nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Aug 15, 2012 22:46:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Aug 15, 2012 22:54:43 GMT
Abandon
|
|
|
Post by biggestgerbil on Aug 16, 2012 8:48:34 GMT
Abandon.
Why?
The spring has suffered a break in the middle of it's structure. When the vehicle weight is replaced on to the wheels the spring will collapse into itself and will probably damage other parts of the car. Also, we always do the rbt last, so the brakes could not be safely tested with the broken spring rattling around etc.
BG
|
|
|
Post by baz657 on Aug 16, 2012 9:22:27 GMT
Abandon as unsafe to continue. Once it's down off the jack that spring could go anywhere.
Another point to consider is that if the presenter complained to VOSA that the spring was OK at the commencement of the test and broke during the test, the testing station is liable.
If customers knew the rules properly, any brake cable that breaks or pipe that bursts while carrying out a brake test (for example) would be fixed and the bill would be paid by the VTS. It happened to me a few years back. Vehicle fails on broken handbrake cable (non-visible part of the cable, hidden by a heat shield, broke on the RBT). Customer calls area office. Area office calls me "advising" that the repairs are carried out by us at no charge to the vehicle presenter because "if it went further" we would still be found to be liable but with "a lot more paperwork".
The VTS becomes liable for everything that happens to that vehicle from the time you log on until you log off as stated in Appendix 4 of the MOT testing guide. The sensible thing is to advise the customer that it was lucky it happened here and not on the road and hope they swallow it but keep it in the back of your mind that if anyone is clued up, it's down to you!
And before I get shot down in flames again saying that's impossible, etc, etc, check out, read and understand Appendix 4.
|
|
|
Post by drivewasher on Aug 16, 2012 11:26:33 GMT
How many cars come in with a broken spring, go through the full test with a fail at the end for a broken spring. Did it snap as you you jacked it or did jacking just show it up. What did it look like when lowered and the spring settled?
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 16, 2012 12:50:59 GMT
How many cars come in with a broken spring, go through the full test with a fail at the end for a broken spring. Did it snap as you you jacked it or did jacking just show it up. What did it look like when lowered and the spring settled? very good point it will seriously affect the accuracy of the Initial Failure rate that kept us to 3-1-1
|
|
nitros44
Nominated Tester
esto es un negocio serio
Posts: 741
|
Post by nitros44 on Aug 18, 2012 19:39:58 GMT
Abandon as unsafe to continue. Once it's down off the jack that spring could go anywhere. Another point to consider is that if the presenter complained to VOSA that the spring was OK at the commencement of the test and broke during the test, the testing station is liable. If customers knew the rules properly, any brake cable that breaks or pipe that bursts while carrying out a brake test (for example) would be fixed and the bill would be paid by the VTS. It happened to me a few years back. Vehicle fails on broken handbrake cable (non-visible part of the cable, hidden by a heat shield, broke on the RBT). Customer calls area office. Area office calls me "advising" that the repairs are carried out by us at no charge to the vehicle presenter because "if it went further" we would still be found to be liable but with "a lot more paperwork". The VTS becomes liable for everything that happens to that vehicle from the time you log on until you log off as stated in Appendix 4 of the MOT testing guide. The sensible thing is to advise the customer that it was lucky it happened here and not on the road and hope they swallow it but keep it in the back of your mind that if anyone is clued up, it's down to you! And before I get shot down in flames again saying that's impossible, etc, etc, check out, read and understand Appendix 4. I would have to disagree that in a case such as this; that the test station is liable and can be held responsible in other cases for other defects that may arise during an inspection such as hand brake cables snapping or brake pipes bursting. The liability clause lies with damage which has resulted from a examiner/tester where damage has resulted such as example giving in appendix 4 the breaking of a lamp. If i was to examine a wiper blade and the wiper arm slips out of my hand, springs back on to the screen and causes a crack then that's liability. You jack a vehicle up in the wrong place and cause damage to the floor and sill,that's liability. Damage caused during a bounce test on a wing for example is liability. A brake pipe bursts under pressure because the brake pipe has excessively corroded equals a defect and is present long before it was presented for test. If a parking brake cable snaps under test then the defect once again was present long before the test as defects such as these just don't happen in a short period of time,as we know corrosion on both these examples will take time to effect the components stated to the point of failure. We have been in the same situations