|
Advisories can be viewed at the Vosa site. So any prospective buyer can go along with a list and use them as bargaining points for knocking the price down.
|
There are 115k good reasons for knocking the price down,.
In fact I would be a little suspicious of a115k mile car that HASNT had an advisory.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Any tester with higher than the national average pass rate, or lower than average advisories, is liable to be investigated. So wiley testers throw in a few just to maintain their credibility in VOSA eyes.
yet again a system put in place by civil servants or ministers who do not understand the meanig of "avearge". by these very manipulating "advisory" or "fail" or "pass"actions that these mot stations are allegedly carrying out, they are helping maintain a false "average". this means that the "average" stays the same forever despite improvements in the design and technology and longevity of cars and components.
cheddar:
do check what the online vosa report states. you may find that an advisory that appears on paper as "minor" is recorded on the vosa wesite as "dangerous".
|
do check what the online vosa report states. you may find that an advisory that appears on paper as "minor" is recorded on the vosa wesite as "dangerous".
Why should this be a possibility, why would the status of an advisory differ online? Is there such thing as a 'dangerous advisory' I thought anything dangerous would be a fail?
|
Why should this be a possibility, why would the status of an advisory differ online? Is there such thing as a 'dangerous advisory' I thought anything dangerous would be a fail?
>>
i don't know the answer to your question.
ok, i just checked for a car that i know has recently passed the test. with an advisory notice:
" 003 N/S/F tyre has slight damage to outer wall "
the online version states: Advisory Notice issued
N/S/F tyre has slight damage to outer wall **DANGEROUS**
|
Having followed this thread I checked on line about my car and the advisory was exactly the same as was printed on the form given to me- spelling mistakes and all. I guess it is all done automatically.
Strange why the one you checked was different.
And they say the computerised version was meant to be more efficient?!?
|
The information printed on your Pass / Fail / Advisory printout is simply a copy of the data sent to the central database.
So if there is any difference at all - something is wrong!
DC
|
|
|
|
The MoT is rather subjective as a whole - but its a pretty good system. Advisories are a good idea because they encourage the owner to keep an eye on items that might significantly deteriorate over the coming 12 months.
The limits around the 'typical' pass rates expected of a VTS are very wide and VOSA would only flag up a problem if a tester was passing a very high proportion of cars - in which case they would probably put a few of their own cars through 'covertly'. There is a lot of 'stirring' about the current MoT system - partly because its quite new and partly because its perceived to be a 'government IT' job. Actually its a really good system that does the job very well.
|
|
|
I think through human error these things are not necessarily recorded accurately, so it's worth checking, a bit like one's credit rating. I've had a paper advisory that didn't feature at all at Vosa, and one that differed slightly in its description. I also had a "notional" advisory, picked up during the course of the test, but fixed by the tester on the spot (steering clamp bolt tightened up a bit). It still appears at Vosa.
Can anyone confirm whether there is any obligation to fix an advisory, or whether last year's get re-checked at the next MOT? Supposing the minor fault is still there, but no worse - can it go on forever?
|
I got several advisories the year before last at a local independent including.
Low brake fluid
Rusty brake pipes
Rusty rear discs. (I did have these changed later)
Brake fluid was on max.
So I was a bit skeptical.
Car has been through another MOT since and several main dealer services without further comments.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
I got several advisories the year before last at a local independent including. Low brake fluid Rusty brake pipes Rusty rear discs. (I did have these changed later)
>>
so what does the online record for "the year before last" state? are they all shown there as minor items?
|
|
I think often the tester writes/says something to the customer that differs from what he enters into the computer - easy to do on a busy day, particularly if there is more than one tester in the workshop. The advisories are useful both to the customer and to the tester the following year - e.g. if play in the rack has been noted then the tester in 12 months time can make a note to check that item carefully or look for signs of repair work.
|
Aprilia said "I think often the tester writes/says something to the customer that differs from what he enters into the computer"
There is a very good reason for that -
When speaking with the customer the tester will normally be honest with him - You have a little bit of play in the steering rack sir, It's very common and isn't detrimental at all so you needn't spend loads of money just yet and it can have a valid pass.
On the VT32 advisory notice (which is recorded on the central database) you write something to the effect of "Play in rack"
Now if the vehicle subsequently gets involved in an examination for any reason (and there are many), It cannot be said that the MOT tester missed a possible fault. It's on record, he checked it, thought about it and made an educated decision.
Most importantly - he has guarded his back!!
