| Author | Post |
|---|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
Sorry i havn`t replied sooner ...working a LOT of hours...anyway...
The garage now have my car and said it wasn`t the alternator it was the air filter? and the air flow...something? They are giving it a full service, doing my brakes etc everything basically so it passes.
So far they have made a real effort but im just waiting for the bill lol They seem like quite genuine blokes now to be honest so maybe theirs hope yet.
Point is... i`m happy to get my car back tomorrow and all (so far) has turned out ok.
Thanks again to everyones feedback, i think if i never went down the trading standards path i may never have got anywhere with it.
Thank you.
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 12:04 pm |
|
removalizer wrote: I must admit I have never seen a failed alternator cause a misfire and flames out of the exhaust.
Didn't like to say anything, in case it was one of these newfangled electronic management thingumies (still being more of a points-and-condenser bloke by nature  ), but I must admit that sounded a little strange to me!
About the only thing I could think of would be voltage spike seriously scrambling the computers but I'd hope the designers protect against that? Besides, wouldn't they also be quoting for a new ECU "at cost" if that was the case????
|
removalizer
Trade Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19th, 2008 09:01 pm |
|
| I must admit I have never seen a failed alternator cause a misfire and flames out of the exhaust.
|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 07:21 pm |
|
Sorry. Was that when the car came back it was misfiring and smoking a lot...thought it was going to explode.
Mentioned that to the testers and they said it was because the alternator had gone. It was fine when i dropped it off so when the catch and the engine were both fk`d i thought they really stitched up the car.
They are looking at correcting everything ...at cost! so fingers crossed! They seem to be genuine now, which actually makes me more suspicious, but end of the day i`ll pay whatever just to get my car on the road.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
PlumberMK wrote: VOSA weren`t interested so directed me to Trading standards. They gave me a link to a letter to write which basically gives the garage a chance to repair at their own cost. Then if no joy i go along the Supply of Goods and Services act 1982.
I spoke to the garage after this and told them the basics and they said, the reason it is misfiring is the alternator and will fix it at cost. I said if they do and it is the alternator i dont mind paying.
The reason i thought it was not the alternator is because my mate (electrician) said the alternator was charging at 14.5v ? so i bought a new battery the morning before they tested. He is an electrician so not too sure now.
Do i give it to them or can i get it fixed cheaply ( if it is actually the alternator?)
Thanks again.
May I ask,
What has the Alternator to do with the MOT?
I thought it was the bonnet?
David
|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 11:36 am |
|
VOSA weren`t interested so directed me to Trading standards. They gave me a link to a letter to write which basically gives the garage a chance to repair at their own cost. Then if no joy i go along the Supply of Goods and Services act 1982.
I spoke to the garage after this and told them the basics and they said, the reason it is misfiring is the alternator and will fix it at cost. I said if they do and it is the alternator i dont mind paying.
The reason i thought it was not the alternator is because my mate (electrician) said the alternator was charging at 14.5v ? so i bought a new battery the morning before they tested. He is an electrician so not too sure now.
Do i give it to them or can i get it fixed cheaply ( if it is actually the alternator?)
Thanks again.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 12:28 am |
|
David wrote: Wesley wrote: Wesley wrote: David wrote:
When I mention quality and image also now bring in integrity of the scheme, I was referring to the quality of service provided, how you should be treated and indeed the correct standards being applied to your vehicle.
We as mot testers are all suppose to use national guidlines for testing purposes, an average time of 55 minutes is normal, although some testers do them quite quickley. A professional mot tester will reach consistantly the same standards of decisions when testing on each vehicle tested, if going by the rules.
David
Hi David,
Where does "The Scheme" "Actually" State an Average time?
"As Long as it Takes!"
Wes.
David , I`m pretty Sure,"You",
Will Agree that A "Pikey`s" 1990 Transit, will take a Lot Longer than,
An "Old Ladies" "05 Getz?"
Regards, Wes.
Wes, how long have you been a tester, did you never take part in the timing cycles produced by VOSA, do you not read "Matters of Testing" where they published the average time taken.
