MOT Liability

This is the Forum for all your Citroen Technical Questions, Problems or Advice.

Moderator: RichardW

Post Reply
Guru Meditation
Posts: 259
Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 02:30
Location:
My Cars:
Contact:

MOT Liability

Post by Guru Meditation »

I don't f*cking believe this $hit! Just taken my car for a re-test as it failed it's mot on broken indicator and split cv gaiter. The mot tester doing the retest was looking at the rear brake pipes and the offside fixed pipe where it joins the flexible hose was bent downwards in the union-it still wasn't intefering with the suspension etc it was just in a different position to the other side. I may have knocked it while working on my rear suspension or something, but the union was sound it was not leaking -at all-. The mot tester decided to bend it back up (without asking me about it-I was sat waiting and watching) and it burst. The guy just shrugged his shoulders, backed it outside and filled out the fail paper work. I've had to leave it at a garage across the way who say the bill will be about £40+VAT to get this bit of pipe replaced. Too say I'm gutted is an understatement I've just had to walk 2 miles back to work and it is yet more cash I don't have.
Question is should MOT testers be bending brake pipes unless it is too probe one that is suspected as totally corroded or is actually leaking. This pipe of mine was not corroded or leaking it had just been bent downwards. What do you think?
Interwired

Post by Interwired »

I dont know wether him bending it was wrong, but surely what is wrong is for him to break it and then not repair it for free.
Guru Meditation
Posts: 259
Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 02:30
Location:
My Cars:
Contact:

Post by Guru Meditation »

He sort of muttered that the pipe would have failed because it wasn't in it's original routing but I thought as long as the pipe isn't fouling anything nor showing any signs of leakage or corrosion it didn't matter. Plus I'm pissed because even if he was going to fail it for the pipe being in that position then fine but I wish he hadn't tried to bend it I could have driven home and replaced it instead I was stuck outside the testing station with an immobile car.
User avatar
AndersDK
Posts: 6060
Joined: 21 Feb 2003, 04:56
Location: Denmark
My Cars:
x 1

Post by AndersDK »

I definately think you should try pursue this.
First off be sure to get the replaced pipe in hands.
Next get a statement from the garage what they think make the pipe failed.
The idea is not to punish the MOT tester - but to make him understand that any action taken has a consequence.
In this case - if it shows up the pipe was not weak to a failing point - then it's ok to try it out - but it's certainly NOT ok to BEND it and then just act as the pipe was rotten.
This reminds me of an old story with a darned big solid policeman trying out a suspect 2CV on a danish highway - catched in a highway MOT raid. He stamped out the pedal box of the poor 2CV and fined the owner driving an unsafe car - forced the car off road.
Later the owner had the car inspected - and nothing wrong was found - except for a missing blinker and the brakes lights switch not working.
The pedal box was simply destroyed by sheer violence [:0]
It was the top story for weeks in papers and on telly news.
Guru Meditation
Posts: 259
Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 02:30
Location:
My Cars:
Contact:

Post by Guru Meditation »

Well, I've just picked up my car, the brake pipe is repaired and it has it's mot certificate. The repair seems fine as the brakes work as they did previously. It cost £45 to get the repair done. After I had settled up at the garage that repaired the car I went back across to the MOT station to see what they were prepared to do with regards to the cost of my repair. The manager wasn't too happy and I ended up having a 15 minute argument with him despite me being polite. He first insisted that the brake pipe they had broken was totally closed off and that no fluid was getting to the cylinder and would have failed. I pointed out that the pipe wasn't sealed off-it was only on their brake efficiency machine yesterday and the brake was fine. The car has been no where since then, the work I did on it for the MOT (indicator and driveshaft gaiter) were all at the front of the car I never even touched the back of it. Unless someone crawled under my car last night and yanked that brake pipe down it was definately like that when it was tested yesterday and the pipe was not closed off-we argued this for a bit then I also pointed out that as it wasn't leaking or corroded even if the brake was shut off because the pipe was bent he shouldn't have attempted to move the pipe-unless they are inspecting something that requires touching ie scraping off corrosion to look underneath or prying a suspension bush etc they shouldn't adjust anything without asking first. I told him that if they hadn't broken the pipe I could have driven home and fixed it at a lower cost....Get this...he then suggested that I could have driven the car home using the parking brake!!!! My journey home from there is about 6 miles including 4+ miles of 70mph dual carriage way-would you take a car with a broken brake pipe, leaking hydraulic fluid, onto a 70mph dual carriage way with only a handbrake to stop you?! I told him I wouldn't be happy to do that, what if I was in an accident-what would the police say if I was willingly driving a vehicle with no service brake? He then said it would still stop despite the broken pipe as it was a dual circuit-I pointed out that the system was only to stop you losing all brakes in one go and give you a chance to stop if a pipe should unexpectedly burst, not for general driving!
In the end I got £20 off the place so the repair only cost me £25. I'm not entirely happy as it cost me £25 but it's better than paying £45-I feel they should really have paid for the lot but if I'd insisted on the whole amount he may have just refused to give me anything then what would I do-after all if I wanted to take legal action or tell the MOT inspectorate etc how would I prove it-I have used them in the past and I did believe the broken brake pipe to be an honest mistake and thought I'd give them a chance to rectify it with a goodwill gesture.
edd001
Posts: 124
Joined: 01 Jan 2004, 16:44
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:
Contact:

