Copied from the .gov website MOT History.
Mileage
132,149 miles
MOT test number
9078 2159 5097
Test location
SEAVIEW MOTOR SERVICE LTD
86 TO 90 SEAVIEW ROAD
WALLASEY
CH45 4LB
Expiry date
31 March 2016
Advisory notice item(s)
Nearside Front Front wheel bearing has slight play (2.5.A.3c)
Offside Front Front wheel bearing has slight play (2.5.A.3c)
HEAVILY MODIFIED
Oil leak
ARROGANT DRIVER
The car's reg is F88DTU if you don't believe me !
|
I can see its last MOT expired 04/08/17 and it's done fewer than a thousand miles a year for the last couple of years.
So?
|
ARROGANT DRIVER
Did you see this printed in the Advisories ?
|
How did you come across it?
|
...he was checking when his next MOT was due.....
;-)
|
"ARROGANT DRIVER"
I wonder if the person who entered that comment realised that the information wasn't only available to MoT testers.
A couple of months ago, I reported on here that we were chopping in our 15yr-old Focus when we bought a new B-max. Whilst it remained a handsome car with no rust, it was using oil (iL per 700 miles) and it would soon need 4 new tyres etc. We decided not to bother MoTing it and took it that the car would be scrapped by the exchanging dealer; we got scrap value (£100) for it. It had been a good servant.
A few weeks later, we saw that the old Focus had successfully passed its MoT test .......... BUT with 14 advisories! I didn't think that I'd have got away with that at our local garage.
Advisory notice item(s):
Nearside Rear Trailing arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Offside Rear Trailing arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Offside Front Lower Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover damaged, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2)
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Nearside Front Lower Suspension arm ball joint dust cover deteriorated, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2)
Offside Front Lower Suspension arm ball joint dust cover deteriorated, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2)
Nearside Front Suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Nearside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Offside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Nearside Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Offside Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
all tyres are cracking on tread and sidewalls
Nearside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
|
|
But just remember you were driving it in that condition!
|
>>BUT with 14 advisories! I didn't think that I'd have got away with that at our local garage.
Why not? Assuming that its truthful, of course. Surely a car shouldn't fail on advisories whether there are 2 or 22?
If anything doesn't that suggest that wherever it was tested was doing a really good job?
|
>> Or covering his rear.
And so he is just randomly entering advisories? I guess it could be, but it doesn't seem very likely.
|
|
Not randomly. If a tester did want to push something through with say a rotten sill when he shouldn't, then a smart thing to do would be to note it as an advisory. He would have somewhere to argue from if challenged.
|
>> >> Or covering his rear.
>>
>> And so he is just randomly entering advisories? I guess it could be, but it
>> doesn't seem very likely.
>>
I believe the MOT tests are statistically compared .. so if his advisory count is low - and he knows it - an old heap (!) is ideal to give a lot to get his score up :-)
|
|
I had years of MoTs from the same place on my MX-5 with no advisories. Last time (same tester) I was told they need to put them on to show they are doing the job, and it had four.
|
|
I refer you to the crap MOT on the Volvo thread.
|
"Why not? "
Because very often, an advisory is a borderline case - a question of opinion; it is like tossing a coin and it comes down heads 14 times in succession.
As I said, the car was still quite a looker; I was rather pleased with myself to have nurtured it along to a point where I knew that things were very-likely approaching 'border-line' and that I could let it slip away peacefully. Fifteen years earlier, I was gutted when I thought that I'd have to scrap the Mondeo on the basis of a single fault when the ABS controller packed up.
Normally, I see 2 or 3 advisories at an MoT; I think the most I've ever seen is 6. The dealer who part-exed the car is the same one who MoT'd it and is, no doubt, the same one who sold the Focus on. To be honest, I thought they were a pretty reputable firm, but I'm somewhat disappointed to see that they've sold a car on that would shortly need a good deal of work doing to it. Still, the MoT results are available to all on-line, and I can only hope that the buyer was aware of that.
|
I saw a Porsche with the reg this evening reg Y1PPY.
Mot check indicates it has since been swapped to another Porsche at first I mis remembered and looked at 21PPY
Three warnings for the same tyre but Hey it passed its MoT.
Some folks just have no idea :-( Just white goods ?
|
Plenty of these gems can be found by googling funny mot advisories and selecting images.
eg.
K48 XDU Date tested 9 May 2012
Can't find the reg number for these:
i.imgur.com/DajunOO.jpg
i61.tinypic.com/20sa7nm.jpg
pbs.twimg.com/media/BwwC3V-CIAAjNm0.jpg
|
MoT Tester tells it as it is.... - bathtub tom