Take a look on your mot performance reports at the length of time per test, if you test an old tranny and your time is significantly long, you will get some stars next to your test, where do you think VOSA gained an average time from to put into conputerisation for the report to generate the stars?
David
Yeah,
I check Every Month! And Just to be Picky the latest average was Actually 51mins.
Them stars in conjunction with latest "Matters of Testing", my stars are in some areas high, Maybe its all them coil springs? Have You Actually read the "Nov 2008 Issue?
As for My timings, Consistent, and failure rates, Consistent,
Wes.
Last edited on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 12:42 am by Wesley
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 11:47 pm |
|
Wesley wrote: Wesley wrote: David wrote:
When I mention quality and image also now bring in integrity of the scheme, I was referring to the quality of service provided, how you should be treated and indeed the correct standards being applied to your vehicle.
We as mot testers are all suppose to use national guidlines for testing purposes, an average time of 55 minutes is normal, although some testers do them quite quickley. A professional mot tester will reach consistantly the same standards of decisions when testing on each vehicle tested, if going by the rules.
David
Hi David,
Where does "The Scheme" "Actually" State an Average time?
"As Long as it Takes!"
Wes.
David , I`m pretty Sure,"You",
Will Agree that A "Pikey`s" 1990 Transit, will take a Lot Longer than,
An "Old Ladies" "05 Getz?"
Regards, Wes.
Wes, how long have you been a tester, did you never take part in the timing cycles produced by VOSA, do you not read "Matters of Testing" where they published the average time taken.
Take a look on your mot performance reports at the length of time per test, if you test an old tranny and your time is significantly long, you will get some stars next to your test, where do you think VOSA gained an average time from to put into conputerisation for the report to generate the stars?
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
big..E. wrote: "maintainance & repair?"....MOT Test is "maintainance"......Making sure that vehicles are maintained to a minimum standard....What about Pubic Liability insurance????
Sorry big E, you have read my post wrong, the maintenance and repair are referring to what the insurance cover will provide for when a garage is found negligent, I did say it will not cover "MOT Testing"
David
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 12:24 am |
|
Wesley wrote: David wrote:
When I mention quality and image also now bring in integrity of the scheme, I was referring to the quality of service provided, how you should be treated and indeed the correct standards being applied to your vehicle.
We as mot testers are all suppose to use national guidlines for testing purposes, an average time of 55 minutes is normal, although some testers do them quite quickley. A professional mot tester will reach consistantly the same standards of decisions when testing on each vehicle tested, if going by the rules.
David
Hi David,
Where does "The Scheme" "Actually" State an Average time?
"As Long as it Takes!"
Wes.
David , I`m pretty Sure,"You",
Will Agree that A "Pikey`s" 1990 Transit, will take a Lot Longer than,
An "Old Ladies" "05 Getz?"
Regards, Wes.
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
David wrote:
When I mention quality and image also now bring in integrity of the scheme, I was referring to the quality of service provided, how you should be treated and indeed the correct standards being applied to your vehicle.
We as mot testers are all suppose to use national guidlines for testing purposes, an average time of 55 minutes is normal, although some testers do them quite quickley. A professional mot tester will reach consistantly the same standards of decisions when testing on each vehicle tested, if going by the rules.
David
Hi David,
Where does "The Scheme" "Actually" State an Average time?
"As Long as it Takes!"
Wes.
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
"maintainance & repair?"....MOT Test is "maintainance"......Making sure that vehicles are maintained to a minimum standard....What about Pubic Liability insurance????
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 09:06 pm |
|
PlumberMK wrote: They wouldn`t even entertain going through their insurance they even laughed when i said there were flames coming from the exhaust. I`ll leave it to vosa and trading standards to decide the outcome. I`ll go to a garage i`ve been told to and pay them to fix the lot including getting the mot. It`s run by an ole boy that use to work for toyota so hopefully will do a proper job.
I know not all garages are wronguns. The garage aint getting their test fee either...or will that mess things up?
big..E. wrote:
You should not have to claim on your insurance..The Test station will have Insurance to cover accidents.However you should still pay for your MOT test.
