should have a means of including observations for all concerned, in a day and age where common sense has been put in the bin!! and being now part of a no win no fee claim culture,I feel this part of the test is more than necessary ,also on a safety basis , because as I said before MOT testing is to the minimum requirement .
Comment by Dan posted on
Recently put a manual advisory under trays fitted car passed mot then had a service where they was removed which revealed a rotten front cross member and chassis rail FAIL if there is no manual advisories can't see it working
Comment by Tony posted on
Advisories are an essential part of the MOT test, as an MOT council member I do appreciate that some of the advisories put on can be 'less than professional' by some testers, DVSA should action these and weed those testers out.
However there are often times when a tester needs to advise on an item or items. Just last week I was testing a camper van and found the exhaust tail pipe ended well inside the bodywork. Camper vans often have some type of floor vents which could result in exhaust fumes entering the passenger compartment. As there was no obvious part of the exhaust failure section to add an advisory I added a manual one.
When DVSA re-engineer the testers manual why can they not add the option for a tester to add an advisory to any item, alternatively if you DVSA want to monitor the items noted by testing staff then when they select the manual advisory box, then why not have a drop down list that makes the tester select a category first e.g. brakes, lights, steering tyres etc in a list similar to the sections of the testers manual.
Comment by Chris Ives posted on
Manual advisory's are a useful way of pointing out defects that affect road safety that are not covered in the manual, so a damaged tyre that has no tread on the edges will pass on test but still possibly have an effect on the safety of that vehicle as will a poorly fitted child seat, which isn't even testable. There is little comfort to be had from saying "it was just good enough at the time of test" or "DVSA have decided that these thing's don't need pointing out to you, hope you arn't too badly injured/killed, sorry for your loss" I suppose I could go on but there is probably little point, minds are already made up. It will no doubt that the new statistics will help convince some desk jockey that 4-2-2 is a great idea that will save the public thousands!
Comment by roy posted on
I agree with the majority of testers leaving comments, that the manual advisories should remain . I have been testing since 1999 and nearly every single vehicle that I test will have at least one advisory notice issued
Comment by James Sullivan posted on
I agree with most of the comments above, especially John Drew. I think having them their is handy and it allows for a large amount of things to be reported. We currently keep track of our vehicles using https://licencemanager.co.uk/ just shows all your vehicles MOT record and the issues they've had so you have a record of what to sort out.
Comment by Mr Turner posted on
I also agree with most of the comments above, but I would like to add one thing. Regarding the changes to the Advisory process. For testing personel to have the ability to add an Advisory item to a document, and then hide it from the Customer or Trader, surely goes against a Freedom of Information Rule. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Comment by Tony S posted on
Sounds about right
Comment by Andrew posted on
I am an advocate of being able to add "Tester observations" I don't think there was ever any suggestion of hiding the information but I strongly believe that we should be able to add testing notes to tests as a control method to both ourselves and dvsa staff.
this can protect both the consumer and the tester. For example when you carry out a diesel smoke test and the machine cant register anything because the emissions are so low, what is wrong with being able to record it? Its not relevant to the customer as it has clearly passed the test but it could avoid problems for the tester at a later date if during a site inspection no emissions data is found.
Or how about where you feel that the vehicle presenter is attempting to hide the true condition of a vehicle from you as a tester. You cant put that in advises as it could lead to serious problems down the line but, if you can record your thoughts at the time of the test , you may save yourself a whole load of grief if the vehicle is involved in a re-inspection at some point.
All this information could be made available but who owns the information? It is your thoughts and impressions.......
Thanks,
Comment by JEREMY posted on
Why even bother to ask us testers what we think. If they are just going to change it anyway? Not the first time.
Comment by john wright posted on
We ask for your help with this because I don't know if I am going to vote for or against as a council member my first choice is to vote for because of the lnane things l see as a QC of a multi site company John wright dvsa council
Comment by david b posted on
because DVSA have to seen to be acting fairly towards us so they will ask for our opinion because this for them is protocol and like you say regardless of what us testers think, if they want to do it there way there going to anyhow after all it isnt them doing the things they implement, day in day out on the frontline in garages up and down the country there just people working for government justifying there salaries/pension pot to be seen doing something.
