Hi our Skoda kodiaq 2018 7 seater has just failed it's MOT.

The brake fluid cap was missing according to the garage and this has contaminated the brake pipes with water and corroded the drivers rear brake disc.

Not sure how this has happened but this MOT was at halfords and they can't do the repair but they said it would be expensive as the brake pipes would need to be replaced along with the servo and and the rear brake disc.

Would anyone have any idea how much this might cost roughly as I'm worried it will be really pricey!

Thanks for your help.

My experience with Halfords MOT's is that anything failure wise is blown up out of all proportion to maximise their profits.

 

If it were my car, I would order a new brake fluid cap from Skoda.

 

Get the brake fluid changed & all brakes bled by a different MOT garage.

Ask them to look at the rear discs & change them if necessary, then get them to MOT it.

 

I don't think they will find any other problems with the brakes.

Potentially, water in the brake fluid will corrode brake lines, but brake discs are exposed to the elements and will naturally corrode a little if the weather is wet and the car isn't used for a few days. Any corrosion is probably unconnected. I wonder whether the cap was actually missing when it went in, and it all sounds fishy to me. Did the brakes pass for efficiency? Take it elsewhere for MOT. 

The braking system is sealed (when it has the cap on), so would not cause rust on the rear discs.

 

Missing cap sounds dodgy - if you haven't removed it then it was either Halfords themselves or somewhere that had worked on it previously. Were you aware it was missing before it went in? How long has it been missing for? Have the brakes previously been bled as part of a service?

 

As above, I would get a new cap then get the brakes bled, then take it for another MOT. (all somewhere other than Halfords!)

43 minutes ago, Dominicnp said:

The brake fluid cap was missing according to the garage and this has contaminated the brake pipes with water and corroded the drivers rear brake disc.

LIE!!

 

In no way can a reservoir cap in the engine bay be responsible for rear disc corrosion. I'd need to see the parts to comment either way, but you may need new rear discs and pads. (pair of discs, new pads because the old pads will be scored and won't bed to new discs)

 

As to the brake pipes, did Halfrauds actually tell you what percentage of water is in the hydraulic fluid?

39 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

As to the brake pipes, did Halfrauds actually tell you what percentage of water is in the hydraulic fluid?

 

I think that doubtful as it isn't part of an MOT.

Hi. No they didn't just said that there was water in the pipes which has contaminated the brakes and damaged the rear discs etc

2 hours ago, Routemaster1461 said:

 

I think that doubtful as it isn't part of an MOT.

Also @Dominicnp So how did they establish that there was corrosion in the brake lines then? I'd be surprised to find any vehicle 3 years old or more that doesn't have non-weakening external surface corrosion of the brake pipes, but most people do not have to replace brake pipes every year or 3.

I'm really at a loss to understand this. Are they implying that there is corrosion in the pipes? If so, how do they know as any corrosion would be on the inside, which an MOT wouldn't confirm as the pipes would need to be removed. Although the brake disc may be corroded enough to fail an MOT, connecting this to the lack of a cap is plainly nonsense. I think it may be necessary to have a word with the workshop manager, and perhaps make a complaint to Corporate to get this investigated.  

32 minutes ago, Routemaster1461 said:

I'm really at a loss to understand this.

Likewise; pretty much anything I've said is my interpretation of Dominic's report of what Halfrauds told him. I'd suggest raising a complaint if that wouldn't involve being without the vehicle whilst it was investigated.

i think its safe to say that Halfords are trying to take the OP for a ride.

 

Get a new cap and get an MOT done elsewhere.  If needed then get a decent garage to check and, if necessary change the bake fluid.

Would this be worth reporting to the SMMT and Trading Standards?

Definitely worth going to another garage for inspection etc, no way water in the brake lines would corrode the discs! They didn’t mention anything about the left phalange did they? 

2 hours ago, Routemaster1461 said:

Would this be worth reporting to the SMMT and Trading Standards?

I second all that the others have said, they cannot see inside the brake lines to know there is corrosion and any corrosion on the discs is unrelated.

 

My advice is to forget what they said, they can just deny it, say you misunderstood etc, the only important thing is what is written on the MOT failure certificate?