(obviously I am speaking as an experienced MOT tester)
DC
|
|
|
yet again a system put in place by civil servants or ministers who do not understand the meanig of "avearge". >>
Like their current proposal to extend MOT testing to every other year, probably because some expensive consultant told them that 'the average' car doesn't need an annual test.
|
re boxterboy's comments:Like their current proposal to extend MOT testing to every other year
i thought it was something to do with trying to harmonise rules across all the euro states.
also, in any case, there has been a huge response from garages against the proposal (as it threatens the loss of a lucrative stream of repair income).
re aprillia's comments:The MoT is rather subjective as a whole - but its a pretty good system.
agreed
Advisories are a good idea because they encourage the owner to keep an eye on items that might significantly deteriorate over the coming 12 months.
agreed, but i feel that the online history record should not be available for test stations to view.
>>The limits around the 'typical' pass rates expected of a VTS are very wide and VOSA would only flag up a problem if a tester was passing a very high proportion of cars - in which case they would probably put a few of their own cars through 'covertly'.
this covert testing used to be easy for the likes of what-car or which? magazine or rogue-traders type investigative programs to carry out. however, now that the mot test station can see that the car has been to other stations, this type of covert investigation is not possible. maybe vosa can do it by using theie own cars if they can delete the computer records (unless they use a fresh "old" car for every test).
There is a lot of 'stirring' about the current MoT system - partly because its quite new and partly because its perceived to be a 'government IT' job. Actually its a really good system that does the job very well.
i think it is a good system but then i happen to know which stations are "looking for work" in my locality and which are 100% honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its not on the actual MOT certificate itself. Loose the sheet with the advisory on.
It says that an advisory was issued on the MOT itself which without the advisory itself is perhaps more of a concern.
And come on - lets be honest how much value is there in 100k+ 6 year old mondeo that will be affected by an advisory notice.
>>
5 years though point taken.
|
yes, advisories are very subjective , if the tester knows your a car trader you get a long list of advisories, hes covering his bottom ?!
in my opinion its pass or fail , thats all the "advice" i need ,
|
(obviously I am speaking as an experienced MOT tester) DC
so, rebel, do you look online at previous advisories before commencing the test?
|
"so, rebel, do you look online at previous advisories before commencing the test?"
Occasionally yes, more often than not no, and occasionally after I have completed a test, - for various reasons.
DC
|
my mot man puts slight pitting of front discs on every car i take him unless the discs are brand new
why does he do this?
because his thinking is the car could be stood for a while till it sells so as said he is basically covering his own watsit
the problem is the discs are fine and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, but, any customer checking the vosa website with the details on the v5 could consider the car in question has dodgy brakes
therefore i dont like this advisory system
to me it should be pass or fail and not some waffling advisory
|
>>to me it should be pass or fail and not some waffling advisory
I disagree.
If you want an MOT without any room for doubt, then, you will have to pay for a proper engineering measurement of the tested parameters rather than a subjective check by an experienced mechanic who has gone on to become an MOT tester. Now, I would estimate that such an engineering check would probably cost at least an order of magnitude more than the current visual inspection - would you be happy with £500 MOT tests?
I tend to agree with Aprilia's support of the MOT system, it's quite a good, sensible check. That most of the public, and a surprising number in the trade don't understand its purpose and meaning is the main problem in my opinion.
Advisory comments reflect that there is some grey inbetween the black and white of pass/fail, and provides helpful guidance - in many ways, the advisory items are in some ways the main value for money you get from an MOT
Number_Cruncher
|
- Number_Cruncher
im a motor trader
please dont talk waffle to me
i explained quite clearly about advisories and the fact it can cause problems later when car sold and i gave a clear concise real world answer as to why this is possible
|
>>im a motor trader
Am I meant to be imnpressed?
So, would you be happy paying for a proper engineering measurement based test - it's the only way to have a black and white result?
Number_Cruncher
|
>>Am I meant to be imnpressed?
Sorry - what I should have said was - Do you think that the MOT rules should be drawn up just to suit car traders?
Number_Cruncher
|
I have to agree with Number Cruncher 100%
The MOT test is a very good value 'fairly thorough check over' and the advisory system, used correctly plays a very important part.
DC
|
|
|
I tend to agree with Aprilia's support of the MOT system it's quite a good sensible check. That most of the public and a surprising number in the trade don't understand its purpose and meaning is the main problem in my opinion. Advisory comments reflect that there is some grey inbetween the black and white of pass/fail and provides helpful guidance - >>
I agree however the advisory should be explicit, for example in my case (the OP above) the tecnician was very polite, helpful and friendly and clearly said "this is quite normal, very minor and nothing at all to worry about" or words to that effect however on the advisory sheet it says simply "slight play in the steering rack", no mention of it being quite normal etc etc.
|
"I agree however the advisory should be explicit, for example in my case (the OP above) the tecnician was very polite, helpful and friendly and clearly said "this is quite normal, very minor and nothing at all to worry about" or words to that effect however on the advisory sheet it says simply "slight play in the steering rack", no mention of it being quite normal etc etc."
