Very interesting item yesterday in HJ's Motoring News:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=4733
Quote:
21.6 per cent of three-year old cars fail their first MoT test - a higher failure rate than in some European countries that do first roadworthiness tests after four years.
The key questions are;
[A] · Why are first-test pass rates in some European countries better at four
years than UK pass rates after three years?
[B] · Does the three-year UK MoT test unnecessarily "gold plate" the European
minimum requirement for roadworthiness - at a cost to UK motorists of £465 million a
year?
[C] · Would the application of European minimum standards be enough to guarantee
roadworthiness of UK cars?
[D] · Is there any evidence that accidents due to vehicle failure are greater in
countries that wait four years for a first compulsory roadworthiness test?
[E] · In the UK, only garages can carry out tests and supply the parts and
labour needed to rectify faults. In some European countries, testing and rectifying
procedures are separated - should we consider the introduction of independent
testing centres?
[F] Greig also questioned why so many UK cars fail the first MoT test after just three
years when three-year warranties and service agreements are common. "Is it because
garages do the MoT test before the three-year warranty service instead of after it,
which fuels motorists' suspicion that the MoT is being used to show that the service
has been done properly? Do manufacturers' service schedules not cover all the
points needed to pass a MoT test - if not, why?"
[G] And finally: "Are high failure rates down to motorists failing to maintain their cars properly?"
First-time MoT failure rates (2007), supplied by VOSA
In 2007, 21.6 per cent (580,754) of three-year old cars failed their first
test. Among 836,646 individual failure faults, the top 10 were:
1 Lighting and signalling 271,567
2 Tyres and wheels 155,489
3 Drivers view of the road (Cracked/chipped windscreens, other obstructions) 120,095
4 Brakes 110,327
5 Steering and suspension 99,798
6 Fuel and emissions 23,634
7 Reg plates and VIN (vehicle identification number) 19,047
8 Seatbelts 11,271
9 Body and structure 7,705
10 Road wheels (loose, missing wheel nuts etc) 5,746
END QUOTE.
Shocking! Can anyone answer questions I have labelled [A] to [G]?
|
|
Not enough information really, the newer UK number-plates only last about 18 months before going black and patchy, some people have illegal spacing or non-approved symbols too, these could easily account for lots of failures, as could the love affair with illegally fitting sat-nav and mobile phone mounts onto the windscreen within the wiper arc. I suspect that these alone could pip us to the post compared to other countries.
|
UK number plates - they are one of my pet hates! Why do Brits put up with such flimsy rubbish? The continental ones are so much more durable. (And, yes, they use modern reflective paint.)
Sat navs mounted in swept area - believe me, this is not restricted to UK. I was in Holland last week, everybody has their dutch Tom Tom mounted exactly half way between the rear view mirror and the dash! But maybe they have the sense (which Brits lack) to remove/ move it prior to their MOT?
|
|
I find the three biggest ones amazing. It doesn't take any technical competence to check that your lights are working and your windscreen not cracked. OK the tyres may have some damage on the inner wall which you can't see easily but you can check the tread and the outer side wall easily.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends what you mean by "fail". Does that include "would fail" but the garage doing the servicing fixed the fault so that it doesn't fail? Or does the garage issue a fail certificate for a missing brake light, then put a new bulb in, then do a retest?
|
|
Cliff, since the figures are supplied by VOSA I can only assume they are actual failures as how otherwise would the data be recorded?
|
|
|
It depends what you mean by "fail". Does that include "would fail" but the garage doing the servicing fixed the fault so that it doesn't fail? Or does the garage issue a fail certificate for a missing brake light then put a new bulb in then do a retest?
i had an MOT last friday , the tester failed and issued a fail certificate for defective indicator bulbs , he then popped the bonnet and replaced the failed bulbs and then re-issued me with a pass all in the space of about 15 minutes ( £1.99 per bulb and a drink for the tester)
|
|
|
|
|
|
" in the uk only garages can supply and fit parts to rectify faults" I dont think so... i replaced failed brake discs and got it retested and passed
|
Zookeeper, of course you are right.
