 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
veralollipop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 10:19 pm |
|
Well, I,m happy in my own mind that the damage was caused by the garage and as I said, I wont be using them again.
This isnt the first time they,ve botched a job. They removed a, in perfect working order, back box off my exhaust saying it was the wrong one. Ok, I believed them but the one they,ve put on is blowing and even after taking it back 3 times, its still the same and I dont have the excelleration I had before.
I will, after the w/end, try to find someone to make a decent job of repairing the hole.
It would have been my word against theirs and I,m too old for hassle.
Thanks again
Vera
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 07:29 pm |
|
Hi Veralollipop
It is not easy to judge what has or has not happend at the time you have left your car with the station, and it also is not easy to decide how long the corrosion has been present around the area shown in your picture, but, and it is only my opinion based on your picture, the corrosion hole edges appear rusted into the metal indicating that corrosion has been around that area for some time, I don't think there are any mot testers out there now who have years of experience would not know that the rear wiper and security is not part of the test.
Also I am convinced based on my years of experience having tested many vehicles recently tested by other stations, that testers don't fail bodywork for sharp edges or projections unless they are situated in such a position on the vehicle that they are likely to cause injury to a pedestrian.
This has nothing to do with mot testing, but is an experience of mine from years ago with two customers, husband and wife. They presented their car to me for a service,after the service they paid and removed the vehicle, the following day they returned complained that the clock was working before I serviced the car, I therefore said to them in this situation it would be better for me with your permission to contract the work to an autoelectrician, and if its my fault I will pay and compensate for your inconvenience, the customers agreed, the auto electrician found that one of the fuses within the fuse box under the bonnet had corroded away and in his opinion had not worked for at least some months?
Therefore with reference to your current problem, I would'nt be to quick to jump on the garage, as you said you already pushed and pressured the affected area yourself, and by the evidence as seen, it appears the effected area was seriously weakened in any event, therefore some premature failure most be expected at some point, even people like Trading Standards in this case would take a dim view of any complaint, I feel that people must be reasonable in the light of the evidence.
David
|
veralollipop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
So you,re saying that its ok for him to poke a hole cause its showing a little rust?
Anyway, when I collected my car and started back it started to rain and found that my wiper wasnt working, thats when I found the gaping hole in the back so now it was raining in too. The metal has been pushed in all the way to the wiper and even cleaned out, theres no sign of any rusty metal nor anything, just the workings of the wiper. And you think thats ok?
Vera
|
veralollipop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
Thank you Dave but that area wasnt pressed prior to the test it was a while before and as I,m a car booter the rear door is opened and closed on a regular basis and there wasnt any sign of crumbling metal.
When I showed the gaffa of the garage the damage he did say, "my wife has one of these cars and her door has gone exactly the same." I immediately imagined him saying this to one of his employees and pressing it at the same time.
You cant see from my picture but on the upper right side of the hole the metal is bent inwards which, to me, looks very much as if its been forced in.
Yes, I am aware that a little filler will do the trick and I am about to do the job now, I just wanted you to see the damage, but, be assured, theres no way in this world that I will ever use this trader again and I certainly wont be singing his praises to anyone.
Again, as before, thank you for your help and advice
Vera
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:51 am |
|
Hi Vera, I hope you don't mind me jumping in for a minute as a non-tester with a couple of comments here.
Not being a tester, I can't give a definitive "yes / no" on whether doing that was allowed but I would tend to think it isn't. It certainly isn't a prescribed area, or going to affect steering or braking, by any stretch of the imagination. It's also not reall a sharp edge likely to injure othe road users - even if they walked into the back of your car they'd hit the wiper arm before getting near it!
But, seeing the ring of rust bubbling around that wiper spindle, the chances are it was crumling to a hole anyway. Chances are, it was only the remains of the paint film that was holding that bit in! As for the "it's still solid metal around it", unfortunately, that's the nature of tin-worm - when the rusted through bit is gone, you're left with sound metal around the edges!
Hard to see for sure, but it looks like there's also a gap in the lower left, just under the wiper arm. That sort of rot will cause the wiper mount to flex when it runs and, sooner or later, the loose stuff will fall out.