I can see your point Cheddar, but you must realise that when the tester was verbally informing you of the situation he was basically chatting informerly.
When he comes to enter the fail / pass / advisory information onto the computer he is actually entering data onto a government database.
He doesn't have time to write a story, (and I'm sure VOSA wouldn't want it) he will enter the minimum explanation necessary to serve the purpose.
DC
|
|
|
I do see what you mean Cheddar, but at least he did include the word "slight"!
The allowable free play at the steering wheel for cars with steering racks is small (much smaller than for those with steering boxes!), and if there is play, and it has passed the MOT, then, by default, the play must be very small.
It is really difficult to please everyone. There are some who would want nothing other than a pass certificate, who would probably ignore advisory comments as a matter of course, and others, perhaps stalwarts of the Mondeo owners club, who would be on the lookout for new steering rack that very day! Somewhere in the middle lies the safety concious motorist who will derive some value by having a list of items to keep an eye on during their regular maintenance of the vehicle over the forthcoming year.
There is a similar system in place for HGV regular inspections (depending upon the type of vehicle and its usage, these can be weekly, fortnightly, monthly, etc). These are required as part of the conditions for having an operators licence, and can be inspected by VOSA. On them, you can list things as OK, No Good, or Observe. If you put observe, then, you will have the vehicle back in before its next due inspection to check over the items marked as observe. This is good, as it allows you the opportunity of planning your maintenance actions, potentially by adjusting the working pattern for the vehicle, allows you to fit the work in with workshop loadings, and gives you some time to get the parts in place ready for the work.
MOTs for HGVs and PSVs are only done by VOSA, and, if you submit too many vehicles which fail, VOSA will question your maintenance regime, and will probalby pay you a visit! (Not recommended!) VOSA see their MOT work for HGVs mainly as a check that a good system of maintenance is in place for the fleet.
Number_Cruncher
|
we are talking cars not commercial vehicles
the advisory stays with the vehicle
its down to the individual tester that may be on a hunt for work
on bonus
hates the particular model
hates you
the possibilities are endless
bottom dola line advisories are there forever
i mentioned the discs i could write down a whole list of advisories from cars that when checked against the vehicle is actually nitpicking
i am against 2 year mots
i think mot"s are a good thing
i think the system is too set in stone at the moment and when the new traffic light system comes out it should sort out the good station s from the work looking bad ones
we shall see
|
... when the new traffic light system comes out it should sort out the good station s ...
bell boy : what is this "new traffic light system" ? and when is it due ? thanks.
|
>>we are talking cars not commercial vehicles
Yes, I know. I discussed commercial vehicles to show how the MOT system fits in to the wider picture of vehicle maintenance and safety checking, and that it isn't in any way anomalous, or inconsistent.
Yes, all MOTs have the human element as a common factor. Many test aspects subjective rather than being based upon engineering measurement. If you want to get rid of these judgment calls, then be prepared to pay for it!!
It's difficult to avoid this subjective decision making - there are a few mechanics and automotive engineers who post on here. If you put the same car in front of;
Aprilia
Garethj
Grease Monkey
Injection Doc
none
Oldman
Screewloose
659FBE
PeterD
and myself, you would probably end up with 10 different lists of pass/fail/advise. I suspect the lists would have most items in common, but I wouldn't expect any to be exactly the same.
In my experience, it pays to find an MOT station that either doesn't do any repairs; this removes the drumming up work aspects which I agree do happen.
I share your views on 2 year MOTs - they are an awful idea, and I think it's difficult to see a better compromise than the current MOT - I hope it isn't messed about with too much!
Number_Cruncher
|
a mot should be to check if a car is safe or not.
let me give an example, the vehicle passed but got 2 advises ........1 number plate light "dim"
2 exhaust corroded .
surely the tester can decide if its too dim or too rusty? yes/no pass/fail ?
the person who services the car should decide the advice part
in my opinion the tester is either unsure of his own opinion [pass/fail] or is trying to drum extra work without being investigated by vosa for failing a car when it should have passed.
|
"a mot should be to check if a car is safe or not"
Weather it should be or not - It Isn't!
"surely the tester can decide if its too dim or too rusty? yes/no pass/fail ?"
Assuming an exhaust pipe has a life span of two years. On day one it is nice and bright and shiny. On day 730 it is a pile of rusty dust.
At what time on which day does it cross from being passable to failable?
"the person who services the car should decide the advice part"
The person who MOT's the car is more highly trained.
In VOSA's own words / rules - If a testable item is marginal or inconclusive, It must be passed and advised.