Comment by Lianne posted on
I would like to be told about on my MOT about issues spotted by the tester , whether or not they are MOT test items.
This is bad news for consumers but great for motor traders!
Comment by Neil Yeo posted on
Well said Lianne!
Comment by dan posted on
not a good move by dvsa removing manual advisorys.They state"If you want to tell your customers about additional issues you find out while conducting an MOT, please do so." But this isnt always practical in real world.
Comment by Jim posted on
the trade sales hate advisories I have stooped doing those who don't want advisories for me and my staff it is not worth the trouble after they sell the car and there costumer comes back to you saying you never Donn the mot right
Comment by Michael posted on
Why try to mend something that is not broken is a good motto for working on vehicles and I have always followed that idea. Please let us keep the manual advisories they are quicker to use in many instances. There is very often no standard advisory to cover some defects. I have always felt that even non MOT defects should be advised in order to save the customer a possible breakdown in the future.
Comment by john posted on
no advisories so will go straight through next year then, thats what customers / car owners think
Comment by lee wood posted on
Getting rid of manual advisories is not a good idea unless of course your gunna add more ready made advisories i personally agree with most of the above comments ...
We test and advise non testable items because in a ouple of weeks when that item fails the cuatomer comes back wanting to k ow why they wearnt told and if we say its not a testable item then there gunna be appealing to you the dvsa.
As for fix price mots i strongly agree with that
Comment by Steve posted on
Most main dealers carry out VHC check so all you want to advise is on that report for the customer to see
Comment by Paul posted on
How did I know that you wouldn't listen to all the feedback posted previously and just do what you want to do anyway. I agree with 95% of the other comments and as some guys have said when we used to have proper refresher training in a classroom with a tutor they were constantly drumming it into us if in doubt pass and advise. Now I don't really care if customers want to see advisories or not if we don't report things they'll be quick enough to complain when it suits them, having advisories they cannot see is pointless who on earth came up with that crazy idea they could do with finding another job. If this change goes ahead which lets be honest it will because the decision has already been made you'll probably find that most testers wont bother reporting things. LEAVE IT ALONE
Comment by markT posted on
couldnt have put it better...the powers that be will be sitting around each other..smoking cigars and sipping whisky patting each other on the back for such a good job theyve done lol
Comment by Martyn posted on
Removing manual advisories is just ridiculous, as stated before it is as stupid as the latest test exemptions for vehicles of a certain age. That farmers Land Rover that has had an ocean of welding and spray on sealer, you dread testing it every year but now he's decided to sell it and buy a newer one. Wouldn't you like to know how bad it is if you were the one looking at buying it..? People aren't all experts so they assume because it has a fresh mot it must be fine. Just a single example of lost of reasons why manual advisories must stay.
Every vehicle I/we own is tested regardless of its age, I see no problem with once a year testing and these new exemption rules will be abused by people who would rather drive a car without worry as "I only do a few miles a week" etc. So who is going to enforce drivers to keep their exempt car well maintained, our ever growing police force..? I think not, it will just be a series of accidents waiting to happen and then all classic car owners will be blamed for driving death traps. Next will be mileage limits on older vehicles and stricter rules on when we can and can't use them, watch this space....
Comment by A. JONES. posted on
Manual advisories should stay , you CANNOT tell an mot tester not to advise on something simply because it is not listed that is what the manual advisory is for . You are leaving us all open and defenceless against unfair Mot appeals . I know you won't listen but hey it's not your job at risk so don't worry and carry on with your great work perhaps another award is due !?
Comment by Paul WMC posted on
A fully functioning System should be measurable against the original User Requirement Specification and its Functional Specification, clearly in this case, for our system someone's binned it and decided to modify the "system" as we go!
