From: JNugent on 23 Dec 2008 14:11 Conor wrote: > In article <bsedna_zhLwJtMzUnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone says... >> Adrian wrote: >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding >>> much like they were saying: >>> >>>> As long as the Tester hasn't issued a notice prohibiting the vehicle >>>> from the road you can still drive it. >>> ...is the wrong answer... >> So the correct answer is? >> > It is a defective vehicle. Regardless of the MOT status, it does not > meet the minimum legal requirements for roadworthiness. Not necessarily. The legal roadworthiness requirements for the driver/keeper of the vehicle may not be the same as they are for a MOT tester (and for the isue of a new 12 month certificate).
From: Corporal Jones on 23 Dec 2008 14:12 Adrian wrote: > Corporal Jones <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > >>>> Is it not the job of an MOT tester to fail before the problems can >>>> occur? > >>> No, not really. The MOT is designed to remove inadequately maintained >>> and already significantly defective vehicles from the road - not to >>> pick up potential future problems... > >> Depends on what you mean by adequately maintained vehicles, I follow the >> manufactures recommendations, I would not expect to find life >> threatening problems between services apart from the obvious > > Umm, what's the manufacturer's recommended intervals for changing brake > flexis, anti-roll bar bushes and ball joints...? > > Those all _should_ have been noticed at a service _before_ they got to > the point at which they were bad enough to fail an MOT. Twas a bit suspicious about my previous garage who has now closed, the new one I use seems to be a bit more switched on -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: Adrian on 23 Dec 2008 14:14 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > It'd be different if it was the brakes, lights, steering or tyres. Umm, it IS the brakes and steering - and he's got two shagged tyres as well...
From: Corporal Jones on 23 Dec 2008 14:17 Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >> It'd be different if it was the brakes, lights, steering or tyres. > > Umm, it IS the brakes and steering - and he's got two shagged tyres as > well... Tyres aren't shagged, still legal but below my own standards. -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: JNugent on 23 Dec 2008 14:18
Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >> It'd be different if it was the brakes, lights, steering or tyres. > > Umm, it IS the brakes and steering - and he's got two shagged tyres as > well... The tyres were something he mentioned for himself. The steering seemed to come as a surprise, which suggests to me that he hadn't (and probably still hasn't) detected a "fault" in the everyday sense. |