Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andy B]

........ The tester isn't to know if it's had x, y and z done a year ago. 

.....

Surely he can when he inputs the car's details before testing 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I would let them sort it out then tip off VOSA as to what's going on.

I found VOSA most helpful.

They sorted out a rogue MOT station that failed Mrs Opti's RX8 on emissions without performing a second fast idle test.

It failed on the first fast idle test but apparently quite a number of cars do.

[Webby the Bear]

........ The tester isn't to know if it's had x, y and z done a year ago. 

.....

Surely he can when he inputs the car's details before testing 

yeah I'm sure you can. In fact joe public can look online (I believe) but if a car comes in for an mot I doubt the tester would look at its previous failings or advisories. They'd simply test what was put in front of them on that day.

[tunnie]

Disgusting! 

I'd be on to them asking for a full refund for previous work and MOT costs, otherwise you would involve VOSA.

[Andy B]

........ The tester isn't to know if it's had x, y and z done a year ago. 

.....

Surely he can when he inputs the car's details before testing 

yeah I'm sure you can. In fact joe public can look online (I believe) but if a car comes in for an mot I doubt the tester would look at its previous failings or advisories. They'd simply test what was put in front of them on that day.

The point I'm  making is that the testervwill look at the screen for info on that car to perform the test e.g. he always asks if my R Class is in 4 wheel drive (it can't not be) after he's entered chassis number etc I'd  have expected  previous advisories to be shown then ..... provided the tester looked.

[Webby the Bear]

........ The tester isn't to know if it's had x, y and z done a year ago. 

.....

Surely he can when he inputs the car's details before testing 

yeah I'm sure you can. In fact joe public can look online (I believe) but if a car comes in for an mot I doubt the tester would look at its previous failings or advisories. They'd simply test what was put in front of them on that day.

The point I'm  making is that the testervwill look at the screen for info on that car to perform the test e.g. he always asks if my R Class is in 4 wheel drive (it can't not be) after he's entered chassis number etc I'd  have expected  previous advisories to be shown then ..... provided the tester looked.

I'm not sure they are. I'll text our tester to find out 

[anV6]

I would not have left the report with them. That's the proof you have. Maybe ask them to scan it, take a phone picture or whatever. Hope it will all work out. 

As far as I know, any thing thats typed on any MOT paperwork gets filed with DVLA at the same time these days, could be wrong 

Oh yes, it's easy to forget the era we live in today. But then it begs the question why ask you to keep it since he most likely have it on his computer anyway or could access it online.

[TheBoy]

I would take a copper along with you when you collect the car. Fraud pure and simple.

Cunch of bunts

I doubt you'd get much interest from plod, but VOSA (or whatever they are this week) might be

Dunno, as the MOT was done properly both times.  The actual garage repair work was where the problem is, would that be covered by VOSA?

[2boxerdogs]

Without doubt they need reporting , hate dodgy business of any kind unscrupulous bas***ds.

[lloyd3213]

https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history

There you are

[TheBoy]

Without doubt they need reporting , hate dodgy business of any kind unscrupulous bas***ds.

Its so widespread, I wasn't the slightest bit surprised by Zirks post.

Matters not if its the dodgiest backstreet garage or the swankiest dealer, its rife.

[zirk]

I would take a copper along with you when you collect the car. Fraud pure and simple.

Cunch of bunts

I doubt you'd get much interest from plod, but VOSA (or whatever they are this week) might be

Dunno, as the MOT was done properly both times.  The actual garage repair work was where the problem is, would that be covered by VOSA?

Yea, but surely the car would have had to be retested to make sure the work was done?

[TheBoy]

I would take a copper along with you when you collect the car. Fraud pure and simple.

Cunch of bunts

I doubt you'd get much interest from plod, but VOSA (or whatever they are this week) might be

Dunno, as the MOT was done properly both times.  The actual garage repair work was where the problem is, would that be covered by VOSA?

Yea, but surely the car would have had to be retested to make sure the work was done?

Good point, well presented

[Viral_Jim]

Somewhere between VOSA and Trading Standards then IMHO.

Trading standards for billing for work that wasn't done/parts not fitted and VOSA for falsifying an MOT. Either the initial test or the retest must have been knowingly falsified.

[Webby the Bear]

Ok, first of all. IF this garage has charged Zirks friend / relation for a track rod end they never fitted that is outrageous. To then fail the same part again a year later and try and charge AGAIN they need stringing up.

However, there are a lot of assumptions here.

It's been for a test. It failed on the OS TRE. Zirks then realised (and the tester probably should have too, but that's not the issue) the same item was replaced last year. The garage are now Presumably doing the part for free under warranty. There's nothing wrong with this. New parts do fail. I see it everyday.

The problem is IF they never fitted the replacement part and / or are lying about its failure then and now.

There's no way of proving this without either having the old part in your hand and / or jacking the car up and seeing if it has play yourself.

So without this info what are you going to say to VOSA? That the garage replaced a part under warranty for me so they're clearly dodgy?

Obviously that's assuming they do replace the part under warranty which I'm sure Zirk will be able to see when he takes the car away.