Post by edd001 »

i have just read this topic and thought i would put my bit in.
i work in a garage so we have a lot of mot's done and your point is spot on in my view especily as it was a retest and not for the part he broke. i can understand him haveing a quick look around at other parts but not to touch unless something was a clear falier. where we tack our mot's the tester would have just let it go or failed it, he would not have bent it. if that was me i would go to the ministry of transport even if i did not want to take it further because if he has done it to you what5 other things has he done to others.
bxbodger
Posts: 1455
Joined: 23 May 2003, 03:34
Location: Lovejoy country (Essex!!)
My Cars:
x 1

Post by bxbodger »

All very bizzare!!In a roundabout way he's probably done you a favour! For it to break it must have been very weak to fail just by being bent. To snap a decent piece of hydraulic pipe usually needs a few bends back and forth before it actually breaks.
Guru Meditation
Posts: 259
Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 02:30
Location:
My Cars:
Contact:

Post by Guru Meditation »

Bxbodger, I appreciate what you're saying and in a round about way, yes I am sort of glad it has been done because I do agree with you when you say it must have already been weakened to break like it did, but I would have been happier for him to fail it, leave it alone then I could have driven home and fixed it for a fiver-like I say the pipe wasn't corroded nor leaking so even if it were a fail no need to touch it. I just believed that they were part liable for it-in all honesty even if the guy had sent me packing with no money towards the repair I probably wouldn't have bothered taking it any further as a) It was an honest mistake, b) I'm not the kind of person to bother with legal action etc unless it was a very serious or very expensive matter-at least it's sorted now.
But I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or go beserk when this guy in all seriousness suggested I could have driven it home on the hand brake
neilsxm
Posts: 54
Joined: 05 Jan 2004, 05:19
Location:
My Cars:

Post by neilsxm »

hi
sorry to hear about your car
but when you take your car back to the garage like for a re-test it is excatly that a RE-TEST basically he can do what he want's to your car
the thing i would complain about is how he missed it in the first place not a very good examiner!!
but if he used excessive force then he's damaged your car
ring the d.o.t to see what they say probably do nothing for you(refund etc)but they'll be watching him might make you feel better knowing he's got to watching his back
have you got the damaged parts if not get them or else d.o.t can't do anything
--hth neil--
bxbodger
Posts: 1455
Joined: 23 May 2003, 03:34
Location: Lovejoy country (Essex!!)
My Cars:
x 1

Post by bxbodger »

Yes, MOT's can be very annoying[:(!]!!!!
The problem with complaining to the DoT is that you are not supposed to get the car repaired if you want to appeal, presumably so they can give their opinion.
In the real world, we just have to swallow it and get on with the repair like you did.
I remember once having an all-aggro which failed on the boot floor being rusted out. I asked what sort of repair would be acceptable, and the tester said a spot welded patch: this I did, went back for the re-test, and there was a different tester there,who failed it insisting that HE wanted continuous welding!!!
VERY VERY annoying!!!
Back for the THIRD TIME[xx(], first tester was there again, telling me i had gone a bit over the top on the repair!!!!!
User avatar
AndersDK
Posts: 6060
Joined: 21 Feb 2003, 04:56
Location: Denmark
My Cars:
x 1

