|
Post by Dave Hill on Mar 10, 2006 21:08:58 GMT
Here is an example of the history available on the following link. www.motinfo.gov.uk/internet/jsp/ECHID-Internet-History-Request.jspMOT Test History for J**7O*JF Make/Model: FORD ESCORT Colour: RED Warning: All passes for this vehicle have expired. There are no later tests for this vehicle. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Test: 13/02/2006 Certificate Issue Refused (Fail) Odometer Reading: 14648 Miles Test Station Number: ****** Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate 1. Nearside Rear shock absorber has negligible damping effect 2.7.5 2. Nearside Front front constant velocity joint gaiter split 2.5.C.1a 3. Nearside Rear vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings 6.1.3 4. Offside Rear vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings 6.1.3 5. Nearside Front brake pad less than 1.5 mm thick 3.5.1f 6. Offside Front brake pad less than 1.5 mm thick 3.5.1f No Advisory Notice issued ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Test: 14/02/2006 Certificate Issue Refused (Fail) Odometer Reading: 14674 Miles Test Station Number: ***** Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate 1. Front both showing mainly white light direction indicator incorrect colour 1.5.A1d 2. Front both headlamp aim too low when the centre of the headlamp is below 850mm from the ground 1.6.B2 3. Rear off side & near side vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings 6.1.3 4. Rear both metal brake pipes to the rear hoses brake pipe excessively corroded 3.6.B.2c 5. Front both front constant velocity joint gaiter split 2.5.C.1a Advisory Items: 1. Offside Rear service brake Your vehicle has only just met the required service brake efficiency. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. 3.7.A.8 2. NEAR SIDE REAR SHOCK ABSORBER IS WEAK 3. OFF SIDE FRONT TYRE IS POOR ON THE INSIDE EDGE (BALD) 4. FRONT BRAKE PADS ARE WORN (3mm) 5. off side front brake has slight run-out (judder) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The second test is one that I carried out. It was clear that it had been tested recently & I questioned her about it afterwards. She said that she was unhappy with the first test by the fact that she would have to pay for a retest if she took the car away & that they would not allow her to leave the car there as they had no room. It’s interesting to see the discrepancies in the test results. Computerisation has done little to standardise testing standards.
|
|
spanner
Nominated Tester
Posts: 191
|
Post by spanner on Mar 10, 2006 22:33:27 GMT
Funny enough we had a similar situation the other week. Sadly I've lost the bit of paper I had with the registration number and test number so can't copy & paste results. Boss fails a Rover 400 on leaking fuel tank - 2 front tyres - couple of bulbs out - and parking brake performance failed. Guy took it away said he'd have repairs done himself however came back over a week later wanting us to do the brakes. So in the car comes I did rear brakes. It's on the 2 - post ramp and I go to open drivers door notice yellow chalk on outer sill near door pillar. On closer inspection someone had poked a hole. Thought boss had slipped up and forgot to enter it as a RfR but he was adamant he didnt poke the hole. Of course now we're looking for more and discover that the 2 front and 2 rear brake pipes also yellow chalked. I decided to do a history check in my lunch break from home as the only internet connection we have at work is for the MOT. I found that the car had been tested at another garage exactly 7 days after being done at ours and all our failures were down as fails but a whole lot more as well. Customer had payed us £40 for the fail knew it was £20 for the re-test but decided to pay someone else full price for another test hoping I suppose he'd get away without replacing the fuel tank perhaps. He'd then had a shock to discover he was far worse off with second garage so came back to us where he was over 5 days (we say for £20 re-test) so got charged £40 again ;D
Computerisation will never standardise testing standards it's just not possible unless they have robots testing and making the decissions!
|
|
|
Post by hamvideo on Mar 10, 2006 22:54:05 GMT
Hi. I am puzzled. Why is the text on the first refusal consistant with that of a genuine computerisation VT30 and the text of the second test failures is inconsistant with what is available on the RFR listing, ie the use the word "both" and "metal brake pipes to the rear hoses" are not available on computerisation listings, also in your advisory list the system will not allow a specific brake to be targeted in the brake performance advisory listings, I can only assume that you have enhanced the text for the benefit of this board, it does not read like a true VT30 or VT32 (manual advisories excepted).