Reference has been made to the "Road Worthiness Directive" therefore this would be the correct initial starting point for potential system modification along with any "User Feedback" which defines a need for change. The system should not be changed without a revised User Requirement Specification being consulted, developed and approved, but hey we're only the User's.
A bit of Root Cause Analysis would not go amiss before we start tinkering again with the "System".
While you've got My Goat!
A large percentage of the implemented system updates so far have resulted in system failures or introduced further problems!!!
Who signs off the System Acceptance Testing for any implemented changes, these changes should be "tested to death" before they are imposed on a live system with over 22,000+ daily Users
Comment by Clive Wilson posted on
Paul what you have put is inciteful but there is another issue. All Government agencies use similar procurement processes for IT. As we have seen Civil Servants and contracts often don't mix. In the past they ( Government departments and agencies ) tended to either not fully produce they spec they want or realise post sign up they have omitted something or find that they want to include something they had previously but do not hold the rights to. Sadly the alterations cost money. Taking a different view other than the technical one , if this is the case is this money well spent?
Comment by Dave posted on
Seems to me like the IT boys have run out of jobs, no different to working in a garage, got to something for 'em to do to pass the time no matter how menial and and insignificant, after all they are still being payed. Sorry I'm an old cynic.
Comment by Graham posted on
There is not one positive comment on here about removing manual advisory's. Surely that says something, listen to the testers!! Leave it alone!!!
Comment by Evan posted on
Manual advisories should STAY. Especially when you fail corroded brake pipes. When it returns for retest by car trader, all they have done is sandpapered the pipe smooth and sprayed paint / underseal over it. Test as presented at time of test/retest? Manual advice : Previously failed brake pipe has recently been resufaced and painted/undersealed, meets criteria at time of test/retest.
Comment by castrolrob posted on
speak for yourself,when a trader sends em back like that I fail it again on inadequate repair and dare em to appeal.none have yet.back to removing advisorys,they should be sensibly expanded and correctly worded by people actually in the trade/testing.there are very few items on the test that cannot be advised on occasion rather than failing but the few pre allocated advises we already have are poorly worded at best.if the government decision is to hide them on a separate database then so be it,could be interesting to see how they deal with an irate punter and I for one welcome this opportunity for the guys making these(shall we say interesting?)decisions to answer for their own decisions to the public when they buy a lemon with a hidden history courtesy of the ministry of transport because that's where I for one will be referring them to.sounds like a vote winner to me......does bringing the scheme into disrepute only apply to us testers then?
Comment by Simon posted on
Doing away with manual advisory's is probably a good idea, it is widely misused, but what about the vehicles that fail on headlamp aim and adjusted during the test but subsequently fail on other defects? The current rules require that any headlamp aim adjustments made should be recorded as a manual advisory.
Comment by Tony S posted on
Think you'll find that if you've adjusted the head lamp aims you should hit the PRS button, this will then show as a fail, advisory on this is only if you've altered the drivers internal adjuster.
Comment by james keith lysons posted on
some testers who fail voided bushes and also solid rubber need to be told what to look at with open mind
Comment by Alan Peacock posted on
Think manual advisories should stay
Simply because if the person is selling that car/van it will give the buyer a good idea of the condition of it and work he /she might need to do in the near future. especially car sales who don't like advisories on a mot certificate because it effect the selling price z
Comment by Pete Lancaster posted on
The Mot is a yearly vehicle safety check, and not a report on it's overall condition Surely. But, I do advise on say a tyre, that's wearing badly on one edge because it's tracking is "miles out', or a shocker that shows no oil leakage, but has no damping at all.
Comment by paul posted on
know what u mean mate passed a car last week with with manual advisary,tyre is 22 years old and cracked and perished,presenter even stated not having it done as its not a fail????
Comment by Anson Classic posted on
Just make the search function work first.
Comment by Pete posted on
We had a vehicle in the other day with 2 snow tyres on it - one on the NSF and one on the OSR.
This is not very safe and if there's no manual way of noting it for the customer it's not ideal.
