|
General Volvo and Motoring Discussions This forum is for messages of a general nature about Volvos that are not covered by other forums and other motoring related matters of interest. Users will need to register to post/reply. |
Information |
|
MOT Advisory because it was raining!Views : 3926 Replies : 29Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Oct 3rd, 2020, 21:17 | #1 |
VOC Member
Last Online: Apr 20th, 2024 18:56
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
|
MOT Advisory because it was raining!
My S90 passed its MOT today with two advisory notes. The first is one I’d expected - the OSF tyre is bit worn on the inner shoulder, but still comfortably legal. So far so good, considering the car is nearly 24 years old.
The second has really got me puzzled: “Vehicle tested under wet conditions”! Can someone please explain how on earth the fact that it was raining today has any bearing on the structural and mechanical integrity and safety of a car? Our S70 was tested on a blisteringly hot day in July, but the Pass certificate didn’t include a weather report. I take the MOT seriously, and regard a good record as being an indicator of how well a car has been looked after through its life. It’s disappointing to get an advisory like this. Has anyone else ever seen this before? Jack |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to capt jack For This Useful Post: |
Oct 3rd, 2020, 22:01 | #2 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Today 10:20
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: S****horpe
|
Only thing I can think of is that the tester was covering himself in case there are/were any leaks he couldn't spot due to the underside being wet.I'm sure one of our M.o.T. tester chappies will be along soon to enlighten us.
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dippydog For This Useful Post: |
Oct 3rd, 2020, 23:13 | #3 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Yesterday 21:26
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: birmingham
|
Advisory notes are given at the discretion of the tester, and as this is a "note" that does not relate To the car or its condition, you could check with DVSA as to What it means if anything , the only one who Could say Why it is there is that MOT tester.
tbh sounds like you got a "jobsworth" on a Bad day who wanted to Totally cover his rear end for Anything / everything that could drip from the car. I have had Many MOT's over the years, in wet/dry and Never seen Any ref to the weather/the car being wet.
__________________
940s - 2l / 92 < gone&missed s401.8 xs auto <gone >V50 2.4SE Geartronic aka "the new money pit" "skyship007 has now been successfully added to your ignore list. "." |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to andy_d For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 12:06 | #4 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Dec 26th, 2021 13:42
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Crewe
|
I've had advisories for coverings obscuring the engine or something like that. Basically the standard engine cover and undertray and most of my MOTs completely ignore them.
I think some testers wants to give the impression that they know the most obscure rules in the manual.
__________________
2002 S60 SE D5 Manual 209000 miles |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cheshired5 For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 15:00 | #5 |
VOC Member
Last Online: Apr 20th, 2024 18:56
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
|
I'm not sure it's because the tester could or couldn't see any fluid leaks. Surely they can't change the Pass/Fail criteria for something as stringent as the MOT just because of the weather.
Does than mean that if you've got a car with a bad brake fluid leak and a smokey exhaust it'll be best to get it tested on a wet and windy day? The rainwater will hide the fluid leak, and the wind will blow away the smoke! So just for fun I've written to the DVSA to ask them how I go about the "monitor and repair (if necessary)" of a wet car, and why this should amount to an MOT advisory. I'll be intrigued to see the response. Jack |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to capt jack For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 16:02 | #6 |
Master Member
Last Online: Yesterday 22:49
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Orpington
|
It was once explained that the tester could not see oil leakage on shock absorbers or from the gearbox/engine.
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Spike56 For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 16:03 | #7 |
VOC Member
Last Online: Yesterday 20:59
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chatham
|
Any advisory I have seen has been prefaced by a section number and page number from the MOT manual. I don't think that they can make up things for themselves to make an advisory. There just might be a Miscellaneous section that allows a tester to make a personal note but it would have to be something that isn't otherwise listed?
S90 wear to inside of tread, check toe-in. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Derek UK For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 16:22 | #8 |
VOC Member
Last Online: Apr 20th, 2024 18:56
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
|
I'm not sure about the tester being unable to see fluid leaks.
A few years back my daughter bought a Mini Cooper from a BMW main dealer. They put it through the test before the sale went through and it failed because there was fluid leak from a shock absorber. Suitably fixed and re-tested my daughter bought what has turned out to be a really good car. Indeed, she still has it. If it had been raining the time, or the garage had jet-washed the car a few minutes before the test and the shock absorber therefore wet with water, following the logic that the tester couldn't be sure what the leak actually was, he'd have been fine to pass the car - which would then have been seriously unroadworthy and dangerous to drive. Selling a car in that condition would have been a very serious matter for the dealer. If you can't rely on the MOT to be fairly and consistently applied, then what is the point of even bothering with an annual safety test? That surely makes a nonsense of the test. It'd be a free ride for anyone with a dodgy car simply to put the car through a car wash immediately before testing. Or better still, use a jet wash. Give everything underneath a good soaking and bingo, engine oil, brake fluid, gearbox oil and coolant leaks can't be seen and your bucket of bolts will sail through the MOT! At the other extreme I once got any advisory on a windscreen wiper blade that didn't fully clear the screen, even though both blades were brand new. What had happened was that on arriving for the test I'd parked the car under some trees in the garage car park. A leaf had fallen off a tree and onto my windscreen. When the tester operated the wipers the leaf got caught under one of the blades and smeared the screen. Interesting one. I'll be keen to see what the DVSA have to say. Jack Last edited by capt jack; Oct 4th, 2020 at 16:33. |
The Following User Says Thank You to capt jack For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 16:33 | #9 |
Senior Member
Last Online: Apr 1st, 2024 17:55
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Berkshire
|
I feel for you.
I posted here 2 years ago about my advisory. Vehicle underside wet at time of test. Of course it was, we had a foot of snow the day before. Crazy.
__________________
2006 S40 2.4 SE Auto. Ruby Red. 83K Miles Some previous cars include: Jaguar x type: Mazda 6 : Mazda 626: Ford Sierra 2.0: Toyota Celica ST 1600 : Hillman Avenger: Triumph Spitfire: Oh and a Volvo 340 GL 1984 company car from new. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MDS40 For This Useful Post: |
Oct 4th, 2020, 19:54 | #10 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Today 14:15
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Manchester
|
Now that does take the biscuit!
Another odd advisory that pops up regularly is "Under trays fitted obscuring some underside components". Yes, there's trays underneath the car to protect it from the elements. If there were no under trays, they'd probably give an advisory for not having any fitted! You can't win. Its a shame that your vehicle got an advisory for something so tedious. Its not mechanical or structurally related, so I wouldn't be too concerned.
__________________
2007 S80 2.4 D5 - 110,000 miles |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kev0607 For This Useful Post: |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|