Now for the serious stuff

[RobinL]

Again Trading Standards would only be interested if indeed the trader could have been shown to have traded below standard - which for this is impossible.
Do dealers need to physically check all circuits and connections - no.
Would it be reasonable for them to rely on dashboard lights? Yes - and at time of MOT and purchase they didn't apparently show a problem.
Moving on.......

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

 

[RichardSEL]

News just in about the DVSA: "26/11/2020 · Loveday Ryder has been appointed as the new Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and will be starting her new role on 1 January 2021..." So that answers that, then.
Oh, here we go: "Department for Transport perm sec Bernadette Kelly said she believed Ryder’s expertise in performance-improvement would be “invaluable” in helping DVSA to “overcome the operational challenges” dealt to the agency by the coronavirus pandemic.
"Ryder is currently chief of BPDTS, the Department for Work and Pensions’ arm’s-length digital services provider, which is being brought back in-house from July next year."

There still at it: musical chairs! "Yes, Minister!" Whom I still can't find as the responsible Minister

---
Did the previous one owner have this dangerous kludge done to sell on? Possibly
Did the dealer = ditto = Of course not, they're fine upstanding members of the community!

... nothing to see here, return to your homes

 

[Oneball]

They’ve just appointed a 70’s pornstar as boss of the DVSA?

 

[rs48635]

Again Trading Standards would only be interested if indeed the trader could have been shown to have traded below standard - which for this is impossible.
Do dealers need to physically check all circuits and connections - no.
Would it be reasonable for them to rely on dashboard lights? Yes - and at time of MOT and purchase they didn't apparently show a problem.
Moving on.......

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

Not in reference to the airbag.
The other litany of stuff

 

[RichardSEL]

To the OP, maybe trading standards might be interested? The car as sold to you was at least faulty, maybe even not fir for purpose.

As has been said, depends what you want out of it. Seems like you now have a decent QP to enjoy. Leave the deerstalker on the hat rack and sit down with a pipe

A pipe? I hope you're not suggesting a chillum? (whatever that is ;-)

I did initially contact Trading Standards who told me what to do pointing to Sale of Goods Act and how I should refer to my claim as a "reduction in price" rather than damage and loss. I think that's when dealer's claims company may have got involved, as the assessor seemed to think that I knew what I was talking about!

I will get back to Trading Standards as they told me they like to know how their enquirors' claims have faired following they're advice -- invariably they never get to hear feedback.

 

[rs48635]

A pipe? I hope you're not suggesting a chillum? (whatever that is ;-)

I did initially contact Trading Standards who told me what to do pointing to Sale of Goods Act and how I should refer to my claim as a "reduction in price" rather than damage and loss. I think that's when dealer's claims company may have got involved, as the assessor seemed to think that I knew what I was talking about!

I will get back to Trading Standards as they told me they like to know how their enquirors' claims have faired following they're advice -- invariably they never get to hear feedback.

The pipe (&deerstalker) was a reference to Sherlock homes. Hinting that you have retired once already as a working detective.

 

[RichardSEL]

They’ve just appointed a 70’s pornstar as boss of the DVSA?

Loveday Ryder? Nah, you mean Ian McShane in Lovejoy TV series primarly remembered for the cars in beautiful English country village scenes...
There's also Linda Lovelace -- star of 70s film shocker Deep Throat -- not remembered at all, oh no...

 

[philw696]

Ah Linda Lovelace

 

[RichardSEL]

Strange how a Special Delivery (a bargain for next day guaranteed by Royal Mail at £7.50 for a letter, DPD charges £3.85) can produce results: Delivered day before yesterday, I've had this reply from "enquiries" at DVSA quote:
"Thank you for your letter dated 28 November 2020, concerning an MOT appeal.
I am unable to find the email appeal dated 8 August 2020 as you specified in your letter, and I have searched the tracking number for the postal application for 20 October 2020 and it states the application is still with Crayford post office.
Based on the appeal enclosed with your letter, DVSA is concerned to receive any complaints where it is alleged that a test certificate has been improperly issued but in order that action can be taken it is essential that the matter should be reported as soon as possible after the test, and before repair work has been carried out.
I regret that the fact that the vehicle has had repair work carried out, precludes our taking any action in an appeal against the test result in this case.

However, your concerns regarding the MOT garage have been forwarded to the appropriate Regional Intelligence Unit for your area for further investigation.

All information received by DVSA is analysed, prioritised, and treated in a sensitive manner... <bla, bla, waffle, waffle> But useful links to the Motor Ombudsman (a dealer has to be a member of this scheme to make a complaint via it, Sheffield is not) and Consumer Direct (front for Trading Standards) included.

 

[RichardSEL]

And my reply. When a government department fails, they should be publically shamed into actually representing those who pay for them -- compulsorily under threat of imprisonment via taxes...

">>the postal application for 20 October 2020 and it states the application is still with Crayford post office.

No, the record does not say that. It says that it was posted at Crayford Post Office. Not that it's still there. Fact is that it was not signed for at destination. At that time CVT signatures were being used by Royal Mail due to Covid-19 restrictions. And then entered onto the Royal Mail "signed for" system as if they had been signed for.

>in order that action can be taken it is essential that the matter should be reported as soon as possible after
>the test, and before repair work has been carried out.

No that is not so. Otherwise you would ban MOT appeals that have had the work and / or a retest carried out.
You do not do so. You just ask the question. I have offered to send you photographs of the "before" and "after" works carried out, the repairer's invoice, and an independent qualified assessment by a qualified mechanic and specialist witness (both before and after) nominated by Associated Independent Assessors. Are you refusing to accept these?

