Second MOT attempt

[Bringit96]

Well it's a much shorter list, not happy that rear brake pipes are leaking, not exactly sure how that's happened...(edit - I single flared all of the pipes well done me) the issue with the fronts although I think that could be pad wear.



Some things have magically appeared and disappeared which is really irritating. The oil and power steering leaks are no longer advisories but somehow the front brake pipes are now corroded.

Play in joints and the steering lock issue have gone but now the central rear brake pipe is excessively corroded? Emissions is emissions so I'm not bothered about that but the disparity between the two tests is very annoying

Considering the car has been sat in a dry, aired garage since the MOT failed in Feb, how much can the car change?

 

[t-tony]

A car being stood can and will increase the appearance of corrosion and sadly is down to the testers own opinion. The outer sill is bodywork and so is not a testable item. That shows me that this tester is inexperienced and probably why he/she failed the brake pipes.

Tony.

ps. I would have thought that the airbag lights failure to illuminate would be a fail too.

 

[Bringit96]

A car being stood can and will increase the appearance of corrosion and sadly is down to the testers own opinion. The outer sill is bodywork and so is not a testable item. That shows me that this tester is inexperienced and probably why he/she failed the brake pipes.

Tony.

ps. I would have thought that the airbag lights failure to illuminate would be a fail too.

That's a shame, even keeping it dry isn't going to stop it...

I wonder if they failed the other brake pipes because they're not shiny like the new ones? The old ones have a protective coat of something black painted on them so it's a stark difference.

How can they see the seatbelt anchorage is corroded if all they can see is the outer sill?

 

[Delk]

Years ago one of the MOT guys failed my Jeep because of corrosion withing such a distance of the seat belt mounting.

The body tub had a small rust hole it in. But the fact is it had nothing to do with the seat belt. The Jeep had a full cage that attached to the chassis in eight points. Seats were mounted to the cage along with full harnesses. The body tub was just trim and had nothing to do with safety.

 

[Bringit96]

Years ago one of the MOT guys failed my Jeep because of corrosion withing such a distance of the seat belt mounting.

.

How did you deal with that? I assume the job is cutting out the rust hole and welding in a new piece, but it still has nothing to do with why it failed? Can you tell the tester they're wrong?

 

[Delk]

How did you deal with that? I assume the job is cutting out the rust hole and welding in a new piece, but it still has nothing to do with why it failed? Can you tell the tester they're wrong?

I told him he was wrong but stated that the rule was corrosion within a certain distance.

Ended up welding a plate over the hole.

Was even more ridiculous since the roll cage passed through several holes in the tub where it tied into the chassis. These holes were nice and not corroded so he didnt care.

 

[Synclare]

You can certainly appeal to the ministry over a test result, there is or was an appeal form. I did that years ago on a woman's car I had not long serviced. The station failed the car on 'scary to a woman' items such as brake flexy's. Ministry came out and did a test and passed it.
As Tony says outer sills are cosmetic. Seat belt anchors to seat which in turn is bolted to floor, unless floor or main sill is corroded (which they presumably cannot see) I don't see how it can be a fail.
I bought a 2.0 litre zed a year ago as a project having failed mot on sills - the actual sill was fine, the cosmetic cover sill held on by self tappers was the fail.

 

[Synclare]

P.S with all due respect to you if you do not understand difference between single and double flares I think brake work is best left to a skilled person - I really don't mean that in a nasty way but some things are best not left to chance.

 

[Mazza]

I filled out the form to appeal against a fail on a VW Polo where they said there was too much play in the front top suspension mounts ....which had been replaced the previous year when it failed on the same thing.....


I went straight to the local VW Dealer and got it checked .....Nothing wrong with it !!!!!!....

..it was retested by a Ministry Inspector and Passed, and I had the pleasure of going back to the original MOT station and suggested to them that perhaps more training of their tester was required as he didn’t appear to be up to the required standard.......or something like that !!!!!!