As mentioned by others we also need more advisory listings for tyres, especially tyres which are bald on the edges but still are legal in the centre.
Comment by Guy Gibson posted on
are the Dvsa computer boffins trying to save money on data storage space or even predicting they will be running out of storage space...selected phrases are easy to store in an indexed (just a code number) where as manual advisories take much more space in comparison.
If so look at improvements like adding an 'All' option if items like coil springs are ALL corroded. It would save adding individually.
Comment by Tony S posted on
Some good thoughts, could also add BOTH
Comment by Pete posted on
I tested a four year old car today with only 8000 miles on the clock both front tyres 6mm tread, but quite badly perished and splitting in the tread groves. No cords visible yet so its a pass.
There is no advisory for this, so yes I manually advised. As I do with all safety related items I find during a test not covered by our soon to be 'one size fits all' test.
The owner (new owner if sold) will hopefully do something about it, its up to them but at least they know.
Comment by Tony S posted on
See a lot like this, Badly Perished and Cracking, No Cords showing Some so Bad that I mark as Dangerous. These really should Fail
Comment by Pete posted on
If we do highlight an advisory as dangerous (which I feel should rarely happen in day to day testing) it should automatically fail the test. What's the point of having a minimum safety check if vehicles can leave passed but dangerous to drive.
Obviously this would require monitoring. Corrupt testers or stations need to be dealt with properly ie: life time bans. They don't care about road safety.
Not holding my breath as the system seems to be going backwards.
Comment by Tony S posted on
So I also see a lot of Child Seats that are "Loosely" strapped in by the adult seat belt. (I'm sure I can't be the only one who's seen this)
Some are so badly fitted that the Child Seat is rattling about, some get wedged down by the Headrest to hold them in place.
Can't fail it for this, only advise that the Adult Seat Belt could not be fully checked.
Now I think that it is Dangerous for that poor little kiddy to be strapped into a Loosely fitted Child Seat, so I mark it as that.
(That's why they put the Dangerous tick box there)
But do the parents care! I've seen the odd one come back the next year just the same, or child seat taken out.
I could go on about other dangerous advisory's, but I'm off home again.
Comment by john wright posted on
The car did not fail you are an MOT tester not a service tec
Comment by Andy posted on
You mention about reporting items not covered as part of the MOT in the same way we would a service, fine BUT.
We are noting,SO many cars from one year to the next without seeing them for service or seeing any signs of maintenance being carried out.
I make a point of checking the last MOT for advisories, this gives me a good idea of the care the vehicle is receiving & believe me I'd say 80%+ are not receiving any maintenance above an engine oil change & is hardly a safety item.
I believe items NEED to be listed on the MOT if they are showing signs of ware & tare (lets face it, some one might be considering purchasing the car & this is invaluable information to them.
Going further I'd like to see a marker you can put to say (this is the xx time this has been reported).
Granted we have the DANGEROUS marker option, but this really is only an option if the component has worn to that point.
We will see what you come up with but I do hope you DON'T take away our option to report things on the MOT document.
Comment by david b posted on
there is a huge gap between what is going on in the real world ie in garages up and down the country and those sat behind a desk clicking a mouse button at DVSA trying to justify there role.
I suggest those making these decisions within DVSA come spend a week with a NT who tests vehicles one after another day after day and see how the mot scheme works for us THEN go back to your office and make your decisions on how to HELP US keep britains roads safe and members of the public alive.
Manual advisory for us testers is a way for us to tell the customers so its on paper and theres none of this he didn't tell me this oh yes I did - items wrong with there vehicle which aren't covered by the MOT yet probably should be covered by it- like tyres wearing on edges and come within a month are down to the cords or sidewalls perished/cracked through under inflation and not far from the cords being exposed and tyre going bang down the motorway at 80mph.
its about prevention testers have morals and take pride in what they do.
with DVSA its one step forward then two back. your doing a lot of good things dvsa but with this one your WRONG.
