Dodgy MOTs

[DieselASFC]

Just how fucking rife are these? Anybody else experienced it? I bought a Car at the end of January, and having test drove it around an Urban area, was quite happy with it. It was a 16 year old car, so not perfect, but it came with a fresh MOT so I was happy with it. However, after coming off the Motorway, at Motorway speeds, I struggled to slow the car down with the brakes. They didn't feel spongy or anything, just not responsive. So I got it re-tested by the DVSA, and here's what they found;

Fails
Service brake: efficiency below requirements [3.7.B.7]
Brakes imbalanced across an axle [3.7.B.5b] front
Brakes imbalanced across an axle [3.7.B.5b] rear (Axle 2)
Headlamp aim too high and too far to the right. [1.8] nearside
Front position lamp(s) not working [1.1.A.3b] nearside
Front position lamp(s) not working [1.1.A.3b] offside
Braking system leaking [3.6.A.1] nearside rear (brake pipe failed)
Dangerous
Anti-lock braking system warning lamp indicates an ABS fault [3.4.1c]
Seat belt anchorage prescribed area is excessively corroded [5.2.6]
nearside front lower (floor excessively holed and corroded)
Brake pedal creeps down when held under pressure [3.3.B.1a]
front brake recording little or no effort [3.7.B.5a] offside front
rear brake recording little or no effort [3.7.B.5a] nearside rear


PRS
None recorded
Advisory text
(offside steering rack track rod inner ball joint worn)
Front suspension has slight movement at a suspension ball joint
[2.5.A.1c] nearside upper ( )
Front suspension has slight movement at a suspension ball joint
[2.5.A.1c] offside upper
(offside front outer sill corroded and holed outside prescribed area)

I mean, I'm somewhat embarrassed that I've managed to buy such a heap, but I'm mechanically retarded, so hey ho. Trying to solve it amicably, but am sorely tempted to go to the Police and Trading Standards for selling unroadworthy vehicles.

[Poseidon]

Bought a car from auction which had a full MOT (less than a week old), got it home expecting a few bits and pieces to be wrong, as is always the case with cheapo cars from the auction. The car was downright dangerous, bushes worn to dust, brakes binding, headlight bulb socket missing and the drivers seat wasn't attached to the vehicle. A bit stunned by all this I thought I'd check the MOT. Thankfully, 5 days before its pass, the car had failed on all of the above at a different garage. I contacted the auction house, but they'd already released the funds to the seller (trade seller, he was black-balled for doing this sort of thing shortly after), so they couldn't take the car back. I contacted the garage who did the MOT, who were sympathetic, but very "your prob now, innit bud". I contacted VOSA who sent a very shocked inspector out who gave the garage two options, fix the car for free and expect regular inspections from now on or refuse to fix it, VOSA will take the car to their inspection centre and issue fines and possibly revoke their ability to carry out MOTs. Thankfully the garage took the first of these two options, fixed the car up (as cheaply as possible, even sending it back with some fail worthy things still present, which meant it had to go back to them again) and I was able to motor around happily until I needed to upgrade the car. Given it was quite a reputable garage, I think it was a rogue mechanic doing a favour for a mate. I do still wonder what the conversation with his boss would have entailed.

Make a lot of noise to the right people and it might get sorted. I think I was lucky in my case, I know a few people who have been landed with lemons and no one gave a monkey's.
____________________
1977 Honda CG125
2002 Ducati Monster S4 (currently restoring)

[Rogerborg]

[DieselASFC]

It was tested by a DVSA Examiner, but at a Kwik Fit near me as I was wholly uncomfortable with driving it. I've already fired off an email to the trader. Paid on Credit Card, so I've got that to fall back on if all else fails. Asked for a full refund, and for him to collect it.

[DieselASFC]

For clarification, the dealer isn't the same guy that did the MOT.

[Ste]

[stevo as b4]

Sorry but my take on it is who would or wants to buy a cheap 16yr old car and:

1, expect it to be 100percent reliable or not need any work doing?

2, no mechanical or car knowledge and buying a 16yr old don't and shouldn't go hand in hand to my mind.

Gen pop opinion states on a limited budget for reliable daily transport, you should be looking for something fairly newish within reason, not a car that could in 5years time classify for classic insurance.

There's people that fall into the shiny blingy trap of say thinking they are buying a nice car if they buy say a 16yr old BMW or Mercedes etc. But it won't be and isn't anything to be proud of at that age.

If you are buying as a project or to do a car up and make it look and run well that's a whole different game, but buying a generic 16yr old car for daily essential transport and bitching about it not being much good isn't something I'll ever do.

[spottedtango]

Been there, I bought a car like that. It wasnt till one day I was underneath trying to find the source of a squeak (which happened to be the boot rubbers) that I found a hole the size of my palm around the seatbelt anchorage area.

There was noway that this hole had formed in the last 6 months since its MOT. The whole underside of the car was rotting away around the sills, wheel arches but yet from a passing glance it looked like a nice wee car.

[mudcow007]

I knew a proper MOT tester, he got done an was sent down i was told, but he would charge taxis £400 an pass them regardless of condition etc.

He once tested a Suzuki SJ for me (which passed weirdly) that i needed a failure sheet to work from - back brakes we non existent (no shoes ) but he passed it as the front were really good

So yeah, there are dodgy testers about...

[Rogerborg]

[.Chris.]

[monkeybiker]

[Lord Percy]

[DieselASFC]

[Ste]

Did you have to pay for the retest?

[smegballs]

[Rogerborg]

[angryjonny]

[Pigeon]

[Wonko The Sane]

[DieselASFC]

[stevo as b4]

For what it's worth I agree that a valid MOT should mean it's satisfactory passed a brake test etc.

An MOT don't mean a car is any good though, or that it will run right or be reliable. Also bear in mind how basic a check the MOT is, and the fact that corrosion isn't always spotted as they can't remove paint or underseal etc to check for corrosion underneath.

I'm sorry if my post came across as a bit harsh though, it's just I may have gone off on a tangent that op was buying a 16yr old car because looks nice and wanted lots of car or spec for little money which is rarely the case.

A 16yr old car could be a sound solid motor, but with modern day owners, drivers and car buying habits along with most people not now knowing or caring about how their car works or maintaining it, then many are knackered or need serious work to make decent again.

[mentalboy]

[DieselASFC]

[Oldie]

16 years is not that old these days. Yesterday I parked up beside my old 2001 Mini and the woman who bought it from me 5 years ago has done another 60k miles in it and loves it to bits. Still looks like new.