As big E said, you must pay the test fee even if you don't feel like it, its a legal criteria. The Insurance I mentioned "yours" should be treated as a last resort, as big E said ideally you should not have to claim your own insurance, you should claim on the garage, however as I pointed out previously, it only covers maintenance and repair, not mot testing.
Edited to say, don't have any repairs or adjustments carried out until VOSA have inspected the vehicle, it will invalidate the claim being made.
Good Luck
David
Last edited on Sun Nov 16th, 2008 09:08 pm by David
|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
They wouldn`t even entertain going through their insurance they even laughed when i said there were flames coming from the exhaust. I`ll leave it to vosa and trading standards to decide the outcome. I`ll go to a garage i`ve been told to and pay them to fix the lot including getting the mot. It`s run by an ole boy that use to work for toyota so hopefully will do a proper job.
I know not all garages are wronguns. The garage aint getting their test fee either...or will that mess things up?
big..E. wrote:
You should not have to claim on your insurance..The Test station will have Insurance to cover accidents.However you should still pay for your MOT test.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
PlumberMK wrote: To be honest i dont thinkl it flew up i think they raised it with it up or something?
The catch was not broken and i am 100%, i tested it even after the incident. The car passed its emmissions so they blatantly fk my car up.
If it had been an accident with kids etc then im sure they would be shtting themselves right now but because im just a bloke whinging they are laughing it off.
I have sent an email to vosa so ill see what happens but if they are allowed to get away with it then there is certainly something wrong with the system?
I dont get the bit about the image and quality of the mot scheme? Or was that to spunky?
Dont think my insurance can do anything either. Getting an independent garage to re test it but it wont pass on the emmissions, do i get it fixed? or wait?
Hi PlumberMK
Ring VOSA local office and ask to speak to a vehicle examiner, if poss, senior one, advise them what has happend and see what they advise you to do. Report it to the Trading Standards at least it will be on Record if any other poor standards or problems arise for the public.
When I mention quality and image alsonow bring in integrity of the scheme, I was referring to the quality of service provided, how you should be treated and indeed the correct standards being applied to your vehicle.
We as mot testers are all suppose to use national guidlines for testing purposes, an average time of 55 minutes is normal, although some testers do them quite quickley. A professional mot tester will reach consistantly the same standards of decisions when testing on each vehicle tested, if going by the rules.
Your insurance.
With regards to Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988, your insurance using Third Party Fire, Theft as example would cover "Loss or Damage to the Motor Vehicle" whilst in the custody of a member of the Motor Trade, however, it does not cover the MOT Scheme, only maintenance and repair, having now looked that up, sorry if i mislead you.
In the recent MOT Tester & Authorised Examiner Magazine an interview was conducted with a member of VOSA who advised the scheme didn't need annual visits, and everbody they said, that's VOSA are doing a good job, maybe in the office on paper they mean?
David
|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
I know what you mean about the good and bad bit, im a plumber and get that all the time. I`m not in any rush tbh so i`ll give them a call tomorrow as you suggest and go from there then.
I`d rather wait and get a result rather than rush through. I`ll only go to recommended garages from now on though thats for sure. Shame i know but some people just want to earn a quick quid without the insight of prolonging their bussiness.
Really appreciate everyones input as i said.
Thank you.
|
Spunkymonkey
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
PlumberMK wrote: To be honest i dont thinkl it flew up i think they raised it with it up or something?
The catch was not broken and i am 100%, i tested it even after the incident. The car passed its emmissions so they blatantly fk my car up.
If it had been an accident with kids etc then im sure they would be shtting themselves right now but because im just a bloke whinging they are laughing it off.
I have sent an email to vosa so ill see what happens but if they are allowed to get away with it then there is certainly something wrong with the system?
I dont get the bit about the image and quality of the mot scheme? Or was that to spunky?
Dont think my insurance can do anything either. Getting an independent garage to re test it but it wont pass on the emmissions, do i get it fixed? or wait?
