This thread seems to be going the way of many others. The OP hasn't posted for a couple of days but already the bickering about nothing has taken over. Taken over by someone who has 63000 posts and another 6700 posts.

 

 

3 hours ago, roottoot said:

 

 

 

 

I'd have thought for someone who's advising other on MOT failures would have checked their sidelight was working before putting their own car thru an MOT.   ( there's bound to be an excuse )

 

You've posted some sort of official document that says " Your vehicle will fail if the test result is 'dangerous' or 'major'. It then goes on to say " Driving away a vehicle that's failed: You can take your vehicle away if your current MOT is still valid and no dangerous problems were listed.   In other words, if your car fails an MOT and it's only failures are listed as 'major', then as long as the current MOT is still valid, the car can be driven - i.e. it's roadworthy.   So after my reply above, why did you write  "An MOT failure is a failure, Vehicle un-roadworthy"?  Like JR with his invaluable advice about certification in France, you seem to be posting for the sake of posting and offering the OP ( and every other reader ) nothing. No wonder you two have so many postings.

 

My advice to the OP would be to take everything he reads ( including my posts ) with a pinch of salt because it really is such a grey area. The only people you should listen to 100% are your insurer and the police. Everyone else can chuck in their interpretation but it matters not a jot.  And even if that advice is wrong, what the person who failed your car has to say is crucial because that could be your defence - or your downfall. It's defo worth getting everything that's said in writing.  

 

There are no interpretations or speculation on my part, I have asked what was written on the MOT failure certificate, nobody else did. What the person had to say unless recorded is worthless, this evening alone there have been several examples quoted of garages saying rubbish, what counts in this case is what is written on the MOT fail certificate. I suspect one may not have been produced and it was a free "pre MOT inspection"

 

I reserve the right to defend myself if somebody has a pop unfairly or in the last instance hypocritically, if thats bickering then so be it.

 

I won't bicker with you regarding my post count, you are free to see it as a bad thing, I see it as contributing.

1 hour ago, kodiaqsportline said:

 Like JR with his invaluable advice about certification in France, you seem to be posting for the sake of posting and offering the OP ( and every other reader ) nothing. No wonder you two have so many postings.

No advice was given, it was an observation, information if you like, I gain an enormous amount of information from this forum from good hearted people who take the time and effort to transmit it, you may consider that posting for the sake of posting, I don't.

 

The people who I learn the most from not surprisingly have a higher post count than others, that is something they should be applauded for not criticised.

@kodiaqsportline"Bikering"? 

 It is a forum, posts are posted, others are posted, replies to posts are posted.  It is good if the OP does reply to what they are asked.

 

You are another of those that seem to bother about threads continuing until the OP comes back or the discussions on a forum.

We could just sit like many forums and maybe there are posts and maybe not. Like in the Roomster section.

Your comments are very valid.  As to how many posts i might make, that is actually the case.  Well spotted. 

 

My Sidelight was checked, sadly it was out by the time the car was tested.

It was replaced the year before as it failed then as well. I just never dealt well enough with the dodgy holder.  No excuse.

 

Brake fault as from the new parts the year before and only 600 miles between MOT's. 

 

I posted the extract from the Gov UK, getting your car mot'd site. 

https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/after-the-test

 

*I posted my opinion, a fail is a fail.*  You posted about grey areas.   About knowing the reason and if the Missing cap, well if that was a 'dangerous' there is a the reason that you are not supposed to drive one. 

 

The Government website seems to say only a 'Dangerous' fail means you can not drive it'.

It does not actually say that a 'Major' means you can drive it away. 

 

THE TEST STATION STAFF MIGHT WELL TELL YOU WE ADVISE YOU NOT TO DRIVE THAT AWAY.

They do not stop you or call the police.

https://www.kwik-fit.com/mot/information/can-you-drive-a-car-with-no-mot

 

...................

No excuse really.from me on how i put vehicles in for MOT's, but if you leave vehicles lying about doing nothing but occasionally for towing trailers with cars with no MOT's away they very quickly deteriorate.

