The new style MOT cert's.....

[mk1coopers]

I hope yours isn't A5, it should be landscape A4 single sided L/H side showing the MOT details, R/H the advisories, I have heard tails of traders cutting off the advisories and just handing over the other half as its about the same size as as the old certificates, apparently VOSA are going to update the 'certificate' to stop this happening

[mab01uk]

The plain paper is to save cost of pre-printed colour sheets being sent out to garages as all MOT's and history can be checked online now by the owner, a buyer or the police, etc.
"You can check the current MOT status of any vehicle online. This might be one that you own already or a second hand vehicle that you are thinking of buying."

The online MOT status check gives you information about:

the date of the last test
mileage on the vehicle at the time of the test
the expiry date of the test

You can compare the online information against the paper certificate to make sure it’s genuine.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/motoring/ow ... g_10020539

http://motinfo.direct.gov.uk/internet/j ... equest.jsp

To find out details of previous MOT tests on a vehicle you can do an online MOT history check.
You can only look up information online going back to 2005 when the MOT Scheme was computerised.
The MOT history check will give you the following information:

full test details
mileage at the time of each test
http://motinfo.direct.gov.uk/internet/j ... equest.jsp

[guru_1071]

ive heard of traders re-photocopying the new mot cert to 'loose' any advisories shown on the right hand side.......

[wantafaster1]

We have to display a disc on the window in N Ireland.

[monkeyjim]

As a Mot tester the guys at work and myself also think it is pretty poor .
We have boxes of un-used old style paperwork going to waste as I am sure all other MOT test stations have too.
The test stations need to supply the A4 and the ink , buying it through VOSA is also expensive . Tesco value for us and a local factor does the ink at a sensible cost .
We have been told the new paperwork saves money and is the bare requirement . . Apparantly a receipt for the test must be given according to European law ,and this paper is it . Its a receipt , bare requirement .

It does of course open it to traders and sellers blanking over the advisories . You can appreciate what that could lead to if the fact a tyre was advised worn to the legal 1.6mm tread limit and the new owner did not know , check the MOT/history on-line or look over the car . Believe me a lot of people dont look into things before they buy them . Most do not even know how to check the oil , think the MOT is there purely to aid obtaining the car tax and the MOT includes checking the tyre pressures and the rest of the service ............. all for £54.85 .
The MOT is a safety test and the bare minimum at that . You cannot take wheels off or undertrays or do any form of dismantling other than remove wheel trims . If you cannot see it you 'pass and advise' . Great fun MOTing a Lotus Elise or Murcialargo with full length undertrays . There is no substitute for a good service , items that cannot get looked at or would squeeze through a MOT, a decent garage should pick up on and inform the customer .

The test in most opinions is not thorough enough , however with our annual test we have alongisde other countries with the annual test got lower accident rates than bi-annual testing countries or thats how it was a few years ago when the idea of bi-annual testing came up for discussion .

If unsure about anything to do with MOT best verify it with VOSA and on-line .

Dave

[guru_1071]

ive just been, er, lucky enough to go out for a drive in a mini that has just passed its mot.

one of the advisories was 'dashboard held in with duct tape'.......


in fact, here it is



i darent post any photos of the car!

[Pete]

The MOT is a safety test and the bare minimum at that . You cannot take wheels off or undertrays

That's interesting. I failed the MOT on a 1960 Morris Mini last year which had an undersealed underside ! I think this sets off alarm bells with many testers (possibly for good reason !) . Anyway a good deal of scraping of said underseal was partaken and the tester then examined the rear subframe and declared it to be of an unfit state to pass. There were no holes in it and there was no obvious corrosion but he concluded that the metal webbing was "too thin" due to corrosion and should really be as substantial as the front crossmember section. I pointed out that this is how Mini subframes are and was basically told I had to weld large plates on it to reinforce it in order to pass !!
I should have knocked up an undertray for the retest !
I'm looking at making an undertray for the Hornet funnily enough on Alec Poole's advice.

[monkeyjim]

MMM , a good deal of scraping sounds a lot more than the light scraping that is meant to be done .