<snip>
there has been further dangerous faults found with the vehicle:
(a) The drivers' airbag system warning lights' and connections had been shorted out by two 220 Ohm resistors to stop the warning system from showing up a fault on the dashboard (faulty clock spring original fault)

I can appreciate were the drivers' airbag fault kludged before last December's MOT then the MOT tester would not've seen it. <snip>

In other words, a "clean" no advisories' MOT certificate was issued the vehicle when it should not have been.

Please advise whether I can now forward you the photographs, and other information mentioned above in support of my appeal?
Or are you just closing my appeal?
I know that your inspection staff are serious and conciencious in their work and feel sure that they would want to at least have on file this information

With thanks for your continued attention"

 

[philw696]

Looking forward to seeing their reply back to you.
In the years I was testing in the UK I never had a complaint even after falling out with people usually failling shoddy repair work on presentation for a retest.
When I did my training to be a tester it was obvious the test is flawed and really is a bare minimum standard.
A far stricter test here in France and it costs €77.

 

[lifes2short]

When I did my training to be a tester it was obvious the test is flawed and really is a bare minimum standard.
A far stricter test here in France and it costs €77.

i think it's fair system here, if anything it sounds rather ott in some countries with their equivalent of the mot and even stricter laws such as not being able to modify road going cars like swapping engines out and modding running gear etc etc imagine that, would be he-ll

 

[RichardSEL]

If all that wasn't enough, just had a MOT failure on handbrake:
Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects)
• Parking brake efficiency less than 50% of the required value [1.4.2 (a) (ii)]

I had explained to me that the "required value" is 16% of the footbrake achieved value (Have I got this right?) MOT tester went on to explain that the NS shoe wasn't hardly doing anything.
Back I go to my friendly (usually used) general-purpose repair shop, not the specialist Mas shop that nominated this MOT test station. And they found that the NS shoe was capable of being adjusted up by "two clicks".
Following day, back to the MOT test station for free retest. "Well, that just made it, we had to apply the handbrake four times and on the fourth time it just met the requirment!" All breathlessly said with eyes and hands waving in the air dramatically.
Pass certificate handed over.

Now, I'm not one to suggest that the closeness of some MOT test stations that get continual repeat business from a repair shop would involve themselves with anything other than straight dealing -- I would've expected equal wear on both NS and OS handbrake shoes if not meeting holding regulations. Repair shop had previously emailed me a quotation for <wait for it, drum roll...>
Pair rear shoes £91.07
Pair adjusters (seized) £107.83
Labour four hours £408.00

There's obviously no connection between any of these events. Just bad luck that's all.

...nothing to see here. Return to your homes

 

[rs48635]

If all that wasn't enough, just had a MOT failure on handbrake:
Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects)
• Parking brake efficiency less than 50% of the required value [1.4.2 (a) (ii)]

I had explained to me that the "required value" is 16% of the footbrake achieved value (Have I got this right?) MOT tester went on to explain that the NS shoe wasn't hardly doing anything.
Back I go to my friendly (usually used) general-purpose repair shop, not the specialist Mas shop that nominated this MOT test station. And they found that the NS shoe was capable of being adjusted up by "two clicks".
Following day, back to the MOT test station for free retest. "Well, that just made it, we had to apply the handbrake four times and on the fourth time it just met the requirment!" All breathlessly said with eyes and hands waving in the air dramatically.
Pass certificate handed over.

Now, I'm not one to suggest that the closeness of some MOT test stations that get continual repeat business from a repair shop would involve themselves with anything other than straight dealing -- I would've expected equal wear on both NS and OS handbrake shoes if not meeting holding regulations. Repair shop had previously emailed me a quotation for <wait for it, drum roll...>
Pair rear shoes £91.07
Pair adjusters (seized) £107.83
Labour four hours £408.00

There's obviously no connection between any of these events. Just bad luck that's all.

...nothing to see here. Return to your homes

You have VIP membership to the handbrake MOT lottery by dint of running a QP.
Garages cannot comprehend that manual click adjusted handbrake could live in touching distance of electro-hyraulic gear change and LSD in the luxury saloon.
Next year adjust get the handbrake adjusted a few days before the test. Easy DIY job or hour at workshop max.

 

[Oneball]

It failed the MOT, just like an out headlight fails an MOT. Don’t see the issue.

Also I take it you had it trailered from the MOT station to the garage for repairs then had it trailered back to the MOT place?

 

[jasst]

Richard, did they test the brakes on the rolling rd type brake tester? I presume so as they have come up with percentage figures, this is a big no no on cars with LSD, I always warn them of this and the fact they will be liable for £thousands in repair costs if they blow up my diff, they always use a taplow meter to do brake tests on mine, and the handbrake test involves will it hold on a slight hill.

 

[Zep]

Richard, did they test the brakes on the rolling rd type brake tester? I presume so as they have come up with percentage figures, this is a big no no on cars with LSD, I always warn them of this and the fact they will be liable for £thousands in repair costs if they blow up my diff, they always use a taplow meter to do brake tests on mine, and the handbrake test involves will it hold on a slight hill.

This ^^^^

 

[rs48635]

This ^^^^

arghhhhhh! so that is why my LSD is knackered

 

[lifes2short]

my local mot guys use a an old tapley one that looks like it's from the victorian era, not sure whether all mot garages actually realise that cars with LSD's should not be on the rollers

 

[Zep]

All of the Tapleys I have seen look like something from a bygone era, but they are calibrated yearly.