 

Armed with that information we can decide what is the best course of action regarding recourse against Halfrauds, in the meantime have the cap replaced and the fluid tested for moisture content, any garage will have a tester, I bet its perfect!

 

A missing reservoir cap is legitimate grounds for an MOT test failure.

Edited 19 December, 20214 yr by J.R.

Another issue here is that a fail is a fail. This will make the car illegal to drive on the road as the failure will supercede any remaining part of the first 3 years or the remaining existing MOT.

As an aside - I plan on taking my Kodiaq to the dealer for the first MOT.

 

Will be easier to argue any points. Should they arise.

 

Slipped up a few years ago getting our (low miles mint) Octavia MOT tested near home in an independent.

 

Failed on front shock leak.  Not a leg to stand on. Cost me 2 struts there and then.

Have you got the exact wording from the certificate?

 

Could the corroded rear discs have been a separate advisory / failure? They're a common issue on the Kodiaq.

 

Contaminated brake fluid might be visible from the reservoir, there are also tests that can be done via the reservoir to check the condition of the brake fluid.

 

Contaminated brake fluid might affect the performance of the braking system including a brake caliper which could then adversely affect the condition of the disc, hence needing to know if they're directly attributing the condition of the brake fluid to the corrosion on the disc?

 

Edited 20 December, 20214 yr by silver1011

As it is too many vehicles have H2o in the brake and clutch fluid.

Easily tested to see.

 

Too many are on forums saying in 15 years theirs has never been changed and no isses.

 

So cap needed,  the fluid tested, maybe a complete Brake fluid change.  Brakes tested. 

Maybe a Trained & Qualified Motor Engineer / Mechanic wants to check components, inspect the ABS pump / Calipers etc. 

Not some Fitter at Halfords or the likes.

 

If it needs discs the totally a different matter.    I would be getting VOSA to have the car inspected, or RAC if a member. 

21 hours ago, Routemaster1461 said:

Another issue here is that a fail is a fail. This will make the car illegal to drive on the road as the failure will supercede any remaining part of the first 3 years or the remaining existing MOT.

 

Not 100% accurate.  I think I'm right in saying:

 

If the MOT failure  was on the same day as the certificate expired then legally, the car can be driven on the road as long as it's going for repair and/or to get another MOT.

 

If the MOT failure was before the previous certificate expired then you can drive on the road up to that date AS LONG AS YOUR CAR IS ROADWORTHY. 

 

Bit of a grey area that last one...  can it be roadworthy if it failed?  As others have said, it's important to know why it failed. It could well have failed just because of that missing cap!

 

I'm struggling to understand how someone can say brake fluid is contaminated without at least testing it - it's a simple procedure, they should have done this to confirm their suspicion.

 

Disc could well be corroded, doubtful their explanation is the reason tho. I'd take my car for a free brake check / quote elsewhere. 

 

Leaving brake lines to one side,  fluid change will be around £50 on avg and as it's best practice to change both discs and pads on the same axle. It's really important to shop around for prices because they will vary all over the place. Prob looking at £250 - £300 to have them replaced.  

 

 

 

 

Mot failure is a failure.   Vehicle un-roadworthy. 

 Many drive them away to have work carried out.

The UK is so lax on Legislation / law and grey areas and non enforcement, and confusing Government websites.

 

Get repaired there or trailer it away.   Not many do though.  Test stations do not stop Dangerous or Major / defects (Fails) being drive away.

 Test up to one month early and pass and you have a 13 month MOT or what ever.

 

Mines failed 17th November,  MOT was not due till 24th. 

Edited 20 December, 20214 yr by roottoot

Common sense has been applied to the CT test in my country.

 

There are défaillances mineures where the vehicle does not need to be retested, these might be an advisory like abnormal tyre wear or could be something that you should replace like minor wear to a suspension joint, a blown number plate bulb, the latter ones if ignored could cause an insurance problem if they contributed to an accident but its up to the owner what they do, I have in the past had the same défaillances mineures year after year.

 

Then there are défaillances majeures contre-visite, self explanatory, you should carry out the repairs but you are free to drive the vehicle for a further 60 days, in fact you could drive legally drive forever by having the vehicle tested and failed every 2 months.