If the tester had operated the rear wiper inadvertently, with that much bubbling it could have simply fallen out. Remember, they have to find the appropriate controls for every car they test and they're not all the same so flicking the "wrong" switch is inevitable at times! Certainly, as a presenter, I wouldn't be thinking of causing trouble for the station over something like this.
In a way, better to have it show up now than later when you need the wiper and it rips itself out of the tailgate 
|
MOTman
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:47 am |
|
The area in the photo is not a prescribed area therefore does not come into the test, hence not on the tester's VT30 fail certificate.
As it's not jagged it cannot be classed a danger to pedestrians so again cannot be failed.
If you are adamant that the damage has resulted due to negligence whilst the car was on their premises then you could claim against their motor trade policy. Chances are they'll sort out a repair free of charge rather than go through the insurance route.
However I note that you state on this forum that you pressed this area before the test. You may therefore have weakened the area enough to have caused it to crumble when the tale gate was opened and shut during the test ie due to vibration. This could be their defence, as they could reasonably query why you had 'pressed' at it.
A bit of filler will sort the cosmetic problem out.
PS Re-test fee can be £25 so their £10 fee is a 'bargain'.
Last edited on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:49 am by MOTman
|
veralollipop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 11:17 am |
|
My apolgies for the dely in responding to your message.
This is the 3rd time that I,ve tried to send a pic of the damage to the rear of my car and this is the smallest setting that my camera will do so hopefully this is going to be 3rd time lucky.
I,m not sure if you can see from the reflection on the boot but my car is parked 24/7 in front of my bay window and always with the rear of the car to the window. There were no holes in my car when I took it for its MoT.
I have again pressed all round this rusty area and its still all firm as it was before I took it for its MoT and my son will confirm that this damage was not there when I left it.
Anyway, I,ll leave you to see for yourself and may I thank you for your kind help and assistance.
Vera
Attachment: Picture 017.jpg (Downloaded 26 times)
|
RFR
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
Whatever we think about corrosion, Inspection Manual APP C fail criteria within a P.area. Sec 6.1 outside p. area
The answer to all your comments and thoughts
Holes, No Holes, Deliberately Weakened etc,
RFR
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 06:28 pm |
|
If just the stone guard is holding the panelling together, and you know that the metal is so weak that "if" you breathed hard on it then it would disintegrate, then that panel must be significantly weakened, and "if" so, how much worse could you make it, if you used finger and thumb pressure which caused a corrosion hole to appear, or lightly tapping with the assessement tool which caused a corrosion hole to appear.
I know what you mean using experience to assess significantly weakened panels etc, but the problem is this, if an appeal was carried out, VOSA may decide that no excessive corrosion was present when you tested it, because unless your finger and or thumb goes through the metal, or the assessment tool penetrates, then until that point is reached, there is no proof.
VOSA then may take disciplinary action for not using the correct method of assessement.
David
|
911mot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 12:54 am |
|
Yes I have failed a car with no holes in it, where just the paintwork/stonegaurd is keeping the shape. Surely you know what I mean, where it is so obvious that it will crumble away in your hands. The point is - if it's like that just fail it, dont make it any worse.
Once the test is over, and the customer has looked at his sill and comes back asking where the corossion is, THEN put it on the ramp and show him how it falls to pieces in your hand.
Just repeating what my VE used to drill us about..
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 328 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 12:01 am |
|
911mot wrote: I was always told we are not allowed to make holes etc in say outer sills. Any good tester will know just with thumb pressure and LIGHT TAPPING with C.A.T. if there is corrosion.
Fail it and when you show the customer the affected area after the test you can make as many holes as you see fit
So you fail a car that has NO HOLES in the sill??..
During the test "we are not allowed to make holes etc"
But "after the test you can make a many holes as you see fit"???????
err..
|
911mot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 80 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
I was always told we are not allowed to make holes etc in say outer sills. Any good tester will know just with thumb pressure and LIGHT TAPPING with C.A.T. if there is corrosion.
