From: Nick Finnigan on
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
"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
"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

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
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