Ministers set to review MOT tests

[VectraMan]

Based on my local Nationwide Autocentre, they just use MOTs as a bit of a loss leader to try to sell you servicing. Most garages seem to operate the "your brake pads are looking a little worn, would you like us to replace them?" scam too.

[Cliphead]

Based on my local Nationwide Autocentre, they just use MOTs as a bit of a loss leader to try to sell you servicing. Most garages seem to operate the "your brake pads are looking a little worn, would you like us to replace them?" scam too.

Took a long time but I found a local guy with a great reputation. Problem with newer cars is the approved service thing required for the warranty. I usually don't keep cars long enough that they're old enough to require an MOT.

[AtW]

Most garages seem to operate the "your brake pads are looking a little worn, would you like us to replace them?" scam too.

City center dealer was stinging me every time I did MOT - switched to local good garage based on local feedback - getting cheapest MOTs now

[amcdonald]

Civil service mentality - boxes to tick.

But they have never been consistent. In my old banger phase I used to ask down the pub which was the "best" place to take my motors for an MoT. I could have sworn that at one place they didn't even move the car off the car park, but I was skint therefore happy with a pass.

They can still cheat, except for the emissions test that really have to do. Theres always someone that will do the emissions test then go down the pub for an hour and call to say to your cars done

[lilelvis2000]

Its really a farce. six months later and your lights are blown, pads and tyres worn and you then sell this car on.

Really the seller should be forced to have fresh MOT before sale can be complete...and new owner should get their own road tax - thereby ensuring that they are also insured. Simples!

I'm on the side of only requiring them every two years..with perhaps a milage exemption...for only occaisonally driven cars.

[vetran]

more tests not fewer.

30% fail MOTs every year.

I would make them from year 1 that forces the company car drivers to have valid tyres and decent servicing. Might also make the car manufacturers work on reliability with safety as a focus. If it fails the first 3 years the fleet companies will be upset.

At £55 its hardly going to break the bank. by all means combine the MOT with an insurance, tax & driving licence check. Or make the MOT test be the tax disk £200 with testing thrown in.

Failure for washer fluid are minor and can be retested free. Does remind you to check before you put it in for testing.

Failure on flasher repeaters in the cockpit makes sense considering most people seem to think putting them on is the equivalent to buying a parking ticket that covers you for double yellow lines.

If you are getting ripped off, then the right to examine for MOTs is issued by the ministry then complain to them & Trading standards IF enough complain then they lose the right.

Or find an MOT only shop where there is no temptation to pad.

[NickFitz]

I'm one of the lucky ones with a local place of impeccable reputation. It usually costs me a couple of hundred quid, but when you drive a 22 year old car, you're not really interested in getting away with anything for the sake of saving money: if it needs fixing because otherwise your seatbelt mounting would fail in an accident, it's money well spent. On the odd occasion when I've been dubious about a potential problem I've taken the car in and had it fixed outside the MOT cycle.

Even if your car's only a couple of years old and something like seatbelt mountings aren't going to be a problem, it's still a good thing if somebody checks the brake pads and suchlike from time to time, given that for most drivers such things are out of sight, out of mind. I've seen cars less than two years old barrelling down the motorway with an almost flat rear tyre on more than one occasion. The owners of those vehicles are clearly not competent to ensure that the vehicle is safe to drive, so somebody else has to do it for them, if only for the benefit of other road users who shouldn't have to suffer as a result of such dimwits' strivings for a Darwin Award.

If the government really cared about road safety they'd be making the tests more frequent, not less. This measure is just pandering to the "I'm middle class so nothing I ever do is wrong so I shouldn't be subject to any kind of regulations" brigade.

[lilelvis2000]

Yeah, NF, but that's because people have become dependent on the MOT cycle...rather than using common sense.

I'm plain tired of the nanny state - and the MOT is just one piece of it.

[TimberWolf]

If rich people want more MOTs, let them take as many as they wish.

[doodab]

If rich people want more MOTs, let them take as many as they wish.

But what rich people want is poor & chavvy people to take more MOTs coupled with some sort of reform of the MOT / insurance system in order to keep the number of uninsured deathtraps driven by morons on Britain's roads to a minimum.