Fail it and when you show the customer the affected area after the test you can make as many holes as you see fit
Besides any holes created are a DELIBERATE MODIFICATION and thus not a failure due to corrosion or damage?
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 09:07 pm |
|
Hi Veralollipop
No what you are considering is a total waiste of time. If you have a camera photograph the evidence and put it on this site for us to look at. Based on what you present I will look at the correct regulation if any to advise you.
Thanks
David
|
veralollipop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
Thank you David
I,d already printed off the paperwork for whats covered by the MoT and I asked them why they,d poke holes in that part when its not covered by the mot all he said was "It was like it when I left it" No it wasnt!!
I,m having the underwork taken care of by the dealer I bought my car from but I am taking it back for re test which will cost me another £10 then I shall photograph the damage and make an appointment with our Citizens Advise Bureau.
I will also be visiting goodgarages.com and putting my greivance on there too.
Is this what you,d recommend?
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
Some testers on here may say differently, but I would go back and ask the tester to show you were in the manual it indicates the failure criteria for what you are not happy with, if no such area exists, or there is no sharp projections likely to cause pedestrians injury, ie look at location, then I would tell them to fix it if its not covered by regulations, if they decline I would ring VOSA on their national enquiry line for further advice. If unecessary damage has been caused to your vehicle, you should complain.
David
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 322 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 05:51 pm |
|
veralollipop wrote: And you think you got a bad deal?
I,ve just come back from having my Ford Escort Estate tested, yes, sills both sides, front and back but not only that, yes, admitted, there was a little rust round the rear wiper which I had pressed prior to testing and seemed pretty firm to me, but now I,ve got 2 great big holes in my rear door and my wiper doesnt work any more.
Its not listed on the MoT failure list so why would they do that? I,m fuming!!
i don't know why they would feel the need to do that , that is not part of the vehicle structure so doesn't matter with regards to the test , the only time that should result in a failure is when it has holes in it (sharp edges)
|
veralollipop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 09:27 am |
|
And you think you got a bad deal?
I,ve just come back from having my Ford Escort Estate tested, yes, sills both sides, front and back but not only that, yes, admitted, there was a little rust round the rear wiper which I had pressed prior to testing and seemed pretty firm to me, but now I,ve got 2 great big holes in my rear door and my wiper doesnt work any more.
Its not listed on the MoT failure list so why would they do that? I,m fuming!!
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
Normally we first look at the affected areas, then by finger and thumb pressure we push to see if the metal is so weak that it crumbles to form a hole, if it does it fails, if it does not, but the tester thinks it does not feel rigid, then the corrosion assessment tool is used, we normally lightly tap the affected area, if this causes the affected area to crumble then its a fail, anything else and it should be a (pass & advise)
I have today July 08th 2008 had word from a ex VI official that if surface corrosion is present, a tester if possible would be better off poking it into a hole and then having it welded over, he did also say that VOSA would not like this, but he said if you advised surface corrosion VT32 and within three months an appeal was carried out, if that corrosion met the fail criteria at that time, your points scale would be reduced from 30 to 5/10 Pts.
It seems that it does not matter whether corrosion is excessive or not then, your nicked?
David
Last edited on Tue Jul 8th, 2008 08:08 pm by David
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
I'm afraid we are allowed to do that.
We have to test and see if there is corrosion, You would be suprised how easy it is sometimes, and how much it hurts when your thumb goes through the corrosion. It doesnt sound like suface rust, the corrosion is from the inside!
Kev
|
jaguarfan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 03:39 pm |
|
Hi all.
Just returned from the testing station with my wifes little soapbox and on the sheet it has failed saying excessive corrosion X 4 patches on the inner & outer off & near side sills. I don't want to sound petty but I pre-checked it and give it a good looking over before I took it, and granted there was a little SURFACE rust (being it a '98 plate) its come back with 4 great holes in the off & near side sills??? I thought testers weren't allowed to prod & poke great holes??? 
Now they're quoting £280 to weld them back up! Thoughts would be appreciated.
Last edited on Mon Jul 7th, 2008 03:41 pm by jaguarfan
|
Current time is 01:26 pm | |
|
|
|
|
