Club 80-90 Forums

It’s a fail due to the steering relay box being and sharp edges etc , some tape may have got it through an mot but it still needed doing

Thanks for all your replies. It’s not that I don’t believe you all, but an actual MOT garage has said that it shouldn’t have failed before they made the hole. Obviously once the hole had been created that may have changed, but if they would have left it, rather than hitting it, because it’s not classed as structural, it would have passed.

There are a few steps before the hammer test as well, including using your finger and thumb to test the rigidity but I’m guessing they just reached for the hammer on this occasion!

Difficult to tell , but it looks like a half decent job, the welds coverd by the primer have not been linished and has been done all the way round and does not look like a pigeon with bowl issues was the welder.

Rob

Please nobody go spraying oil on your tyres .What a stupid and dangerous thing to have been suggested.

Maypie27 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2024, 20:44 The MOT garage have also put that all 4 tyres are slightly cracking and perished as an advisory and one guy even told me I can prevent it from getting worse by “spraying them with WD40 as tyres are 80% oil anyway” !!!

80% rubber more likely

tobydog wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 22:51

Maypie27 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2024, 20:44 The MOT garage have also put that all 4 tyres are slightly cracking and perished as an advisory and one guy even told me I can prevent it from getting worse by “spraying them with WD40 as tyres are 80% oil anyway” !!!

80% rubber more likely

tyres are typically 6% oil but the majority of the content of the tire tread and walls comes from crude oil derivatives plus a lot of energy that may also come from oil

if the walls are cracking I'd be changing them regardless of tread depth, industry advice is 6 years - old tyres don't handle as well as fresh ones and feel dead and are not confidence inspiring ime and if you have an accident and there's any question about contribution to the accident then it could cost you a lot

WD40 won't fix them

Not only won’t fix them, but surely it’s dangerous?!

The tyres are fine. No cracks and no perishing. Just another thing they got wrong at the MOT, then gave me bad advise about slowing down the process by using WD40.

Repaired my steps some timeback after rubber covers came loose, used fibre glass to mend and smoothed area down above and beow then painted over, never been picked up at MOT. Ref WD40 Don't like the sound of that especially if it makes contact with braking area. Cleaned mine in past with a foamy substance, cant remember make. Not sure about the hammer test do they use a lump one or wooden/rubber, anything whacked with a lump hammer would cause damage I would have thought.

6.1.1 (c) (0) isn't a valid failure category or criteria. It must be either
(i) the rigidity of the assembly is significantly reduced
or
(ii) steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected

He didn't fail it for corroded cab step 6.2.8, so all of that discussion is moot.

He was just making it up. I'd still complain to DVSA as that test result is invalid as no valid fail criteria was listed, and he appears to have over-ridden the system to make it fit his incorrect interpretation, to your detriment.

Unless, of course, it was reason (i) after all, as suggested by the wording. Then I would ask them to explain how that relatively insignificant hole could possibly be interpreted as "the rigidity of the assembly is significantly reduced".

I'm livid on your behalf!

There is further guidance available on the method of inspection, as follows:

"3. Corrosion assessment

Identify the important load bearing members and ‘prescribed areas’ on a vehicle, then check if they are excessively corroded by:

Visual inspection
Use finger and thumb pressure to assess the extent of the corrosion
If necessary, carefully scrape or lightly tap the affected areas with the corrosion assessment tool
Use of the corrosion assessment tool must be restricted to ascertaining that the failure criteria are met and not used for heavy scraping or poking of the affected areas.
...
5. Failure criteria not within ‘prescribed areas’

Structural fractures, deformation or corrosion not within a prescribed area is covered in Section 6 of this inspection manual.

You should only reject these defects if:

braking or steering is adversely affected due to structural misalignment
the strength or continuity of the overall vehicle structure is significantly reduced
See Diagrams 1 to 4 to see the main load-bearing members for different vehicle types"
Diagram 1. Chassis with coil spring suspension


Sent from my moto g(30) using Tapatalk

Thanks for your comment. It didn’t copy and paste over correctly. It was (6.1.1 (c) (i)

I also saw all the criteria and plan to use that in my complaint to them for sure. I have the actual step they was cut out when they welded the new one in and took it back to the garage to show them. The guy tried his best to flex it to prove a point, but it didn’t move! Definitely went straight for the hammer after skipping the finger and thumb test.

Great point about the hole that has been there for nearly 40 years is suddenly a structural issue. I will add that too!

Maybe it’s because I’m female they have tried to blind me with science hoping I’ll go away?

It's simply not a valid reason for rejection.
Not in a prescribed area, not load bearing, nor is the strength or continuity of the overall vehicle structure significantly reduced. Not likely to cause injury either.
Not a fail.

Sent from my moto g(30) using Tapatalk

They had no right to say you couldnt drive the vehicle, and how they came to charge you over £400 just for that step is day light robbery.  

So I was told I could only drive it home because it had failed and then to a garage for repair once it was booked in.

£40 for the part from Just Kampers
4 hours labour at £70 per hour
£35 for welding consumables

I thought the same on instinct. They started telling me that if it’s in a place that isn’t structural people put tape on it to cover sharp edges and they can’t fail it, but that this was structural. One guy in there (the WD40 guy) said he has a caravan and the step on that has to be tested now as part of their checks.

Again, I think they were trying to bluff their way out of what had happened hoping I would believe them and go away.

Can I ask where you found the diagram of the structural area, so I can quote it in my email to them?

I really appreciate all your comments and will let you know how I get on.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspect ... -corrosion

Last section (15) has the diagrams.

I'd missed the bit about not letting you drive it! If the previous MOT hadn't yet expired, and they failed it on item (i) - a "major" item (not "dangerous") you could legally continue to drive it, as confirmed by the gov.uk website:
"Driving a vehicle that’s failed

You can take your vehicle away if:

your current MOT is still valid

no ‘dangerous’ problems were listed in the MOT

Otherwise, you’ll need to get it repaired before you can drive.

If you can take your vehicle away, it must still meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times."

NB This isn't the same as meeting the MoT standards, it means you must be able to see and be seen (clean screens & mirrors, lights work), stop (brakes work) and steer (some tyre tread). It's open to varying interpretations, but it's mostly basic common sense. If your only "fault" is a small rust hole on the body you're absolutely fine.



Sent from my moto g(30) using Tapatalk

Most illuminating discussion
Cheers, Andy