I think David's comment about the image of the scheme was that this sort of incident can damage confidence in the scheme as a whole in the same way that, for a long time, the whole motor industry suffered because of the actions of relatively few cowboy outfits. It shouldn't happen like that - people should realise that there'll be good & bad wherever you go - but the bad tend to make it a lot harder for the good!
As for the repairs, it's a bit of a tricky one because VOSA (and Trading Standards who are also worth contacting) will want to see it "as is". That's likely to be inconvenient for you if you need the car in the meantime.
Best bet would probably be to follow up your email with a phonecall tomorrow so you can explain that to them. Hopefully they'll be able to arrange a look-see quite quickly. If they can't then ask them if it's acceptable for you to get the repairs done by the second garage along with a report of what they find wrong - including any signs of other damage (such as round the hinges) that might have been caused by a bonnet "flying" open on the road. A bonnet-sized sail in a 30mph wind takes a lot of restraining!
|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
To be honest i dont thinkl it flew up i think they raised it with it up or something?
The catch was not broken and i am 100%, i tested it even after the incident. The car passed its emmissions so they blatantly fk my car up.
If it had been an accident with kids etc then im sure they would be shtting themselves right now but because im just a bloke whinging they are laughing it off.
I have sent an email to vosa so ill see what happens but if they are allowed to get away with it then there is certainly something wrong with the system?
I dont get the bit about the image and quality of the mot scheme? Or was that to spunky?
Dont think my insurance can do anything either. Getting an independent garage to re test it but it wont pass on the emmissions, do i get it fixed? or wait?
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 05:54 pm |
|
Spunkymonkey wrote: PlumberMK wrote: I spoke to the garage and they basically say that the catch was faulty and its my responsibility, even though they fixed the bonnet (not the catch)
The catch is broken now so can i still prove they broke it?
Also the car is misfiring and flames are coming from the exhaust? Apparently it needs balancing? equaling out or something? The test showed it passed on emmissions, but doubt now it would, so can i blame them for messing about with it?
Oh forgot... they said the bonnet catch is NOT on an mot? I forgot to tell them about the manual appendix 4 suggested earlier.
Cheers
Does sound like they're not going to be much help if they can avoid it.
Bonnet catch is covered by Section 8.4 (I believe?) of the manual - Driver's view of the road, Bonnet. RFRs are "a bonnet that cannot be safely secured in the closed position" and "an excessively deteriorated, ineffective or insecure retaining device". Seems pretty specifically "covered by the MOT" to me!!!
Similarly, even without flames from the exhaust, a clear misfire is very unlikely to pass emmissions - all that unburnt fuel heading out the ehaust will play havoc with the hydrocarbons!
I'd suggest getting what they've told you in writing - they may be reluctant to do that but you can try the innocent "for my insurers" line - then you may have to look towards Trading Standards and / or VOSA to get anywhere. If you've got their excuses in writing first then Trading Standards / VOSA's job will be a lot easier in taking them to task!
I guess then that the image and quality of the mot scheme are being brought into disrepute. I know anyone can make a mistake, and whether we admit it or not, we all are guilty of them, but I have been thinking, if the bonnet catch was not faulty and just left latched on the second catch when being driven, how fast would you need to drive the car along a road for the bonnet to fly up, I know people will have their own ideas and views and maybe subject to the weather at the time, but I have had experience were a bonnet has not been securely closed and observed it bouncing on the secondary catch, therefore is speed a factor?
I may have said in the past about speed of testing and throughput of vehicles, but the faster you go the less you see and the more mistakes are made. If this had happend to a female driver with children in the car just left the station and an accident occured, it would be interesting then to see the VT40, VT32 and or VT30 if issued?
The bonnet retaining devices may have had nothing wrong or may have, we may never know, but to my mind it is always the thought that if guided by the manual you can't go too far off on a tangent, but if you make up your own personal ideas as you go along, as I have said previously, would VOSA agree with you when something like this happens?
David
|
PlumberMK
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
Sounds promising mate. I`ll try it.
Thank you.
|
Current time is 01:25 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
