From: Nick Finnigan on 24 Dec 2008 06:30 Chris Bartram wrote: > Adrian wrote: >> Corporal Jones <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding >> much like they were saying: >> >>> Had my car in for it's yearly service & MOT today, it failed. As the >>> current MOT does not run out till the 4th of Jan what is the legal >>> position of driving it till then? >> >> Exactly the same as it was yesterday. >> >> You have a current MOT, but if the car is unroadworthy, it's illegal. >> > That's always been my understanding. However, my brother-in-law insists > (after a converstion with a copper) that a car that has failed the MOT > it is intrinsically unroadwothy, and illegal until it has a pass. > > I would disagree. A car without an MOT certificate is not neccesarily > unroadworthy surely? After all, it *could* fail if the driver's view is > blocked (say with something dangling from the mirror), but I'd argue > that does not make the car unroadworthy, especially if said object is > then removed. Obviously "a car without an MOT certificate" is not necessarily unroadworthy, even if it is over three years old. However, the question is whether a car which does have a valid MoT cert but also has a more recent refusal of a test certificate and no corrective action performed is necessarily unroadworthy (it is certainly legal once corrected, even if it has not yet had a retest). I'd agree that failure for brakes, steering, tyres, or compulsory lights probably makes it technically unroadworthy, but even that makes the appeal procedure a bit difficult.
From: ThePunisher on 24 Dec 2008 10:03 "Corporal Jones" <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> wrote in message news:HUm4l.51989$AL7.15755(a)newsfe14.ams2... > > Conor wrote: >> In article <MDa4l.28696$Zz2.8990(a)newsfe30.ams2>, Corporal Jones says... >> >>> Depends on what you mean by adequately maintained vehicles, I follow the >>> manufactures recommendations, >> >> So do I. That's why I have a 23 year old Capri that goes through MOTs. >> >> There's no point following the servicing if you don't repair what it >> brings up. >> >> If you're doing your own servicing, you obviously either aren't doing it >> properly or don't have the knowledge to know what you're looking for. >> > > I am a bit past doing my own servicing, don't have the inclination or > facilities anymore though when I was young I all ways did my own work but > in those days cars where a lot easier to work on. > > Nowadays I use the professionals!! always follow their recommendations and > have any work done that is required particularly if it involves my safety. > My 2 front tyres passed the test with 2.5 of tread but they will be > replaced next week, for me 2.5 is the minimum I will run them to > Are these the same 'professionals' that are charging you �100 per tyre? I take it you have 19" alloys? -- ThePunisher
From: Adrian on 24 Dec 2008 10:31 "ThePunisher" <thepunisher(a)ntlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Are these the same 'professionals' that are charging you £100 per tyre? A quick google suggests his Mondeo ST has 225/40 ZR 18 rubber as standard - and BlackCircles is showing a ton apiece for anything non-TeflonFred, with the good stuff a chunk north of that.
From: Corporal Jones on 24 Dec 2008 10:32 ThePunisher wrote: > > Are these the same 'professionals' that are charging you �100 per tyre? > I take it you have 19" alloys? Use Toyo Proxes T1-R from E-tyres http://www.etyres.co.uk/car-tyres-uk/detail?productId=5131 Tried various makes over the years and have found these the best so far -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: Elder on 24 Dec 2008 12:26
In article <6rei0uF15mgcU19(a)mid.individual.net>, toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com says... > Corporal Jones <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > > >>> Have had a closer look at the mechanics report (not the test station) > >>> and it assumes that the corrosion is where the pipes pass over the > >>> fuel tank > > >> Thought you said front brake pipes? > > > To quote the testers report: > > "Nearside (front 2 rear )Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)" > > "Offside (front 2 rear) brake pipes excessively corroded(3.6.B.2c)" > > > > I assume "front 2 rear" is chav speak for front TO rear. The mechanics > > report states over the tank > > Ah. > > <checks back> > Yep, you said front originally - hence the assumption we were talking > about flexis. Corrosion makes more sense on the front-rear pipes. > And usually the application of a little emery cloth and some grease sorts that. Just rub off the chalk marks. -- Carl Robson Get cashback on your purchases Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553 |