ALL MATERIAL © Punters Publishing Ltd 2008. All Rights reserved.
Back to MOT Testing Magazine Front Page
Testing Times
Editorial
Our Rights – VOSA’s Wrongs!
For over a decade now, at MOT Testing we have heavily criticised, VOSA, and VI for treating Testing Stations unfairly and unreasonably.
And over the years our efforts have resulted in VOSA being more open and amenable to discussion, with one glaring exception – computerisation – where there’s a dyed-in-the-wool attitude that MOT Testing Stations’ interests and rights can just be set to one side as if ‘Computerisation’ is a magic word somehow extinguishing our rights. That’s wrong. Legally they are obliged to act ‘reasonably’, ‘proportionately’, and consult with us if their plans affect our businesses. On many ‘computerisation’ issues they have lamentably failed to do so.
Open and representative…
And the consultation must be open and representative. That hasn’t happened. Consultation through the so called ‘Computerisation User Group’ was confidential – (they all had to sign a confidentiality form), and unrepresentative, with no multi-lane, high volume VTSs included.
In theory this failure to properly consult could legally undermine the computerisation project – and given they have lost money (see our lead article) – disgruntled VTSs might successfully sue (if only any could afford it!).
Siemens ‘no show’ losses
When Siemens don’t show for training days, VTSs lose both MOTs and service/repair revenue. VOSA settle in full lost MOTs but only compensate direct labour costs for lost service and repair work. That is inconsistent, and was decided without consulting the trade.
Perhaps there was a ‘cosy’ VOSA/Siemens deal… “Compensation for VTSs if Siemens don’t show? No problem, let’s ask Siemens what they can afford and that’s what we’ll offer!” Yet VTSs have a watertight case for compensation, in full, for all commercial losses, if Siemens don’t show. Siemens/VOSA have an obligation to treat each case on its merits – so if you can demonstrate your losses, there is no reason that we can see why you should not be fully compensated.
Training time
In previous mandatory MOT upgrades – diesel smokemeters, 4-gas analysers and so on, the equipment is easy to use, a half an hour or so of training at most.
Computerisation training is different, it needs half a day, even more – and for a busy business could cost hundreds, perhaps a thousand pounds of lost revenue.
Yet because we weren’t compensated for training time on previous MOT upgrades we’re now expected to bear the cost. That is also wrong. In legal terms it is not only disproportionate (much more time!) to previous situations -– and hence unreasonable, but there was no proper consultation with the trade on this at all.
Tester entry of vehicle details
This is contentious, especially for high volume VTSs. At seminars we were repeatedly told that entering the registration number on DVLA’s database identifies that unique vehicle – bingo, there it is! Was that a joke?
There was no open and representative consultation with the trade regarding the crippling practicalities of Testers entering vehicle details in high volume VTSs. On this I complained directly to VOSA Chief Tetlow.
Last April VOSA confirmed, in writing – “in some cases for high volume VTSs we will allow admin staff to enter vehicle details”. Then without any consultation, they did a U-turn. “Not in any circumstances will we relent on Tester vehicle registration”. We still do not have a satisfactory answer as to why – because VOSA’s contention that this prevents fraud simply does not hold water.
Treat us like the professionals we are!
So what is happening? Why, on computerisation, are the trade getting an arrogant and cavalier attitude from VOSA – surely we should be treated like professionals, deserving of respect? What is happening here?
As a Testing Station owner it feels as if our serious views and concerns regarding computerisation are being contemptuously ignored.
I hear time and again from Testing Station owners who have concerns about computerisation that they would like to be treated as professional partners with VOSA in this project, but feel that the opposite is the case, with VOSA seemingly more concerned with their relationship with Siemens, than forging constructive and mutually beneficial links with Testing Stations.
Spin and propaganda
Whether it is VOSA’s Matters of Testing newspaper, the Business Plan or Annual Report, everything is pretty rosy in VOSA’s garden. No problems, no mistakes…
That’s according to their constant spin and propaganda. Although we’ve seen letters highly critical of computerisation sent to VOSA, there was nothing in the reader’s letters section of Matters of Testing. We contacted Miranda Roberts VOSA Communications Manager, asking why? She replied “…our Matters of Testing postbag has not included vast numbers of complaints about computerisation”.