with presenters who have complained to Vosa but never received any instruction back from VOSA that we are liable for defects on a vehicle under test,as appendix 4 relates to certain types of damage that is within control of the examiner,snapped cables and burst pipes are beyond our control if the defect is so bad. I once rang VOSA on one occasion regards a burst brake pipe,the response was "the MOT had performed its road safety role, and prevented the fault being discovered whilst driving and causing an accident."Its up to us how we deal with it""!! From a customers relations point of view when something does arise such as the above happing we always bite the bullet and come to some arrangement to help the customer rather then argue. Liability works both ways, Testing a BMW years ago,during the emissions test which by this time was on the extended part of the test,the top radiator hose decided to pop off resulting in steam and hot water hitting the new PC/ gas analyzer.The company sued the presenter for a new computer
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Aug 18, 2012 20:03:24 GMT
Appendix 4 of the Testing Guide I think is misunderstood by many in the mot scheme, and I do think VOSA have a part to play here in putting this right. Such ideas as written in appendix 4 as saying the law is difficult for the lay person to understand is not an acceptable excuse because somebody who wrote it was not that experienced in understanding how to write the Queens common English language correctly. Appendix 4 does give examples like Nitros has pointed out, which are clear enough for the lay person to understand, yet it still seems that AEs/NTs think they are automatically responsible for any damage caused to a presenters vehicle? I am dammed sure the insurance company wouldn't like it if every time somebody presented a vehicle for test the AE claimed the insurance because a corroded brake pipe burst, or a frayed cable (unseen) fractured during the brake test, or an expensive replacement HID lamp bulb and ignitor required changing because at the time the lights were switched on they failed, then the presenter said as they always do, it was alright until you touched it? Maybe VOSA should be the annual insurance costs if they think I am wrong, which I know they would agree with me , although some AE's wouldn't , but that doesn't mean I am wrong Daveg
|
|
|
Post by spotty on Aug 20, 2012 17:36:18 GMT
It depends what it's like with the weight back on the suspension, if it looks OK and the broken spring is not likely to cause damage then I'd do the RBT to complete the test - it's what the presenter is paying for. If it required a decelerometer test, then I may abandon the test. The vehicle manufacturer may have done a Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) and it may have had a favourable RPN as the outcome. Though some manufacturers don't, I recall the cages that have been retro fitted under a recall/technical bulletin/product enhancement campaign or whatever to the front struts of some Citroen models. www.fmea-fmeca.com/fmea-rpn.html
|
|
|
Post by excessive on Aug 20, 2012 21:53:19 GMT
Just as a bit of extra info, if folk ever do want to abandon, always try to do it for health and safety reasons.
That spring broke where it is, is enough of a reason.
Vosa will not challenge anyone abandoning for using health an safety as their reason (that is from the horses mouth)
|
|
Daveg
NT & VTS Council member
I believe I am perfect, but others may differ in opinion?
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by Daveg on Jan 30, 2013 16:39:13 GMT
Just another thought on this subject? Why have VOSA included reasons for rejections for coil springs fractured and not corrected located? Are the inner wheel arches not testable for prescribed area? Do these areas not suffer from road dirt etc? Do we have a requirement to check that the vehicle is clean enough to test it? Once we check the inner arches we would see the fractured broken spring at that point wouldn't we? Should we not just refuse to test it then? I tested a Ford Mondeo the other day and the offside rear coil spring was fractured and not correctly located on the lower seat, and by this I mean the lower coil remaining was partly hanging over the edge of the spring seat, the spring during the test routine did not move away from or off the seat so I did the full test and failed it. I agree that VOSA would probably refuse to test it, but by the time you have got to that point most of the test has been done anyway. In the opinion of the NT many things are considered dangerous and reasons are found to justify abandoning or aborting the test, but at the end it is down to the NTs final decision what to do. Another point is who would be liable for a defect of this nature that caused damage to the vehicle where the presenter of the vehicle knows the defect is present because they can hear it, and then does not make the garage aware of the noise and then the NT proceeds to drive the car into the garage and during that period of time, the spring decides to part company and say causing damage to the brake hose, which in turn cannot be stopped in time and runs straight into the gas tester causing damage? Can of worms I think, liability rests where? Daveg
|
|