 

Added to that and maybe because of that there are now 128 failure points considered défaillances critiques where the vehicle has to be repaired the same day or immobilised, in many cases these are extreme examples of wear that present an immediate risk, a track rod end about to fall out, an exhaust about to drop off, less wear would be a contra-visite failure, minor wear or signs of wear could be an advisory.

 

Our CT test certificates are valid for 2 years which is great, there is also a very sensible law that says you cannot sell a vehicle unless it has at least 18 months remaining CT = been tested within the last 6 months, it means that a buyer know what he is getting and in most cases can count on the vehicle for a further 18 months, it does not matter if it failed the test, you can buy a wreck as long as you know what you are buying thanks to the failure certificate.

 

In practice people sell vehicles without CT all the time, "CT OK" in an advert means it has more than 18 monthe to run, so you can buy a car without one but you will not be able to register it in your name, this is a isk for the seller who remains on the hook for any traffic offences.

21 hours ago, J.R. said:

snip

Great, but does any of that assist the OP?

 

There are pros/cons to both, I don't think you can really say one system is better than the other. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss it.

 

21 hours ago, roottoot said:

Mot failure is a failure.   Vehicle un-roadworthy. 

 Many drive them away to have work carried out.

The UK is so lax on Legislation / law and grey areas and non enforcement, and confusing Government websites.

 

Get repaired there or trailer it away.   Not many do though.  Test stations do not stop Dangerous or Major / defects (Fails) being drive away.

Test up to one month early and pass and you have a 13 month MOT or what ever.

MOT failure doesn't necessarily mean the vehicle is unroadworthy or dangerous to drive.

 

UK is lax on legislation - I don't think so.

There's always grey areas, that's what the justice system is there to sort out.

non-enforcement - political matter, not getting into that!

I don't find the info on Government websites confusing in this area.

 

Get repaired there or trailer it away - Depends on the fault. If your tyres are down to the cords and your brakes are down to the metal backing plates, yes definitely get it fixed before driving it away. If your screen wash is empty, your rear fog light doesn't work and none of your rear seatbelts latch then it's not necessarily unsafe to drive it.

Fails to meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness that got it a Failure though.

A Minor or advisory is not a Major. 

 

It is clear right enough. 

You can drive away if the MOT is still valid and no Dangerous Faults failed it.  

Major defects are fine to drive away with and get fixed.

 

'You might not be able to drive until you fix the problems'.       So that is if 'Dangerous'. 

 

'If you can take your vehicle away it must still meet the minimum standards of road worthiness at all times.'

 

 

 

Edited 21 December, 20214 yr by roottoot

47 minutes ago, petrolbloke said:

Great, but does any of that assist the OP?

I have already given my assistance to the OP and am waiting to hear what is written on the MOT before I can give any more, I'm not sure what you have quoted of mine because the quoted text just says "snip" on my screen

47 minutes ago, petrolbloke said:

 

There are pros/cons to both, I don't think you can really say one system is better than the other. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss it.

 

I did not say it was better, I said that common sense had been applied.

 

I was responding to the posting before about MOT tests, it is hypocrytical  for you to tell me that I should not respond or discuss it (unless you are a moderator) when that is exactly what you go on to do yourself.

 

Have you actually assisted the OP or just discussed the MOT test and told me that I shouldn't speak of the CT test in my country?

 

Editted, I could not see all the postings while composing mine, I can now see that you did respond to the OP saying what you would do in their shoes.

Edited 21 December, 20214 yr by J.R.

50 minutes ago, petrolbloke said:

MOT failure doesn't necessarily mean the vehicle is unroadworthy or dangerous to drive.

 

UK is lax on legislation - I don't think so.

There's always grey areas, that's what the justice system is there to sort out.

non-enforcement - political matter, not getting into that!

I don't find the info on Government websites confusing in this area.

 

Get repaired there or trailer it away - Depends on the fault. If your tyres are down to the cords and your brakes are down to the metal backing plates, yes definitely get it fixed before driving it away. If your screen wash is empty, your rear fog light doesn't work and none of your rear seatbelts latch then it's not necessarily unsafe to drive it.

 

Great, but does any of that assist the OP?

 

Touché! 😆

Edited 21 December, 20214 yr by J.R.