We not that she doesn’t say “none at all…”, so why are there no letters at all complaining about computerisation in Matters of Testing?
So, if in future you complain to VOSA, and would like the complaint aired publicly in Matters of Testing, make sure it is also addressed to the editor. Oh, and why not send us a copy too, so we can check whether or not they are prepared to acknowledge that they’re not so perfect after all…
‘Green Flag’ flags up MOT dodgers
In a recent survey of some 2,000 drivers carried out by Green Flag Motoring Assistance, some 12% confessed to having risked driving a car without a valid MOT certificate.
The research also revealed confusion among motorists about the MOT. 80% thought the spare wheel was checked, and 40 per cent that oil, water and screen wash levels were also checked. …
Heavy reliance on the MOT
The findings also suggested that many drivers relied on the MOT as an indication of their car’s roadworthiness. One-in-five drivers believed that if their car passes the MOT it doesn’t need further maintenance.
However, 47% did check their lights before a Test, 42 per cent arranged a service and 41 per cent checked wiper blades and tyre pressure. A quarter of drivers said they made no pre-MOT preparations
Car Owner’s Guide (COG)
These findings indicate that the COG poster we at MOT Testing produce each year for Testing Stations to put up on the wall in their MOT waiting rooms provides AEs with a very simple way of explaining to motorists what the MOT is all about.
Picture caption: Over one in ten of these cars probably does not have an MOT. That’s about £15.5M lost income to the trade every year – not including repair work!
One-man Testing without an ATL
We were surprised when we heard that you cannot ‘cherry pick’ parts of an automatic testing lane (ATL) for your existing facility to have a ‘one man Test lane’. It’s all or nothing. So if you want to upgrade your lane to ‘one man operation’ by installing a vehicle lift with shaker plates, a brake pressurising device and mirrors to check the lights, you’re not allowed to do it – you must still use an assistant to shake and push and pull the wheels – even though technically he is not actually needed. This is patenly ridiculous and we’ve said so to VOSA and the Department for Transport in London.
In consequence VOSA have agreed with us, and now, as a result they are considering allowing garages to adopt elements of the ATL package to improve Testing quality and productivity. We will be following this up and keeping readers informed...
Picture Caption: Forcing VTSs to purchase a full ATL rather than allowing them to adopt ATL elements (eg shaker plates as shown here) before allowing ‘one-man-Testing’ could disadvantage small VTSs. (see also reader’s letters)
4-2-2 MOT Testing – Government sees sense…
In the last edition we reported that VOSA and the DfT were looking at changing the MOT periodicity to every two years with the first MOT Test when a vehicle is four years old.
This would have resulted in Testing Stations suffering huge revenue losses nationwide, with inevitable business failures.
We are pleased to report that, in the face of our protests, and those of our colleagues in the trade, the Government have now noted “…whilst we would never completely rule out such a change to the MOT Test… because we don’t know how vehicle technology will develop, we can, however, say that such a change will not happen in the foreseeable future”.
We are pleased to see that common sense has prevailed on this contentious issue which was potentially a major threat to road safety. It also demonstrates how important it is that we continue to raise the alarm on such vital issues at an early stage.
MOT Test for LPG conversions?
An interesting section of the Road Safety Bill currently going through Parliament is to ‘MOT Test’ aftermarket LPG conversions for safety purposes.
The details will take some time to emerge, but will no doubt be a vital addition to the Testers Manual. It will also increase the time taken to complete the MOT Test so either the overall MOT fee would need to be increased, or there may have to be an added cost for Testing such vehicles which would of itself be a departure from the current situation where all MOTs are charged at the same rate.
We’ll keep readers fully informed of any further news.
More Testing Times in MOT Testing 47 November 05.
Editorial
MOTT&AE Magazine, PO Box 6118 Oakham LE15 6BR
E-mail: editor@motester.co.uk
Subscriptions
MOTT&AE Magazine, PO Box 6118 Oakham LE15 6BR
Fax: 01780 767 702
E-mail: subs@motester.co.uk