Post by AndersDK »

Hmmm ...
Last time I got my '89 BX16 MOT'ed - it failed on corrosion in inner front wings - fair enough as I did'nt bother to try it out using a sharp tool.
But I had the tester write on the printout what should be done for a re-test. This was done - and retest was only a short glance down there on both sides in the engine bay. I even asked the tester to try out the weldings under the sealing - to make him sure I did'nt just sealed over the corrosion damages.
5 minutes re-test time - most time spent on the report print-out.
The point is - get the tester to write down on the report what his suggestions are for repair - then you have in writing what the MOT needs for a re-test.
In DK that's no problem - as it's acknowledged that customers must have a fair chance to predict repair costs - eventually giving up on an old vehicle.
RichardW
Forum Treasurer
Posts: 10814
Joined: 07 Aug 2002, 17:12
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars: MK2 '17 C4GP 1.6 BlueHDi 120
'13 3008 1.6 HDi GripControl
x 984

Post by RichardW »

Anders,
Unfortuately this won't work in the UK. You are allowed to take the car away for certain minor faults, and provided it is returned for re-test the next day no fee is payable and only the failure items are retested. Miss the next day, or have a serious fault, then the car must be fully retested, and the garage is entitled to charge the fee again. Only exception is if the car remains at the MOT test station for repair, and then only the fixed item(s) need retesting, and no fees are chargeable. At the moment many stations offer a 'free' retest, and push it through on a cursory glance at the failure items. However, we are due a computerised system this year (ha ha ha!!), whereby the tester will have to log the start and end of the test, and if this falls short of the recommended time (about 40 mins) he (or she) is likely to get rapped over the knuckles by the DoT. This may spell the end of free retests. Also the computer will record the failure items, so the days of taking the car to one place and it failing on something, then covering it up with underseal, mud, whatever and taking it somewhere else will be over.
Doesn't help with all those cars <3 years old I see with only 1 headlight / brake light etc, or 120,000 + mile cars that haven't reached the 'age' for testing - as my mate's A4 would have been had it not been on a 90,000 mile lease so he had to give it back after 2 years....
User avatar
AndersDK
Posts: 6060
Joined: 21 Feb 2003, 04:56
Location: Denmark
My Cars:
x 1

Post by AndersDK »

yeah well - Richard -
Seems to be quite some differences then :
1) DK MOT period 2y's
2) Re-test half the fee for MOT - any re-test - MOT fee GBP60
3) MOT test time 30 min's - usually report & drive in/out the car takes 10 min's
4) Computerised reports - central national storage system & statistics
5) MOT stations not yet commercial (anticipated to be from '05)
6) A public LOI ensuring the MOT is a service paid for - not punishment - for car owners
Standard preparations for MOT :
The car (especially underbody) should in general be clean - usually the day before you take it to a common car wash.
Obvious faults are not accepted - you can't just pay the MOT fee to get a list of repair works - it's assumed the car is in legal road condition at MOT - at your own reponsibility.
The MOT is considered a service for owners - ensuring any service/repairs in the 2y's MOT period is up to standard - and no serious faults are hidden to owners not aware of such.
It has indeed been a cultural shock for the MOT organisation in DK - shifting from a punishing to a servicing attitude to owners [:D][:D]
This has had the very positive effect that you now can discuss a known problem not exactly being safety issues - anticipating the cost of possible repairs.
I have to say that our herd of old cars on the roads is in MUCH better shape than anyone would have thought of 10y's ago.
Also the regular running wrecks seem to have disappeared.
DLM
Posts: 524
Joined: 13 Aug 2001, 03:01
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by DLM »

Just to carry on from Richard's point, I too get a little annoyed by the state of some cars I see which aren't old enough for MOT but look fit to fail one. Mostly it's "just" a case of bulbs - though I'm sure there's more than this which goes unseen.
On the other hand, just imagine all the aggro that would ensue in our litigious age if cars well within warranty and on inclusive service agreements were subject to MOT.....
alan s
RIP 2010
Posts: 2542
Joined: 26 Jan 2001, 15:53
Location: Australia
My Cars:
x 6

Post by alan s »

Sounds as though your Politicians and their "Sir Humphreys" get some very nice Christmas presents from the car industry.[:D][}:)]
Alan S
Post Reply