towing sockets (vosa)

[Steve L]

I think this topic has not only sidetracked into what's the minimum you can get away with but also it is clearly showing how MOT testers differ in their personal approach.
I had a MOT tester use a welding chipping hammer on the sills of a Vauxhall Viva HC many years ago. Needless to say i never went back. Then there's the £30 special offer deals, are they just fishing for work.
I firmly believe that there should be irefutable testing standards for tow bars and light sockets across the board. Let's face it you are towing 1400Kgs on average of caravan behind your car and you don't want that parting company unexpectedly. Also you check your trailer lights before you start out (NOT)!
If like me you maintain your car yourself, you will know just how good your car condition is. For instance I bought my car last August knowing there was a wheel bearing rumbling in the back, so I changed it and re-greased the other side for good measure and while I had the wheels off i checked the brakes out. I had the clutch slave cylinder pack up, and agin while the front wheels were off and the gearbox out I checked brakes and clutch for condition.

It is far cheaper in the long run to maintain your car to a good standard rather than fly by the seat of your pants at just passable level.

I have met far too many self oppinionated MOT testers in the past and I never go back to one. I always use a local non franchise garage purely because I get a fair test with no let off's or over the top testing of my car. After all it's 10 years old and as such will never be a 3 year old, but it will be as good as an average 5 year old because I do preventative maintainence.

 

[PhilFraeHowMill]

I was talking to my local mechanic (& MOT tester) on Monday, he is of the opinion that MOT test may go to every two years, this is ok as long as the fee doesn`t double I suppose.

 

[max1979]

a couple of years back there was talk of the mot going to 2 yrs, the garage i work at is a member of the mvra who contacted us to send photos in of dangerous items found on an mot so they could send them to the governing body to say how crazy a 2 yr mot would be and believe me ive seen some sights doing tests

 

[tonybur]

I agree Max, we are both correct. exposed cord or ply is a fail as you say.However, if you read Rfr 1a a tyre can have a cut to the cord which is 25 mm or 10% of sectional width and still pass. This rfr relates to cuts only, not tears such as you often see on the sidewalls of people who rub them against the kerb. The Rfr 1b relates to exposed cord only,so if you have a cut tyre Method of Inspection 1a allows you to use a blunt tool to open (open being the key word as if it's closed the cord is not visable therefore not subject to rfr1b) the cut being careful not to cause further damage. The MOT Test can be a minefield and a great deal is down to tester discression and from what i've read Max seems to be a tester Par Excellence! I may seem a little pedantic on this particular issue for that i'm sorry... as the March MOT rush decends on us both I shall be shaking, jacking passing & failing for the next few weekends

Tony

 

[max1979]

sorry if ive caused any offence on the matter but i value my job in this day an age i want safe cars on the road, yes there are ways round a fail to make it a pass but i wouldnt advise a customer of this if i felt it was dangerous, some things like number plates for eg theres that many failures for them but i look at them as can i read it are the digits legible yes then pass, windscreen damage does it seriously effect your view no is it more than 10mm yes but not effecting my view then i'll pass and advise, but i can honestly say in the years ive been testing ive never had any problems with the outcome of an mot

 

[tonybur]

Max, no offence caused or taken. As long as a vehicle is tested to the standards as laid down in the guide all should be cushty.
be good tony

 

[chrisbee1]

Whilst I agree that there has to be some sort of time frame for MOT’s the current system leaves a lot to be desired. My car had it’s first MOT at 3 years and 29000 miles. Some of the parts delivery vans at my work have covered 120,000 miles yet won’t have their first MOT for another year. At that mileage I’d be surprised if something isn’t badly worn, possibly making the vehicle un-roadworthy. The vans have oil/filter changes etc but how well CV gaiters, ball joints etc are checked I don’t know.

 

[max1979]

personally i find the mot a joke not so long ago i could fail brake discs for excessive scoring / pitted / worn now i cant i can only fail them if they are significantly weakened ive come across some discs in a right poor state but have passed the roller brake test and passed, and you think oh my god i wouldnt want them on my car but its a pass and advise knowing full well they will be on the car next mot

 

[Steve L]

Here's an interesting point about MOT oppinions.
I took my Daughters 1997 Meganne for MOT. I had taken off the broken heat shield on the exhaust below the inlet manifold as it was rattling. That passed. On the rear of the sills there is a drain hole 30mm x 20mm left open by the manufacturer to let water out!?? one hole had rusted by about 5mm un be known to me as I can't get under cars these days and had to go by the general condition of the rest of the body work. Ok the guy might be right to fail it. But he wants a solid plate welded on with no drain hole. That will trap the obvious water ingress that the manufacturer found and cause accelerated corrosion of the sill.

So apart from changing the whole sill for a new one, could I legally drill a hole back into the sill after MOT to re-create the original design?

 

[tonybur]

incorectly failed as far as i recall drain holes are allowed a small increase through corrosion.5 mm doesnt seem excessive to me. i would pass and advise (after i'd rechecked my belief of the computor)

 

[Dustydog]

Steve
He's wrong and is taking you to the cleaners!

Providing the area of "x"cm around the drainhole is not in anyway structural he has misinterepreted the VOSA guidelines. Moreso the remedy he has suggested is detrimental to the well being of your vehicle and contrary to its original build and construct guide. He could lose his licence for such a **** up!

 

[max1979]

i no the back of them sills i have failed them before but only when they are seriously corroded, the wording in the testing manual is the repair should be so the car is back to its original strength, so if the sill originally had a drain hole with a bung in it so then the repair can hve it as far as i would be concerned, i would of asked the garage for an appeal form

 

[tonybur]

correct max, ask for an appeal form, watch for the nervious twitch,the way his face is going pale,the "are you sure sure Sir" the "tell you what Mr Tester why not have another look with your AE (authorised examiner, he who bears ultimate responsibility) while I have a cup of coffee....... Im sure they will have a change of heart. and dont be afraid to ask them to show you the relevent section of the guide,they have to have it in hardback and on the MOT computor good luck & keep us posted. tony