MOT testers clueless when it comes to Classics

[carboy2017]

Yesterday I took my Triumph Herald to the same garage that I used for the last 3 years, They said to call back by lunch time and when I did they said the car failed its MOT due to the front indicators not being in Orange color, to which I pointed out that they did the MOT the last 3 years and didn't bring it up and many Heralds have white indicators in front.

Their response was ah but XX who was here has retired and now we have YY and told me to prove that white indicators in front are allowed

A quick Google search and I was able to prove them wrong

"As per the UK Govt guidelines cars reg before 1965 can have white indicators, mines a 1964 reg

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-...

All good but when I went to collect the car I found that they had failed the MOT on the above earlier and now passed it which is annoying as it was not a failure in the first instance and I don't like the online MOT history showing failures (not that it matters) on top of it I had to do a bit of their work to get this done

Anyone else had similar experiences with MOT testers?

[J4CKO]

Yeah applying modern standards on stuff that they could never pass, tapered wheel bearings on a Fiat 500 that have some play in by design failing despite being fine being an example.

Another one being failing welding that had been done several years and was actually fine having not rusted at all, then passing somewhere else without mention.

One place pulled it to bits, I fixed the minor stuff that actually needed fixing and the next place passed it without referencing bearings, welding or anything.

[stumpage]

Chimaera into my local MOT place.

I always have to stand by the car and wait as they can never.

Open the door.
Work out that the number plates are translucent and back lit.
Open the boot.
Open the door to get back out of the car.

[996Keef]

It's mot exempt for this exact reason

MOT testers can't really be expected to know that certain triumphs had white indicators, (why not fit orange bulbs anyway?) and that cable brakes on a model T aren't going to pull properly on the rollers etc, so the powers that be made old cars exempt from testing.

I get that you probably want to know the cars roadworthy, but you can't really blame the tester

[ChocolateFrog]

stumpage said:

Chimaera into my local MOT place.

I always have to stand by the car and wait as they can never.

Open the door.
Work out that the number plates are translucent and back lit.
Open the boot.
Open the door to get back out of the car.

Add to that, find reverse.

This was a specialist classic and racecar place with a Chimaera in their unit.

They charged the full MOT fee and failed my competency test so I've not been back.

[2Btoo]

996Keef said:

It's mot exempt for this exact reason

MOT testers can't really be expected to know that certain triumphs had white indicators, (why not fit orange bulbs anyway?) and that cable brakes on a model T aren't going to pull properly on the rollers etc, so the powers that be made old cars exempt from testing.

I get that you probably want to know the cars roadworthy, but you can't really blame the tester

Is there any reason why MOT testers should not know things which are required as part of their job? If they don't know then they can consult their substantial library of provided reference material both on paper and online, such as that which carboy himself consulted on the government's own website.

MOT exemption is not a reason not to take a car for an MOT. Many classic owners value another person's opinion on the roadworthiness of their car and an MOT is an ideal way to achieve this, as recommended by many classic vehicle registers and owners clubs.

[Draxindustries1]

The 105E Anglias are much the same. Early ones were fitted with white lenses later ones with orange, they're interchangeable with both early/late grilles.

[stinkyspanner]

I've got an old Capri that's in great nick but has been off the road for a couple of years whilst I attended to a couple of little jobs! Anyway the MOT history is good up to now and I didn't want to ruin it with a fail if I'd missed something so I booked two consecutive MOT slots, the first one as a dummy run not logged onto the system and if all was good then the second one the 'actual' test. A bit ridiculous I spose but as the history is visible to anyone it was worth keeping a clean sheet in my opinion..

[carboy2017]

stinkyspanner said:

I've got an old Capri that's in great nick but has been off the road for a couple of years whilst I attended to a couple of little jobs! Anyway the MOT history is good up to now and I didn't want to ruin it with a fail if I'd missed something so I booked two consecutive MOT slots, the first one as a dummy run not logged onto the system and if all was good then the second one the 'actual' test. A bit ridiculous I spose but as the history is visible to anyone it was worth keeping a clean sheet in my opinion..

this did not crop in my mind!

[stevemcs]

carboy2017 said:

stinkyspanner said:

I've got an old Capri that's in great nick but has been off the road for a couple of years whilst I attended to a couple of little jobs! Anyway the MOT history is good up to now and I didn't want to ruin it with a fail if I'd missed something so I booked two consecutive MOT slots, the first one as a dummy run not logged onto the system and if all was good then the second one the 'actual' test. A bit ridiculous I spose but as the history is visible to anyone it was worth keeping a clean sheet in my opinion..

this did not crop in my mind!

That's the only way unfortunately, or don't have it MOT'd, just do the same as above, an MOT without it being logged on then use the results to work out what;s needed

[Hol]

stevemcs said:

carboy2017 said:

stinkyspanner said:

I've got an old Capri that's in great nick but has been off the road for a couple of years whilst I attended to a couple of little jobs! Anyway the MOT history is good up to now and I didn't want to ruin it with a fail if I'd missed something so I booked two consecutive MOT slots, the first one as a dummy run not logged onto the system and if all was good then the second one the 'actual' test. A bit ridiculous I spose but as the history is visible to anyone it was worth keeping a clean sheet in my opinion..

this did not crop in my mind!

That's the only way unfortunately, or don't have it MOT'd, just do the same as above, an MOT without it being logged on then use the results to work out what;s needed

I think people worry too much about a failure now being recorded online, instead of on a paper failure sheet that could be binned (hidden) once the car passed.