My habit is get it tested if it has been sitting or getting used off road, and then do the work needed. 

 

 

 

Edited 22 December, 20214 yr by roottoot

12 hours ago, kodiaqsportline said:

The OP hasn't posted for a couple of days

He has also posted on the Money saving expert forum:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6321035/skoda-kodiaq-2018-brake-lines-issue

 

Same advise there.

Fit new cap.

Change brake fluid.

Do new MOT but not at Halfords.

 

When looking for a place to do the new MOT, see below.

 

Note that Halfords has just bought National Tyres.

https://www.business-live.co.uk/retail-consumer/halfords-agrees-acquire-national-tyres-22339257

 

Thanks, AG Falco

 

 

With regard to the OP's post.  I also think he's being taken for a ride.  Others have already mentioned that there is no connection between rusty discs and water in the brake fluid.  With regard to the missing cap, they are NOT hermetically sealed.  (They can't be, because the system has to cope with fluid level changes as the brake pads wear).  Moisture will therefore enter the system whether there's a cap on the reservoir or not.  The cap is simply to prevent spillage.  I therefore feel the garage are talking rubbish when they mention water ingress, and agree that he should just get a new cap and change the brake fluid (Which should be done every few years anyway).  I find that threatening to appeal against the decision to DVSA usually puts the fear of God into testers who are taking the proverbial.

With regard to driving a car with some remaining MOT but which has just failed, I think the government website is fairly clear, but perhaps not clear enough:

1.  You can't drive it if the defect is in the "dangerous" category;
2.  You CAN drive it if the defect ISN'T in the "dangerous" category;
3.  You can drive on the road provided it is "roadworthy" (i.e. "meets the minimum standards of roadworthiness").

It seems that Points 2 and 3 are contradictory - which they are, but Point 3 applies even if the vehicle has 11 months of MOT left to run and hasn't just failed an MOT.  I think it's one of those situations where the government cannot possibly issue advice that says "you can drive an unroadworthy vehicle", so the only pragmatic solution, is to take a "light touch" approach to enforcement.  If, for example, I'd failed an MOT on a number plate light and drove it, that's technically illegal, but in the unlikely event of getting stopped, the penalty would be much less than paying for the vehicle to be trailered from one place to another, so it's an easy choice for me to make.

I've never failed an MoT on a broken incandescent bulb. Every test centre I've used would change the bulb for me and bill for "$new_fitting light bulb". YMMV, but if it does, maybe change your garage?

Well if it comes to that, I've never been stupid enough to actually present a car for MOT with a failed bulb.  It was simply an example.  If you prefer, I could just as easily have said "...if I'd failed an MOT on CO at idle...."🙄

1 hour ago, Avocet said:

Well if it comes to that, I've never been stupid enough to actually present a car for MOT with a failed bulb.  It was simply an example.  If you prefer, I could just as easily have said "...if I'd failed an MOT on CO at idle...."🙄

 

Quite a few years ago my car nneded an MOT. My wife drove it to my workplace and I watched her leave the yard, observing that the brake lights were working properly. She drove about half a mile for the test, and it failed on a non-functioning brake light. In my experience, if a bulb or wiper blade is unserviceable, the car will be failed, they will fix the issue, then pass it.

Yes, but that's not really the point I'm making.  The point is that if the car fails for something that isn't immediately dangerous, then you can still drive it on what's left of its previous MOT, but you run the risk of being stopped for whatever "the thing" is that it failed on (doesn't have to be lights or wipers).

9 hours ago, Avocet said:

Yes, but that's not really the point I'm making.  The point is that if the car fails for something that isn't immediately dangerous, then you can still drive it on what's left of its previous MOT, but you run the risk of being stopped for whatever "the thing" is that it failed on (doesn't have to be lights or wipers).

 

Although the OP gave a description of what Halfords told him needed doing, as far as I am aware, there has been no indication of what the actual faults were on the certificate.

No, we haven't, but the conversation then moved on to the driving of vehicles with some old MOT left, that had recently failed an MOT.