Comment by Jim posted on
Advisories are a wonderful thing and does keep the customer informed, why not put all advisories under a differant catogory, the advisories would be information only, i.e the spare tyre if you see its flat or has ilegal tred that the customer is unaware of this must be useful to the customer because if he or she fits the ilegal tyre then they are breaking the law. Now i could go on and on as you all know there are so many things you might advise on. one way is to keep advsories sepeate from the mot test cert keep them on the system and issue a seperate piece of paper to the customer, protecting every one. one thing to remember is the mot is at time of test only, food for thought.
Comment by Tony S posted on
Had the separate bit of paper before remember, but they put it all on one, I guess they were thinking of saving the planet!
Comment by Peter posted on
One of the problems is not the use of a manual advisory, it's the "search for a defect" option. Type in your fault and you get an endless list of possibilities spread over pages and pages!! At one of the old roadshows when the new system was being discussed I asked would the inspection manual be linked both ways to the defects page and I categorically told yes, but guess what, it hasn't. When you find the defect on the list, it has a hyperlink to that part of the inspection manual, but more often than not when I find something out of the ordinary I like to double check in the manual. How great would it be if there was a link right there in the manual direct to actually reason for failure/advise. Find the fault in the manual and boom the next thing you're doing is selecting the location in the defects page.
Comment by Sean posted on
Improvements are good for everyone but we have to bear in mind that the more that is added takes longer (for some people) to carry out and as most garages try to attract customers by reducing MOT's prices it means that more pressure is on the tester to carry out his work for the day. What I would like to see is the price of the MOT being fixed across the country at the current recommended fee (for the respective classes) and that will allow time for the improvements that benefit DVSA, MOT businesses, the testers and the customers. We do need this as I personally feel that by allowing ridiculously low prices it dilutes the importance of what the MOT stands for
Comment by david b posted on
AMEN to that shaun super comment- I hope DVSA take note. they should fix the price and if your caught offering reduced mot fee to customers you should be subject to disciplinary action.
Comment by Andy posted on
Sean I couldn't agree more the issue with the MOT system and pricing has been a problem for a very long time,As I understand it the DVSA will not set a minimum rate as it will encourage the larger companies to open test stations " Every Tesco and Asda would have a while you shop MOT " the simple answer to this is to control how many test stations can be opened in a specific area
Comment by tim posted on
Make CCTV of the test compulsory
Comment by kerry posted on
well said and your right in what your saying
Comment by mark mitchell posted on
well put sean the prices are just getting silly and its just makes the mot scheme look cheap and nasty we need set prices to provide a good service not make us look like a cheap discount service
Comment by Anthony Stockman posted on
I couldn't agree more! Sean is completely right in what he states: - There should be a fixed (Jo public retail) price, right across the board, which no testing station should be allowed to deviate from. That ensures a 'level playing field'.
It's a well known fact that discounting MOT tests to a 'lost leader' price, is to attract resultant repair work, from a failure. The problem is as we've noticed from a couple of discount MOT outlets near us:- they go 'looking for trouble'. On 4 occasions this year, we've had customers come to us with a long list of failures from one of these stations (one in particular) and looked at the 11 items they had listed as failures. Only 2 were genuine failures, a further 5 were 'advisories' at best and the other 4 were completely irrelevant. And we know that is endemic throughout the region; probably the whole of the country. These customers only came to us, because they sensed an injustice, but what about the unsuspecting majority, who accept the result and agree to unnecessary work being done? Let's face it, very few drivers know much about what happens under the bonnet. Charging the proper price would remove that advantage from the unscrupulous.
Comment by S Ashby posted on
I totally agree with keeping the standards and as a fairly recent new testing station I have kept our fees to the DVSA standard of charging our customers the set fee so that it shows that we as a garage are keeping up the Standard that DVSA sets and I believe everybody should be working across the board to exactly the same standard. Garages in general must be charging a minimum rate of £45 ph so all these Garages' testing for £30 are losing money as most mots carried out take about an Hour to do. The time I allow for test are 1hr or as long as it takes, The Garages that are not charging DVSA fees set should be removed from charging these lower rates. This whole thing should be standardised across all garages. When I was on my course a few years back one chap was doing test on cars every half an hour because he was under constant pressure from his boss to get as many test done in a day to generate money through the garage and that's the weak link low cost fees many cars through the doors not by the hour I am sure.