Henry.
|
|
Tom
Nominated Tester
Posts: 227
|
Post by Tom on Mar 10, 2006 23:25:50 GMT
Hi. I am puzzled. Why is the text on the first refusal consistent with that of a genuine computerisation VT30 and the text of the second test failures is inconsistent with what is available on the RFR listing, ie the use the word "both" and "metal brake pipes to the rear hoses" are not available on computerisation listings, also in your advisory list the system will not allow a specific brake to be targeted in the brake performance advisory listings, I can only assume that you have enhanced the text for the benefit of this board, it does not read like a true VT30 or VT32 (manual advisories excepted). Henry. The tester has the option of selecting: longitude (front - rear) latitude (offside - nearside) altitude (upper - lower) ...from the drop down boxes, but could also enter a more descriptive location in the text box alongside. The drop-down boxes is the preferred method because it provides for more accurate failure statistics. None of them provide an grammatically correct description, though! Making us NT's look like numpties when it comes to use of the English language
|
|
spanner
Nominated Tester
Posts: 191
|
Post by spanner on Mar 10, 2006 23:27:57 GMT
You can enter extra text manually to any RfR. I was told by my VOSA man not to use BOTH etc but to issue the RfR twice - one for NEARSIDE one for OFFSIDE etc.
|
|
Rob
Nominated Tester
Posts: 279
|
Post by Rob on Mar 11, 2006 8:06:15 GMT
I had a similar test a few weeks ago, a 1999 Volvo S80. Sticking out from under the drivers seat (I found it when I was checking the seat belt mounts) was a VT30 dated two days previously from a garage in West London which made very interesting reading. The form was full of quotes for the work to be done, some of the prices were a tad high, but I suppose London prices might be higher than in most other areas. The tester had failed the rear shock absorbers for "a serious fluid leak" while I was more of the opinion that it was " a light misting of oil", and just issued an advisory. It still had a lot of the Rfr's from the previous test including a lower ball joint with so much play that I put a tick in the dangerous box, something the other tester hadn't done. The customer asked for quotes for all the repairs, then left, the car hasn't been back yet, I'm going to get the details today and check it out on Motinfo. I'm wondering how many other stations have failed this car and given quotes for the work.
|
|
Tom
Nominated Tester
Posts: 227
|
Post by Tom on Mar 11, 2006 8:37:44 GMT
When computerisation began, I'm sure we were informed that we would have the option to print out previous VT30s.
I'll see if I can find the article where I read it.
|
|
Tom
Nominated Tester
Posts: 227
|
Post by Tom on Mar 11, 2006 8:41:47 GMT
You can enter extra text manually to any RfR. I was told by my VOSA man not to use BOTH etc but to issue the RfR twice - one for NEARSIDE one for OFFSIDE etc. ...and for 'ALL front brake pads worn' we should enter: Nearside Outer Front brake pad worn less than 1.5mm Nearside Inner Front brake pad worn less than 1.5mm Offside Outer Front brake pad worn less than 1.5mm Offside Inner Front brake pad worn less than 1.5mm computers are supposed to make life easier
|
|
spanner
Nominated Tester
Posts: 191
|
Post by spanner on Mar 11, 2006 10:43:31 GMT
;D whats the chances of being able to see all the pads though Tom?
I don't agree with having these Individual RfR's when you can easialy put BOTH or nearside & offside etc. You hand the customer the VT30 and they see a whole page of failures where it could have taken up only few bleedin lines, makes us look a bit harsh at first sight.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Mar 11, 2006 19:40:50 GMT
Henry
I posted the text "as is" from the VOSA site, I only blanked out the VTS & REG numbers to protect confidentialities.
Are you a tester? I thought it was quite clear that there is an option to add more descriptive text to the RFR. I never go as far as to say what the cause of a failure is i.e. a bulb blown or seized wheel cylinder. I do however feel it's helpful & customer friendly to put it in human terms, what I have spotted on their car.
If you look at both tests, you will see that there are no advisories on test one & many of his failures are just advise on my test. I know that you only have my word for it, but both CV boots were hanging off & the pads had about 2 - 3 mm left, The rear shocker was wet & weak but it still had a significant damping effect.
I agree that test one looks like a copybook text that you would see on a refresher course, but my test gives more information & in my opinion is what the MOT should be about. It is as much about advising on future repairs & not just about failing motors for the obvious stuff.
I will take on board the bit about not putting "both" & will make an effort to put each item separately, as it logs more results on the system.
I will let you all know how I get on when VOSA call next, as I will show them how I do things.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by hamvideo on Mar 12, 2006 0:28:44 GMT
Hi Dave. I was not in any way doubting your ability to carry out a MOT vehicle inspection, it was just the terminology used that seemed unorthodox, we were told in training to list each RFR location separately if the fault appeared in more than location on the vehicle, for example brake pads, tyres, shock absorbers, CV boots on steered hubs. We were also recommended not to deviate to far away from VOSA's RFR terminology, it has nothing to do with making it easy for the vehicle presenter to understand, it is to do with covering your posterior in the event of litigation, I have never had a problem with VOSA's RFR descriptors and see no need to add any further text. As you have probably gathered I am a tester and have been continuosly for 17 years, and also back in the early days of MOT when the test used to cost seventeen shillings and sixpence. Also like yourself I am also an Authorised Examiner. It might seem like nit picking but VOSA do like to see the "copybook text" used and we all use the same testers manuals in everyday working as we do on the refresher courses, dont we??
