LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYou really think an insurance company will pay out if they don't have to on a car with a failed MOT? (That was what my 'roadworthy' comment referred to)Originally Posted by Tonka777
You really think an insurance company will pay out if they don't have to on a car with a failed MOT? (That was what my 'roadworthy' comment referred to)
I have an arrangement with a small, local specialist. I book the car in with him for him to do a pre-MOT check, and get it MOT'd. He then :-
- collects the car from me, on his insurance.
- checks out obvious things, like lights, wiper blades, fluids, etc (*)
- takes it to a company local to him that does MOTs
- rings me if there's any failure points (not yet happened) for authorisation for work
- does whatever needs doing
- brings the car back to me.
He charges about £15 for the effort, plus (obviously) any parts that need to be supplied. But he gets about £15 off the standard MOT charge.
I understand you can often negotiate a discount on the MOT charge yourself (or used to be able to last time I did it), so the discount he gets is kinda moot, but I think the time and hassle saved makes it worth the £15 for the collection/deliver service, and checking out the obvious first.
Clearly, you need to find someone you trust, but this guy has been doing my car services, including the M3, for years (he's a BMW-trained specialist, but does some other stuff too), and I've yet to catch him doing anything naughty .... and I've tried.
(*) I suspect that he doesn't do much of the pre-checking. I think he has an arrangement with the MOT tester who does the test informally, lets him fix anything obvious that needs fixing, and then checks the corrections. But whatever the process, it works for me, saves the hassle and doesn't cost much.
In about 13 years of using this guy, I think once something minor needed doing .... wiper blades, IIRC. Other than that, it's been a straight pass, so he's certainly not padding the bill with unnecessary work. And that's more than I can say for one company I used years ago, that also happened to be a main dealer for a very major car brand. Never again will I do that!
If you can find someone like this, Million, they're a wonderful resource. The trick is finding an honest one. The reason I trusted this guy in the first place is that the "M" scene round here is a bit tight, and if he screws one of us over, the risk is word would get round and it could devastate a "specialist" service business. Now, I've known him for a long time and yet to have any reason to not trust him. He also, therefore, gets referral business from me too.
And for serious things that don't apply or aren't true.
I had one company fail a car (about 20 years ago, and I know things have changed) for a whole list of things, many of which I regarded as spurious. So I drove it out of that tester, direct to another tester and had it retested. He gave a warning on one tyre, and otherwise passed it. When I showed him the failure, he went through it item by item, showed me the relevant bits on the car and explained his viewpoint. One "failure" from the other place related to structural rust on the chassis. The second bloke pointed out that, first, it was surface not structural, and reinforced his point by thumping it quite hard with the blunt end of a screw-driver. Second, he point out, it wasn't chassis and on that vehicle, wasn't part of the MOT test anyway.
He was rather incensed by what he said looked like a blatant attempt to sell a new (used) car of the back of the failure, the first garage being a main dealer with a used section, and urged me to take the vehicle and BOTH certificates to an actual Ministry testing centre, and complain. I don't see him doing that if he wasn't confident of his own results.
It does beg the question when one company fail a car and quote £2200 (20 years ago) for the repairs, and another one can test and pass the car within an hour of the first test, with NO remedial work at all having been done.
Roadworthy and unsafe to drive are not synonomous. A car may, as you stated have defective lights, and therefore not be roadworthy within the legal definition, but is still safe to drive - in daylight.
Not having a valid MoT certificate does not in itself invalidate insurance cover (unlike drivibng without a licence which does) - which is why the law has a provision to allow you to drive a car without a valid MoT to and from a pre-booked test.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Notice the item in bold and i'll give you a guess to what it was that they failed that on.....Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate
Nearside Inner Rear position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.2b)
Offside Inner Rear position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.2b)
Offside Rear Registration plate lamp bulb not working (1.1.C.1c)
Front Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2a)
Nearside Front Tyre has a cut in excess of the requirements deep enough to reach the ply or cords (4.1.D.1a)
Windscreen has a sticker or other obstruction encroaching into the swept area by more than 40mm outside zone 'A' (8.3.1e)
Parking brake lever has no reserve travel (3.1.6b)
Offside Rear parking brake recording little or no effort (3.7.A.7a)
Parking brake efficiency below requirements (3.7.A.10)
i am waiting to do a local garage as i am part of the rollout to upgrade MOT printers to laser ones, i can then wave my testers card and ask if i can have a discount
Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack
off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
Good information, thanks
I'd always assumed that insurance companies wouldnt pay out if your didnt have a MOT .
Air freshener...Notice the item in bold and i'll give you a guess to what it was that they failed that on.....
Apex (24-06-2011)
Rear view mirror...
tax disc? XD
Vodka
Nope
You don't need one(My old Accord passed the MOT after I got it with the rear view mirror in the glove box)
Considering an advisory was the handbrake travel (it barely held on anything other than flat ground) the quality of the test does vary from place to place
Happened to me on my first car that. The Helston Garages sticker had been in the car since it was new and had passed every MOT with it there, but the centre I went to got really picky, so whilst I was there I peeled it off and had them remove it from the failure sheet.Notice the item in bold and i'll give you a guess to what it was that they failed that on.....
I believe the small garage I use is much like that. The MOT tester trusts the garage, and I believe has pointed out to my mechanic an MOT failure point but then passed the car on the understanding that the garage wouldn't release the car until the failure was properly fixed.
Not the mirror itself, it's attachment to the windscreen counting as an obstruction to the swept areaNope
You don't need one
We have a winner....
On a side note, that lot cost me 398 quid to get it so it passed the test but should see the car right for the 3 yrs am going to have to keep it for.
Just to say thanks for the advice chaps - Got it done at a nice local place (not KwikFit) recommended by a work colleague who's been in the area for a much longer time. Passed without any work which was very nice
peterb (10-07-2011)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