Comment by Chris 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.
Chris
Comment by Ross posted on
On a system that has 26 failures for a number plate, but no test for a number plate light (Class 1&2), we need manual advisories. Removing the function because some testers mis-use it is not the way forward. Where else do I advise "lights masked", "soft tyres", "slight brake bind". This isn't CMA, a new owner of a machine with 12 months MOT would be entitled to know this. That's why advisories are on the VT20.
Comment by Robert shotton posted on
JUST PLEASE TELL ME IF THE CAR OWNERS HAVE ONLINE ACCESS TO THE ADVISORYS OR NOT ?????????????????? 17/11/17
Comment by Julia (DVSA) posted on
Hi Robert
Yes the do - through the MOT history service - <a href="https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history"></a>
Comment by john posted on
To Paul Chubbock the advisory for inner steering rack joints is in 'non component related advisories'. Guess it doesn't matter if they fall apart then????
Tried to link to your comment, but this blog works about as well as the main system.
Also to everyone still advising underbody covers, we were told to stop advising standard fitted ones in 2015.
Comment by Tony S posted on
Click on the reply button not the link one
Comment by Andrew Chambers posted on
I think this is a valuable area that should be retained, I have been told again and again by VE's and in NT refresher courses that if there's a safety item you are concerned about but cannot find a relevent RFR or advisory for then manually advise it. I accept that some NT's are being lazy by not looking hard enough for a proper RFR and some others are being ridiculous by using it to say things like wheel trim missing but please do not take away this facility.
There will occasionally be something presented that is a safety concern which is not covered by a correct clause.
Comment by stoker posted on
The inconsistancy of advisory item availablity causes problems, some components that wear with use but are serviceable at time of test can be advised: ie suspension joints, yet other items such as an exhaust which is deteriorated to the point that it will drop in the road before next test cannot be advised.
A manual advisory is the only option in this case.
Comment by Daniel Booth posted on
Another area of the Test which requires more support with advisories is the exhaust system. Every so often I see a car with an exhaust that is originally fitted with, say, 4 hanging brackets. At the time of test 2 are snapped off or rusted away meaning that the pipes are being held up by 2 of the standard 4 brackets now. Of course, the system is adequately supported still, yet it is in everyone's best interests to notify the presenter of this situation. Currently, no preselected advisories exist for such defects.
Comment by El posted on
completely agree with the comment with regards to exhaust brackets , could also use an advisory for a exhaust system being deteriorated such as when the outer skin corrodes on a rear silencer
Comment by Daniel Booth posted on
More listed advisories for Tyres are required. Most weeks I see Tyres on MOT that have a good tread on the central 3/4 yet one of the shoulders is scrubbed off. I don't see these Tyres as having a tread close to legal limit so manually advise Tyre feathered on shoulder or worn on edge. In my opinion that needs more attention.
Comment by Peter Chidley posted on
Fully agree with LACK of SPECIFIC advisory relating to UNEVEN tyre wear. All too common situations found whereby ADEQUATE tread i.e 3- 4mm noted under 3/4 rule, however outside or inside shoulders scuffed to the point whereby inner construction is almost showing.
Furthermore is not always obvious to vehicle presenter especially if condition is on inner edge., even if a steered wheel is on full lock.
As on any vehicle, tyres are sole contact with the road .Customers (when advised verbally following MoT ) are often unaware that there may be an underlying problems be it pressures or geometry etc.
Invariably the fact tyres may have passed 'on the day ' is only consideration i.e cost ,rather than safety to themselves and other road users.
Comment by Neil posted on
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."
No one asked me! Of course we find it useful what a completely ridiculous statement! The most useful part of the test isn't thee pass/fail it is the other things that a mechanic can pick up with the car up on ramps etc that mean I need to look at repairing them. An advisory prompts me to have a look and sort it out before it becomes a fail.