Regards Henry.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Mar 12, 2006 10:58:55 GMT
Thanks Henry
I know what you mean about doing it VOSA's way & not being too specific, but I just feel that it's more customer friendly to add the judder & bald descriptions. This way the customer can't plead ignorance about what they were told. You can't argue with "tyre is bald" but customers frequently ask what various VOSA statements mean. We are working on behalf of VOSA but we are also providing a customer service & as such I prefer to give a little extra.
Having said all that, I accept that you have been testing some 15 years longer than me, so you are in a better position to judge.
All the Best.
Dave
|
|
Rob
Nominated Tester
Posts: 279
|
Post by Rob on Mar 12, 2006 21:48:23 GMT
Before computerisation there was no standardised way of writing out fails, so they were more customer friendly, some of the terminology now is not only confusing for the customers, but for our colleagues too. I know the official term is 'position lights' but most people call them sidelights, in ten years of testing, I've never written out a fail sheet with 'Offside front position lamp not working', so why should we use this terminology now? I've spent so much time translating the failure sheets to office staff and customers, because the terms they use are just not plain common sense English, that I've put a sheet of paper in the office with the most frequently misunderstood terms explained.
|
|
Rob
Nominated Tester
Posts: 279
|
Post by Rob on Mar 14, 2006 21:28:01 GMT
Your vehicle has only just met the required service brake efficiency. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. 3.7.A.8 Are you allowed to use this precise advise, it's not in the list of rfr's for rbt's, only for pre-68 vehicles etc tested by decelerometer and plate brake tester?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Mar 14, 2006 23:15:01 GMT
The text that you have highlighted is what comes up on the screen immediately after the brake results are entered. It prompts you to add text if relevant. In this case, the off side rear service brake produced a reading that indicated that it was less than perfect. If its not relevant to the vehicle in question then either VOSA has cocked up or they are trying to trick us into making a mistake. Your understanding of this subject is far greater than mine. But I can guarantee that I entered the brake results for a RBT & not a decelerometer. In general I tend to add most of my advisories in the "manual entry" section. I can type quicker than I can click & find (or can’t) find a relevant section. Often the advisories that the system has listed are not specific enough. IMO. Cheers, Dave
|
|
Rob
Nominated Tester
Posts: 279
|
Post by Rob on Mar 15, 2006 5:15:36 GMT
The text that you have highlighted is what comes up on the screen immediately after the brake results are entered. It prompts you to add text if relevant. In this case, the off side rear service brake produced a reading that indicated that it was less than perfect. That's very odd, I've had a couple of cases when the brakes have only just passed because of a low reading on one particular brake, and I've had to enter a manual advise along those lines. I've never had that screen pop up.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hill on Mar 16, 2006 0:29:55 GMT
Rob
I think it's maybe a software glitch. Do you remember when the special notice came out, addressing the issue of, the system not failing a brake that was clearly not working as well as expected. It referred to an update that would allow you to enter manually a RFR after the RBT result is entered.
Since that update, whenever I click on "accept brake test result", the next screen brings up three options to fail or advise on items that are not spotted by the RBT result. I have noticed recently that these options don't come up consistently. I have to click around & go through the results again, so that it comes up.
Cheers,
Dave
|
|
spanner
Nominated Tester
Posts: 191
|
Post by spanner on Mar 16, 2006 7:35:00 GMT
Strange one that Dave, we've never had that option come up. Took particular notice yesterday since reading this post but definatly nothing like that on our system. We've had many a parking brake below limits or rear service brake with one side clearly not working but I normally enter the fail going through the list - Brakes - performance - RBT - Rear wheels etc
|
|
Rob
Nominated Tester
Posts: 279
|
Post by Rob on Mar 16, 2006 7:52:18 GMT
It's good idea though, it would save me a fair bit of typing in the manual advisories.
|
|
|
Post by hamvideo on Mar 17, 2006 22:11:43 GMT
For those that do not know how to access the brake advisories, preferably after entering your brake meter readings and confirming the result, go back to the main RFR screen, select "brake results entry" , you should have your RBT/ Decelerometer results displayed, select confirm results, you should then be presented with with screen that invites you to issue a advisory notice in relation to brake inadequancies for service and parking brake, (three listings) if the brake test results were a pass only advisories will be available, if the results were a fail the RFR will also be available, I hope this helps those that cannot find the screen mentioned in other posts. By the way, how many have noticed that the default single line brake has been dropped since the last update and we are now requested to choose between single and dual line without any defaults. I must now admit after being sceptical about the system that is working for me and it is much easier than the old manual system, Hickups excepted, I hope those diehards who will not accept the new system will see the error of thier ways before the March 31st deadline (re the last SN) or they will have to stop testing and loss of income !!.
Happy testing all, Henry.
|
|