Unhappy with MOT

car-man

I'm afraid that things aren't as simple as you think.
In the mot testers instructions there is this....
10 Assessment of component condition
It isn’t practical to lay down limits of wear and tolerance for all types of components on different models of vehicle, or to define acceptable amounts of damage, deterioration and effectiveness.

You are therefore expected to use your knowledge, experience and judgement to assess if the condition of a component has reached the stage where it's obviously adversely affecting its functionality or likely to adversely affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle.

car-man

Here is the whole thing regarding mot testing...

MOT Manuals Introduction

Ronski

No they weren't, but we had the benefit of the wheels removed and steel rule held against the pad. Often it is difficult to see pad thickness through the wheels, the car failed on two other items Delvey hasn't disputed, the tyre was also very low probably with some of the tread very borderline, perhaps the examiner genuinely thought it was thinner than it was. Either way all items required attention very soon.

Trollslayer

The pictures seem to show the outer pads, are the inner pads that same?

Delvey

Yes, as Ronski says, the other items are I am not disputing. Luckily pads are cheap, but imagine he said the discs needed changing (when they did not). Or if you just say to the garage, change the pads then (which they might not even do)

nvingo

So you're at the testing station, they've just told you the vehicle has failed and must not be taken onto the highway. You now need to book a recovery truck - the testing station suggests a 'friend' of theirs. Probably an easier win for them than charging for unnecessary repairs.

Bl4ckGryph0n

don't you have a smart phone and look it up quickly?

My gosh there is so much negativity and distrust everywhere.

nvingo

I do. There are still people in this world who don't, or don't know it's something that's available to look up.
And this thread started, because a tester marked a dangerous fail where there wasn't one.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Well I think it’s impossible to say that on the basis of a few images.

nvingo

So faced with a fail for items listed as dangerous, the punter has three legal options; pay whatever price the testing station conjures up for repair work; pay an additional cost to have the vehicle legally moved to a preferred repair location; or accept a price from the tester to leave the vehicle with them for disposal (which will be scrap value and they may make/not make repairs and offer it for sale).
So no wonder some people, and remember this might apply to the OP, who would take their chance getting it home some other way and carry out what repairs are necessary.

Don't want to give the DVSA ideas, but it would be feasible to scan the MOT database for vehicles retested for non-driveable fails that have significant difference in the recorded mileage at retest; all the have to do then is identify the driver; and to note that a remotely repaired vehicle is still recorded as dangerous-MOT invalid so is not travelling back to the station under MOT-expired travelling directly to the testing station, so the cost of return 'recovery' will also need be borne.