This really is a completely appalling idea.. if there is something to know about my car, having paid for the test, I should be told about it!
Comment by Richard posted on
I agree with you that manual advises should stay, I feel it is still our responsibility to provide advise relating to defects that fall out side the lists provided by the system. ie tyres wearing on shoulders, exhaust systems with hangers and outer casings corroded but not to the point of requiring a failure and there being no advisory provided within the system.
Having seen customers tear up the advisories provided under previous versions on MOT testing I feel it is a retrograde step to remove our ability to provide advises with a audit trail within the MOT system
Lastly I find it surprising that after all the years that testers have been told by VOSA trainers and area officers to always give the presenter the benefit of the doubt and issue a pass and advise they should be removing this option.
Comment by conrad posted on
I prefer to do a manual advisory the ones on the system will not always match the item that I wish to advise also I find it a faster option.
change is not always good
Comment by Steve. posted on
Seems like an unnecessary disruption to me, more days of contingency testing when it all crashes. We already have "dangerous, major and minor", they're called "Fail" and "pass and advise" or pass and ignore as it's better known.
As for hidden advisories, that seems pointless. An advisory is to show that we have seen a minor fault and not missed it. If it becomes only viewable by testers or DVSA staff then I think your appeals process will increase in demand as customers buy "Clean" cars then discover it's just been for MOT but the tyres are close to the limit etc. Telling customers during servicing is unrealistic as a lot of people don't service their cars and only repair enough to get them legal, hence the "pass and ignore" phrase.
Whilst we're discussing advisories, when will we be allowed to advise on part worn tyres being fitted, I see retests daily with part worn snow tyres from Europe, the date stamp on some shows they are way past their best, some as old as 12 years.
Thanks.
Comment by JWalters posted on
By just changing the system, you achieve nothing. You create a new system, tell everyone its better than the last one and if anyone messes up, no doubt you will crucify them for it. Why not try changing one thing at a time until you can actually guarantee that you have the perfect system. Your NEW system will have just as many issues as the last one and down the line we will all be sitting here writing the same comments after listening to the same spiel. it certainly is a window into modern society that we change something instead of fixing it.
Comment by john posted on
I understand that these changes are law led. However you need to have much better representation at a government level to advise what is ACTUALLY practical at a ground level.
Another case of left hand / right hand. Why are VEs on the ground actively promoting the use of advisories, when desk based assessment is damning their use?
I ACTUALLY RECEIVED DISCIPLINARY POINTS FROM NOT MANUALLY ADVISING A SLIGHTLY BINDING BRAKE. WHERE IS YOUR READY-MADE ADVISORY FOR THAT!!!!!
Comment by Charlie w posted on
It’s so obvious that most testers don’t read what you write here ,I think some have read it that your removing advisories all together lol it’s just manual advisories guys if it’s testable there is a advisory already next to fail ,I use manual advisory myself and I would miss it so I hope it stays
Comment by richard posted on
It's not always the case, I've just tested a vehicle & all 4 tyre valve stems are deteriorating (cracking) enough to alert the customer, now I've manually advised on these are there is no standard advisories listed next to the fail/pass criteria, all I have is a PRS or fail for valve stem seriously damaged or misaligned of which is neither for the advise, so would what happen then if (read that as defiantly) the new system comes in ?