It just proves that the car HAD a problem, that was subsequently rectified.


Nobody is going to read a failure comment about clear bulbs and think anything bad.

[AlexRS2782]

ChocolateFrog said:

stumpage said:

Chimaera into my local MOT place.

I always have to stand by the car and wait as they can never.

Open the door.
Work out that the number plates are translucent and back lit.
Open the boot.
Open the door to get back out of the car.

Add to that, find reverse.

This was a specialist classic and racecar place with a Chimaera in their unit.

They charged the full MOT fee and failed my competency test so I've not been back.

Best one i ever had was the MOT place i used back in '06 for the Mk1 Focus RS i'd just bought and needed it's first MOT - this was before i started using specialist tuners from '07 onwards.

Engine was running when the MOT guy drove it into the bay and started the test. Got to the point where the engine was turned off and started the mechanical inspections, then once that was done returned to the car and i watched him cranking the key back & forth in the ignition repeatedly before announcing proudly that the car clearly had a serious ignition / electrical fault and would now be declared a fail.

Looked rather embarrased when i pointed out he needed to press the, rather obvious & also labelled as such, green starter button on the centre console.

[blueST]

It’s not just old cars. My Defender has aftermarket LED headlights. knowing that retrofitting LED bulbs isnot allowed, I spent a long time researching and a lot of money buying a set of properly approved and marked pair of full LED headlights. Along comes MOT time, but not the first for the lights and tester says “those lights are going to fail this time, new rules no LEDs”. There then followed a long and painful discussion about the difference between retrofitting LEDs into halogen housings and approved units that are designed to be LED. That included me talking him through his own guidance document bluetacked on the testing bay wall! He did pass it the end, but said he shouldn’t have as they need washer jets (some do, these don’t). At this point I was just grateful to have the pass so didn’t get into it.

This year, never even got mentioned. I guess I cut the guy some slack as the clarification about LEDs was quite recent, but to me he’d sort of read the headline made an assumption and not bothered with the fine print.

Edited by blueST on Wednesday 9th November 19:10

[Little Pete]

2Btoo said:

Is there any reason why MOT testers should not know things which are required as part of their job? If they don't know then they can consult their substantial library of provided reference material both on paper and online, such as that which carboy himself consulted on the government's own website.

MOT exemption is not a reason not to take a car for an MOT. Many classic owners value another person's opinion on the roadworthiness of their car and an MOT is an ideal way to achieve this, as recommended by many classic vehicle registers and owners clubs.

Good point. We are told to consult the manual but some testers are too proud/lazy/pig headed to bother. I am usually on here defending the MOT and testers but sometimes the trade doesn’t do itself any favours.
I MOT a lot of classics and I sometimes get caught out on things like opening the bonnet and boot, I don’t consider myself to be useless though.

[Little Pete]

blueST said:

It’s not just old cars. My Defender has aftermarket LED headlights. knowing that retrofitting LED bulbs isnot allowed, I spent a long time researching and a lot of money buying a set of properly approved and marked pair of full LED headlights. Along comes MOT time, but not the first for the lights and tester says “those lights are going to fail this time, new rules no LEDs”. There then followed a long and painful discussion about the difference between retrofitting LEDs into halogen housings and approved units that are designed to be LED. That included me talking him through his own guidance document bluetacked on the testing bay wall! He did pass it the end, but said he shouldn’t have as they need washer jets (some do, these don’t). At this point I was just grateful to have the pass so didn’t get into it.

This year, never even got mentioned.

Another example of the tester assuming they know the answer and not looking at the manual.

[Dogwatch]

Hol said:

I think people worry too much about a failure now being recorded online, instead of on a paper failure sheet that could be binned (hidden) once the car passed.

It just proves that the car HAD a problem, that was subsequently rectified.


Nobody is going to read a failure comment about clear bulbs and think anything bad.

Most of my car-owning life I’ve been grateful for a pass and I’ve never thought of a fail as a blot on the car’s record. I would prefer a repaired fail to a bodge of filler leaving me to discover the lurking horror some time later.

[austina35]

Oh yes, the mot tester.

Failed my Austin A35 on steering box "bushes".

I asked him where these bushes were. He didn't know. I drove around the block, adjusted the steering correctly and came back 20 mins later. He tested it and passed it.

He never did understand what I had done. I told him I had replaced the "bushes".

This was around 25 years ago though......

[Red9zero]

A new chap has taken over the garage I get my old Landie MoT'd at. Previous chap was into classics and was always fair and gave me a clean sheet every year. New chap put an advisory on for rusty brake pipes and when I queried it, said he had to put something on, as a clean sheet for such an old car wouldn't look right and that the underneath was actually one of the best he'd seen.

[Chromegrill]

Plenty of fairly new cars whose MOT history shows a fail or two for incorrectly coloured indicator lights. Mysteriously they always seem to pass later the same day, I wasn't aware you could program indicator lights to change their colour! Might be handy for American imports, as the rear indicators are often red (and used to simply be the brake light in flashing mode).

[Jazoli]

Chromegrill said:

Plenty of fairly new cars whose MOT history shows a fail or two for incorrectly coloured indicator lights. Mysteriously they always seem to pass later the same day, I wasn't aware you could program indicator lights to change their colour! Might be handy for American imports, as the rear indicators are often red (and used to simply be the brake light in flashing mode).

It's not difficult to change an indicator bulb, they do lose their 'orangeness' as the coating deteriorates.