However, it is interesting to refer to the original IAM Motoring Trust press release on their website that includes a little extra bit of formatting in this sentence (which you have further edited ;-)
QUOTE
In the UK, only garages can carry out tests and supply the parts and labour needed to rectify faults
END QUOTE
I think the IAMMT's point is that it is in the financial interest of unscrupulous garages to fail the car on bogus charges and subsequently profit from the work required for the car to "pass" at re-test. Whereas in other countries (such as here in Estonia) the MOT centres are independently run by the DoT equiv.
tinyurl.com/64rezb - link to press release at www.iam.org.uk/motoringtrust/
|
I really don't know why anyone should be surprised by this.
The police rarely bother to ticket drivers for having defective lights, motorists rarely check their cars on anything like a regular basis, and as has often been said on here it is becoming more and more difficult for drivers to perform basic tasks such as bulb replacement anyway.
Add to that the "it's only three years old it shouldn't have anything wrong with it' mindset which is prevalent today, it's a wonder the figure's so low.
|
"Is it because
garages do the MoT test before the three-year warranty service instead of after it,
which fuels motorists' suspicion that the MoT is being used to show that the service
has been done properly? Do manufacturers' service schedules not cover all the
points needed to pass a MoT test - if not, why?"
Eh?
Thats a complete cock-eyed way of looking at things. Who performs these surveys?!
To most people warranty == fix things for free
To most people MOT == things might be broken - it might cost me money
Wonder if MOTs are done within the 3 years warranty to fix stuff before it runs out.
Just a thought.
That kind of conclusion makes me distrust the rest of the stats really.
|
And another thing!
Its impossible to NOT MOT a car outside of 3 years if you dont want to drive round with no MOT. DOH!
|
A significant proportion of three year old cars are ex lease, sold through auction at three years old and then MOT'd by the trade. Probably accounts for a lot of the fails.
|
It must be the case that some brand new cars would fail an MoT test.
I wonder what the percentage is?
|
Intriguing thought, Lud. Here in N.Z., vehicles must have a valid test cert when they are driven out of the dealership brand new, and, unless declared "as-is-where-is", cannot be sold later with a cert more than a month old. Prices here for new vehicles are usually quoted as "plus on-road-costs" which suggests to me that the dealers have things to put right before they deliver to the new owner the latest pride and joy.
|
|
|
|
Interesting and shocking statistics, but I reckon anyone who allows a 3 year old car to fail an MOT is an utter muppet realy. However it remains that some people can wreck a car in much less than 3 years, more by bad driving and neglect than out and out mileage.
I've always maintained that if a car is presented to the MOT testter in a disgusting state, they tend to look that little bit harder for problems and usually find them.
Anyone who lets a car fail on tyre wear is obviously also a bit of an idiot.
|
It doesnt surprise me. I know people who dont service their cars from one year to the next and use the MOT as a service! Lots of people dont bother looking after their cars within 3 years because they think they have a cushion with the warranty if things go wrong.
How many cars are not serviced annually or to agreed mileage within warranty period? I worked with a bloke that bought a new 206 in 2003 and it never saw a spanner in 40,000 miles. Failed its first MOT and he bought a new one saying the car was carp and costing him money!!
|
I am not surprised either. Some company cars have 150+ k on the clock at their first MOT, and a minority will have had virtually no maintenance as others have said.
I find it terrifying that a car can leave the factory and be hammered for probably 80% of its useful working life, with no maintenance beyond urgent repairs, and never be subject to any form of roadworthiness check during this time.
Cheers
DP
|
Light bulb's gone! Wow!
Damn statistics!
Once you see the detail, nothing seems odd to me.
|
Three years is a long time in the life of a vehicle, especially if it isn't maintained correctly.
|
|
|
|
I am not surprised either. Some company cars have 150+ k on the clock at their first MOT and a minority will have had virtually no maintenance as others have said.
I don't know any statistics but very, very few company cars do that kind of mileage - 60K over 3yrs is typical.
I find it terrifying that a car can leave the factory and be hammered for probably 80% of its useful working life with no maintenance beyond urgent repairs and never be subject to any form of roadworthiness check during this time.
Company cars that are leased are typically fully maintained by the leasing company - they will only do what is necessary, but if needs doing then it gets done. In my (20+yrs) experience of company cars, they're safety checked every time they go into a dealership, even if it's for work in between services.
Also, it's a condition of every lease car I've had that it's returned to the leasing company at 3yrs with an MOT. I did have one car fail at 3yrs as the tester thought one tyre was excessively worn in one section, but even the dealer service manager thought it was OK and Kwik Fit (the nominated tyre supplier) thought it was fine.
|
|
|
|
|