Comment by Alan posted on
totally aree, where`s the advisory button for tyes worn on edges, slightly reduced headlamp intensity, perished tyres, slightly or even moderately brake bind - the list goes on and on, and yes, EVRY MoT refresher course I attended in the past included "cover yourself with advisories, its imortant to use advisories" - FIX THE RFR`s instead of blaming testers for over-using them
Comment by Tony S posted on
Not next to all of them, in fact not next to most of them, that's the problem
Comment by Simon posted on
I understand the points you have made in explaining why you are making the changes, but I do not necessarily accept them. A standard engineering principle is that you should change one variable at a time, otherwise you cannot demonstrate that you have properly addressed the problem. You say that testers misuse manual advisories largely because they cannot find, in the RFR list, the item they want to highlight. Therefore you are improving the search function and removing customer-visible manual advisories. Surely you should make one change at once, and re-evaluate. Improve the search function (which will be welcome) and then see if that improves the quality of the manual text entries. Otherwise it appears that you are not being wholly truthful with what you are doing, because you have rolled two separate issues into one. This is reminiscent of the removal of the VSI which you justified as “because the trade didn’t want it” – we now know that this was not the whole story, and you have now re-instated a form of VSI. We also know that many customers wrongly use the MOT as an overall inspection and nudge to deal with defects before they become problematic, whether or not they are testable items. They do not understand that the MOT is a structured limited item process, and I am unconvinced that removing manuals will help them to understand this nor to improve their perception of the helpfulness of garages & testers. Customers are not experts and are notoriously bad at correctly remembering what we tell them. For example, I manually advise ‘wear to outer edges of both front tyres- suspect tracking may need adjusting’ – they are grateful for this, and it adheres to the ethos of the MOT by not expecting business to automatically follow from the test - they are at liberty to take the vehicle elsewhere for the manual advice item to be dealt with, but it does highlight a likely future fail if unaddressed. Verbally telling them is not the same. Summary - please DVSA don’t link two separate issues and give testers an incomplete smokescreen explanation of why.
Comment by Dominic Biddle posted on
I completely agree with Simons arguments.
Comment by Chris posted on
I understand the idea of not having certain advisories placed on the MOT certificate, but the situation can arise that the customer ends up at another garage for whatever reason. That garage states the advisory and the customer can say "I've just had it MOT'd and they didn't say anything about that!!! Especially prevalent if communication between workshop and customer is not direct.
Comment by John Drew posted on
common sense seems to be put to the back of the list,over 40 years of testing we have seen so many changes,some good and some not so good.it seems to me that that many items that have been removed from testing can only be reported in manual advisories. its a bad idea...
Comment by Martin Pratchett posted on
I think a manual advisory option should stay. There are always going to be items which wont appear on your lists, which could affect safety in the future i.e. tyres perishing due to age
Comment by paul posted on
Leaving comments on what we find not relating to mots, I work as a technician in a garage and don't always speak to or see customers
I think this is a big mistake customers need to be advised of items
I think all testers should be put back in the local test centres to do the two day refresher courses testers get together and are able too chat about the mot system and the problems they are experiencing and have a inspector go through things that's going on after all if its not broke don't fix it
Comment by Andy bunting posted on
I can see all the used car sites will love this no advisories on there mot certs.
But let’s not be to negative towards the new change.
Comment by Jordan posted on
Anything that improves how user friendly the system is, how quick it is to use and how it safeguards us as testers is a positive thing. Look forward to using it when its updated.
Comment by phil littlewood posted on
I can't see what the problem is, if its a manual or a listed advisory, as long as it's got to do with safety.my favourite is advising of brake discs corroded, If testers are listing things like paint coming of the roof etc then that's not the place for it. I can't think of anything that I would list, that's not some how to do with the safety of the vehicle. And if testers are doing this the a bit of education may be needed. This is a big debate, and there could be reasons why things are listed, maybe you should be asking the individuals the reason why they do it, before you penalise the rest of us by removing a great tool. I agree that the search function can be improved, but i am sceptical, and think this could be away of catching us out.
Why if DVSA knew we where going to have to pay for training, did they not do it in house, instead of all these companies springing up, and pestering us for them to offer their services to train us, at a great cost,you did a crafty move from it all being free,to making us pay for everything,do you think we wouldn't notice, oh and you haven't given us the pound back which you put on he test fee to pay for the original computer system, the mot scheme as systematically been devalued, yet another government interference trying to fix something thats no broke to save money. Make I a fixed fee an they can take piece and make money to pay for the original service that we had,with proper trying centres.