 

[the Nefyn cat]

the issue with the fronts although I think that could be pad wear.

Uneven pad wear? Unbalanced brakes? Car sat for a couple of months? What are the chances of a seized caliper, could be five minutes with a bit of red grease, could be a strip and rebuild.

 

[Bringit96]

P.S with all due respect to you if you do not understand difference between single and double flares I think brake work is best left to a skilled person - I really don't mean that in a nasty way but some things are best not left to chance.

I understand what I did wrong now so I'm glad I did it for an MOT and not in between when it could have ended very badly.

 

[Bringit96]

Uneven pad wear? Unbalanced brakes? Car sat for a couple of months? What are the chances of a seized caliper, could be five minutes with a bit of red grease, could be a strip and rebuild.

Uneven pad wear I think, the pads that came with the 2.2 calipers that I put on the car were a bit uneven but didn't think it was that bad

 

[the Nefyn cat]

It's the seized brake that wears the pads unevenly, if they're free then there's no reason for the pads not to wear evenly. The only thing that takes the brake off when you take your foot off the pedal is a tiny bit of twist in some small bits of rubber, and if things aren't as free as they should be the result is uneven pad wear and uneven brake effort, may not be noticeable during normal driving, but on the rollers it will show up.

 

[t-tony]

That's a shame, even keeping it dry isn't going to stop it...

Not necessarily, but if it was put away wet, or stored in damp surroundings, then the corrosion will grow as the car is stood.

Tony.

 

[mrscalex]

I'm afraid there's a simple reality here. The MOT test is a lot more subjective than it should be. Different testers work to different standards.

I find it very frustrating. But there's not a lot you can do about it. I think there's only 2 choices really. 1) Look at it that a 'fussy' tester can only ultimately be good for the car and hence you. 2) Take it somewhere else and hope.

I reluctanty chose 1) after deciding I didn't want to disrupt the long-standing relationship I had with the workshop manager at my local garage. Who as he pointed out is not allowed to influence the work of the MOT tester whether he agrees with me or not.

 

[Bringit96]

So went to see the car, the most pressing issue is the corrosion on the sill seatbelt point




On the way to go see man about some welding

 

[mrscalex]

So went to see the car, the most pressing issue is the corrosion on the sill seatbelt point

View attachment 145365


On the way to go see man about some welding

Is it possible he stuck his tool in and went through one of the structural 'port holes' built into the inner sill? Misleading him to think there's a fault on the inner sill? ie is it really the inner sill he's failing after all not the outer sill.

However would not be the first time (by a long stretch) an MOT tester has mis-understood that the outer sills (sill covers) are not structural.

 

[t-tony]

He cannot fail it on the reason you suggest Rob, he has to be able to see the fault. The tester has made that hole like the the ones in Jim’s black 2.2 rear suspension arm.

Tony.

 

[mrscalex]

He cannot fail it on the reason you suggest Rob, he has to be able to see the fault. The tester has made that hole like the the ones in Jim’s black 2.2 rear suspension arm.

Tony.

That's interesting Tony. Wasn't aware of that. So basically a tester can't 1) 'exploit' an area of concern 2) fail on what he thinks might be the case he has to see it ?

 

[Bringit96]

Looking at the MOT certificate and tracking where it went and who did it (the garage sends it off to an MOT test center as they don't have all the gear for it) it looks as if I know the tester and they're not exactly inexperienced...unless the certificate is signed off by the 'head tester' rather than the actual one I don't know.

The guy at the garage who had the car said that because the corrosion on the outer sill is within 30cm of the anchorage point it can be tested and failed. I'm sure that will be up for debate!

As you can see my outer sills are knackered so the welding man will do his welding next week and I should be able to get the rest of the car up to scratch in the mean time. I'll probably pop the outer sills off to check the inners as well but hopefully they're in okay shape, if not the car might have to be shelved until I can get a clean section of inner sill.

Also why are catalytic converters so expensive? Seen some going for 200/300 to even £500!