| Author | Post |
|---|
gluther
Trade Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 10:04 pm |
|
Got one in the post this morning, not for our business though!!!!! Can't be many, if any that have actually made it to the correct place! Tried to phone the helpline number on the letter, engaged! Within 5 minutes had the automated VOSA message service calling me telling me they had got it wrong What to do now, how much confidence can we have when we get the revised letters that all information contained in it relates to our site?! Assume VOSA won't be giving themselves a pile of penalty points over this one!!!!!!
Graham
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 322 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
| we still haven't had ours sent out yet .
|
martins
Administrator
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
This topic has crossed over with another - see front page of http://www.motester.co.uk/
under MOT Industry News
|
scubaman10w
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 12:31 pm |
|
I have the same report the same as a testing station up the road
Looks like we have all been sent his report..
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 12:04 pm |
|
Here's a point has anyone got my score ? for "Just Mot's" as I have got one for a garage in inverness
|
Avalon
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 09:05 am |
|
On Saturday I received 7 identical risk scores all for other garages. It makes you want to cry doesn't it? How many points would they give us if the shoe was on the other foot?
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
When I spoke to VOSA about this they said 6000 letters had gone out, this is going to be fun.
|
harley883
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 09:00 pm |
|
We also received our letter yesterday, addressed to us with wrong station number on it. Looks like VOSA are on the ball again.
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 08:30 pm |
|
Received my trafffic light letter from Vosa Bristol yesterday addressed to me but mean't for another test centre, phoned them up to which taffy apologised and asked me to write in and get the correct one sent to me, anyone else out there got there's yet ?
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
Have PM`d seeking a resolve
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 12:07 am |
|
David wrote: Hi
Thanks for your reply, sorry I did misunderstand what you were saying,
David
In My Dreams LOL!
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: Hi Guys, seems I have been Blocked from repling to this posting tonight, Thanks ever so much for Dissing ME.
I will continue to be "A Good Tester" and Refer to The Manual as always, I will from now on refrain from getting into Discussion about Issues that would possibly improve Road Safety!
Seems My Postings are being proof read, edited or Deleted! So As Above I Will Decline, for the time being.Thanks. Wes.
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 11:41 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: Hi Guys, seems I have been Blocked from repling to this posting tonight, Thanks ever so much for Dissing ME.
I will continue to be "A Good Tester" and Refer to The Manual as always, I will from now on refrain from getting into Discussion about Issues that would possibly improve Road Safety!
Hi Wes,
Please don't go . Its good to chuck in our 5pence worth and as BT used to say its good to talk or is that post. Your point though is the issue, as mechanics, tech's we want to improve road safety, however during the test we are asked to see if the vehicle meets the minimum standard and as you, thats where it gets frustrating. Ive given up being frustrated and apply the manual.
Keep posting
rfr
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
Hi Guys, seems I have been Blocked from repling to this posting tonight, Thanks ever so much for Dissing ME.
I will continue to be "A Good Tester" and Refer to The Manual as always, I will from now on refrain from getting into Discussion about Issues that would possibly improve Road Safety!
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 09:44 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: RFR,
Without removal of road wheels to inspect the excessively corroded cooling vanes on the perfectly looking surface area of the front vented brake discs, and even if I were very astute and noticed It, How do You suggest I/ We CYA?
Wes.
Hi Wes,
What can I say bar: We have been here before on many issues, introduction to manual clearly states fail criteria. "whether the component has reached the stage where it is obviously likely to affect adversly the roadworthiness of the vehicle, whether the condition of the component has clearly reached the stage when replacement, repair or adjustment is necessary." If you cannot put your hand on your heart and say the above applies pass and advise. Job done. The days of any doubt fail it have long gone. If any doubt pass and advise and everyone knows you can do no more. So to CYA, yours and mine P&A and nothing to worry about . As said previously fail mine with all the good intentions and I'm in with an appeal and your off with some points. If you can say it does apply then fail it and again no problems. Hope this helps.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 07:00 pm |
|
Hi
Thanks for your reply, sorry I did misunderstand what you were saying, I thought you meant that you were correcting the adjustments of aim but not PRS'ing on Computerisation.
When my VE came to our station he did say he had concerns with my Lighting and Signalling figures being somewhat high, I advised him that our station did the MOT tests first before any servicing and repairs were carried out, this I believe shows a more accurate view of the condition of vehicles used on the roads around the UK.
Since the start of Computerisation at the beginning of each month I check my last months statistics, never once have I not had high figures for lighting and signalling, there are many reasons for this and I don't think that any MOT testers should worry about their figures being high, when I spoke to the senior personnel at VOSA they also advised that there own HGV stations have high figures, they tell me its the national number one failer rate within the scheme.
David
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
David wrote: Hi read your views on logging all headlamp aim problems as PRS, if you just pass them without declaring the PRS, or if they should be issued with a VT30, but you don't, and the scheme are complaining about the changes to a 4-2-2 system having adverse effects on Road Safety, and your business income and job security being put at risk, then when the staistics go forward to Government to decide up on whether to change the test duration period, and it does not go in your favour, who do you think are to blame?
David
Not sure you have understood what I mean't. I am suggesting to all MOT testers out there to hit the PRS button everytime a headlamp needs adjusting therfore pushing up the figures and hopefully preventing the 4-2-2 proposal. I know not many are doing it because when I print up the scheme performance report I am showing an abnormal failure rate on headlamp alignments.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
Hi read your views on logging all headlamp aim problems as PRS, if you just pass them without declaring the PRS, or if they should be issued with a VT30, but you don't, and the scheme are complaining about the changes to a 4-2-2 system having adverse effects on Road Safety, and your business income and job security being put at risk, then when the staistics go forward to Government to decide up on whether to change the test duration period, and it does not go in your favour, who do you think are to blame?
David
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 01:29 pm |
|
Going back to 4-2-2 surely if we all logged every headlamp adjustment as a PRS then the failure figures will shoot up and blow this proposal out of the water ?
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 12:06 pm |
|
Hi Nicknak
Some people may go OTT when testing, much of the inspection is down to the individual testers experience and training, and what would be considered reasonable. I have been involved with the MOT scheme for around 15 years, and also am a Collision Investigator. Now although brake discs do fail and shear away at the hub, statistically its not common, and not in any significant figures for any serious concern from a manufacturing point.
With regards measuring tools, this is down to your conscience using Regulation (3.5.1h) I think.
Regards
David
|
Current time is 11:41 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