DC
|
>>a mot should be to check if a car is safe or not.
I disagree, but the difference in our opinions is actually quite subtle - although I suspect I don't hold the majority view.
I believe an MOT should be used as an indepedant check to see if the servicing and maintenance regime for a vehicle is OK or not.
To determine absolutely whether a vehicle is safe or not in all its aspects cannot be done without some dismantling. I don't believe that an MOT can determine a car to be absolutely safe, although it can easily find a car to be unsafe. It is quite possible for a car with a brand new MOT to be unsafe - the unsafe part being in some aspect which is not inspected, or cannot be simply inspected.
My favourite example of this is if you removed one wheel nut from each wheel, and put the plastic wheel trims back on. The MOT tester cannot remove any covers or trim panels - no dismantling is allowed. So, your car might pass if all its other testable items are OK with missing wheel nuts!
A black and white pass/fail cannot be acheived without some measurement. To take the example of an exhaust, should the remaining thickness of material in the corroded exhaust be checked using xrays or some other NDT? The extra work required to give a black/white answer would be very time consuming and expensive. If we rely on a purely visual inspection, we must accept the subjective answer, with its attendant shades of grey.
So, an MOT with sensible scope, sensible duration and sensible cost can't really determine if a car is safe.
The MOT is an inspection against a prescribed list of test aspects. Effectively it represent an inspection of only a sample of the possible ways in which a car can be unsafe. The idea is that if the sample of inspected items are OK, then, it is likely that the rest of the vehicle maintenance which does involve dismantling and measurement is also OK. To determine whether a car is allowed to remain on the road or not is in part based on this probabalistic argument - the MOT isn't an entirely deterministic test.
A car which is properly serviced and maintained should pass the MOT without too much trouble - most of the requirements aren't particularly stringent. A car which fails the MOT most probably deserves to be removed from the road until it i repaired.
In summary, the MOT is an inspection of a sample of possible test items from which it can be seen if the car is being correctly maintained. It can't tell you that a car is safe or "roadworthy" - whatever "roadworthy" means!
Number_Cruncher
|
okay, then lets get back to basics, on the mot it quite clearly states " on the day of the test it met the basic requirements to mot standards" so adding an advisory is surely just like saying " but im not sure on this/that bit so im adding a bit to cover my bottom just in case " ?
and i can remember when the general idea of the test was the tester should ask himself, "would i feel safe driving this vehicle at speed ?"
a mot is a basic safety check, its not a service , neither is it a car inspection , ive met numerous people who have been misled by what the actual mot is and the fact that it is based "on the day of the test"
numerous stories of how can the tracking be out ? its just been mot,d? etc etc
so in my mind by putting advisories , the tester is not complying by what it explicitly says on the certificate "on the day of the test it met the basic requirements " no more no less?
|
My post really was about the basics. The real basics about what an MOT can and can't do.
Perhaps this web page might clarify it a bit - particularly the first paragraph.
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/D...8
>>"would i feel safe driving this vehicle at speed ?"
I agree - it's not a bad way to make your judgement. One problem with this is that if you have a tester with a fertile imagination, then almost any defect could make the vehicle unsafe, whereas if the MOT tester has a more pedestrian outlook some things which should fail get a pass. I don't think much has really changed in this respect - thankfully we still have an MOT tester using their discretion.
As long as there are these judgement calls, there will be the need for advisorys - there is an unavoidable grey area. In the parts of the test which are instrumented, like emissions and brake efficiency tests, you will get very few advisorys - the car either passes or fails on these points. Where a judgement is required, the third category of "keep an eye on it" is useful, sensible, practical, and valuable.
Number_Cruncher
|
we didnt have "advice" on the old mot [paper certificate, hand written] did we ?
all i can remember is a section at the bottom of the check sheet stating that in the opinion of the tester the vehicle was dangerous to drive because of the following defect/s. and he would pick out what he considered could fail on the way back to a place of repair.
|
Yes, that's true - advice used to be able to be entered in any of the boxes on the right hand side of the old check sheet, and a copy of this was kept by the MOT station.
Is there a modern version of the old catch all "In my opinion this vehicle is dangerous to drive........."? Or has that potentially useful way of giving information to the vehicle owner gone during the modernisation of the test?
Number_Cruncher
|
|
I've just been hit with a such a list of advisories I initially considered scrapping the car.
But reading the governments own advice
mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/giving-the-right-advi.../
I think next year I'll be doing more careful preparation of the car and discuss the advisories with the tester before he starts.
|
|
I've tidied up the thread. An old thread being resurrected is often suspicious and a prelude to spam but that does not appear to be the case here. The link is genuine and the poster has been a member since 2010 although a very infrequent contributor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
