MOT incompetence

Laugh all you want, but I wouldn’t have mistaken you if you hadn’t written it in johnny age five prose.

Nobody would be taking the piss out of you if you hadn’t responded in the style of a surly teenager who was in such a rush to mock that they failed to understand what everyone else evidently did 😀

What are you talking about?

You took your car with no brake pads to an MOT, it failed, and you are upset that you have to replace your brake pads?

Are you sure you should be allowed to drive a car?

Are you sure you should be allowed unsupervised access to the Internet?

Well I read the OP’s post just fine and understood it as it was intended, have seen much worse posts on here.

Regards checking brakes the MOT testers manual states ‘A visual and physical check must be carried out on all mechanical components that are visible and accessible.’ bearing in mind that they are not allowed to remove parts to make them visible, I nearly always get a advisory mentioning the engine undertray restricts inspection.

MOT brake inspection

Yep i know that bit, im looking for the bit that says ” if its not visible fail it”

If you can’t understand and need a translation written by Prince Charles to understand the O.P?

You’re either a toff, an idiot or a troll.

Don’t ever travel! as some of the people in other countries don’t speak a word of English…

trail_rat – Member
Yep i know that bit, im looking for the bit that says ” if its not visible fail it”

You won’t find it.

As I said the guidelines say to “pass with an advisory” – in reality every tester I know (5 car, 2 bike) will fail it “just in case”.
For them the risk of passing it and there being a fault is not worth the chance of losing their license.
The 1.5mm for pads/linings is classic – on both cars I own there is no way of checking WITHOUT removing the wheel – which the tester is no longer allowed to do.
The tester then has a choice to give an advisory OR fail depending on his judgement.
Some will ask permission to remove the wheel to check if you argue it at the time (as I did on a previous car having had the wheels off an hour before the test to check the brakes).

There’s one a few miles from me (it’s in Beaumont Leys) they don’t carry out any work onsite but DO charge for a retest.
They only got me the once.

As I said the guidelines say to “pass with an advisory” – in reality every tester I know (5 car, 2 bike) will fail it “just in case”.

Really?

My local test station use to have regular visits from the man from VOSA, not because they were doing anything wrong, but just because of the volume of tests they did – 6 testers and 2 MOT bays – and the fact that VOSA HQ was about 3 miles away.

The VOSA man would always say, if you are unsure always pass and advise. Everybody is covered that way. Rear brakes that pass the roller test, would be a classic for ‘pass and advise’ if the tester thought the pads were low.

Hth
Marko

I’m not sure you’re understanding what’s confusing about your post – changing “Takes” to “Taken” doesn’t help at all, whilst a full stop (and maybe a “left”) would make a huge difference.

Glad i dont know any of your tester friends, its a phenomenon ive never come across it.

Blue coveralls per chance ?

Hammyuk – you still haven’t said how any car with hidden pads can ever pass an mot?

@wwaswas- IANAMOTT but the requirement is “Examine all the mechanical components of the brakes which can be seen without dismantling”.

Basically the MOT fails you for things that are wrong; it’s not supposed to fail you for things that they don’t know whether they’re right or wrong.

Well that’s what I think Northwind but hammyuk seems insistent that if it can’t be seen its an auto fail. So even if you fit brand new pads and take it back they’d still fail the car.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood your post!

tbh I think he’s just wrong- I’d be straight onto VOSA if it happened to me.

hammyuk seems insistent that if it can’t be seen its an auto fail

Even if the brake shoes were worn but passed the brake test why would you then fail it just because.
Makes more sense to pass it with a advisory as the brake function is up to standard but you as a MOT tester have still covered yourself by mentioning the fact.

My cars often have child seats fitted when taken for a test, same again there is a advisory that they were unable to test the seatbelt due to childseat fitted, as they have not tested the belt(for all they know it could be faulty) they mention it to cover themselves just in case.

For an MOT, quite simply if you can’t see it, you can’t fail it.
Pass and Advise is VOSA’s recommendation.
To fail an MOT, components have got to be pretty much on the verge of failing or failed.

we lost a trade customer due to me playing by the rules and passing and advising correctly where as he wanted stuff failed to make money out of it .If we had to fail pads when you could not see how low they are you would even fail a new car straight out of the main dealer which is brand new. As a tester you can be done for fail for profit and as well as pass for profit. Looking at pads thought the wheel can be very misleading how low they are and you can even have the pad backing on the wear lip of the disc and it is a pass as very are only looking at the friction material and even then you can not measure it. On a tester forum some one said some one who he worked with failed pads below the test min and VOSA turned up and kept asking him how he measured it and keep asking him which he could not answer.
Read some of the VOSA mot blog stuff if you want your eyes opened up.

wwaswas – Member
Hammyuk – you still haven’t said how any car with hidden pads can ever pass an mot?

Because they guidelines say “pass with advisory” so they pass.
I know what they say – I’m saying what the testers I personally know and from experience of having a car tested elsewhere – they couldn’t see the amount left so failed the car. I queried it there and then and had to give permission for him to remove the wheel because they aren’t allowed anymore to touch anything.
The area is so grey many will pass, many will fail – no-one wants to be the one that DoT catch out.

hammyuk – Member

The area is so grey

It isn’t though, it’s very black. Or maybe white. Which way round is it?

It isn’t black and white – that is where the rules read very differently and the “issue” again is how they can be interpreted in different ways.
I’ve just had this very chat after the rugby with one of the guys who’s a tester – his opinion is to base the decision on the vehicle overall and if in doubt – fail it.
Easier to rectify that than pass an unroadworthy vehicle because the rules now state “without dismantling”

Where do you think the room for intepretation is?

Well that stirred up a hornets nest.

Well here’s a hypothetical for you. If it failed on low pads. New pads are in and it’s been a week. If the tester turns round and says it’s something else causing a brake bias can it fail?

Yes it can still fail if the brakes still don’t work. I wouldn’t have thought worn pads would cause a bias in the first place though (you didn’t mention that in your original post). A seized caliper is the most likely reason for that (assuming tyre pressures are good etc).

A friend of mine is adding an MOT bay to his garage, he tells me that later on this year they will be required to have a video camera over each bay so VOSA can verify that the test is actually being done.

Phew went thru. I asked the guy who retest and he said. “Dunno I didn’t test it”

Ah well. I’ll chalk it up to a bad day in his behalf.