listy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 As some have seen my daily failed its MOT due to excessive corrosion. When I bought it last year (May) it came with a brand new MOT provided by the garage. Now with this failure, I'm wondering if they just whacked a new ticket on it, as it seems odd that in the space of a year and a bit all this corrosion has suddenly appeared to the point of a fail. If it was sold with a dodgy MOT, where would I stand? I have a feeling that being over a year I don't have a leg to stand on, and to be fair, would probably be more hassle than it's worth to go into it. It's more of a "be wary thread" for others I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themodifiedkid Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 If I remember right, I'm sure you have 3 months to query the mot. So I definately think that you don't really have a chance at just over a year. I could be wrong tho. I suppose it may depend how badly corroded/rusted the problem areas are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I doubt you'll have much luck with it after a year, i'd definitely be giving the garage you bought it off a call though if its that bad just to see what response you get. I'd be asking how if its really bad did it pass the mot when you bought it and maybe mention you are thinking of contacting trading standards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I am positive this practice goes on as when I bought my Merc 18 months ago the rear tyres were below legal limit but a new MOT was apparently issues 7 days prior. Got them to replace all 4 tyres within seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 You've got nothing to lose in trying to put the frighteners on the garage even with it being a year on. Was it their own mot or was it done by someone else ? I'd contact the place that actually mot'd the car as well if its been done by another garage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
listy Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 The MOT was doe by the garage I bought the car from. I'm pretty certain it was a dodgy MOT after this one. I'll upload a pic of the certificates for a comparison in a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Worth the phone call if its their own mot bay, I doubt they'd want Trading Standards sniffing around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
listy Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Last year. Completely clean MOT. No advisorys. This year. Failure due to corrosion. I can't believe none of the corrosion was picked up last year as advisorys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Too blurred to read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
listy Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Also, the MOT previous to the ones posted above ran out September 2014, yet another was issued May 2014. Is that legal? The one before had an advisory on the rear pads, which I had to replace a couple of months into ownership, so that was never remedied. I have a feeling they literally just printed a fresh ticket without conducting an MOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Have you got a second opinion, or looked youself at the corrosion? Just wondering if it's as bad as they say...if it is I agree it seems a blind eye was turned at the previous mot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
listy Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Recent MOT. Failures 001 Nearside rear (inner sill) Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded [2.4.A.3] 002 Nearside rear (cracked) Trailing arm rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement [2.4.G.2] 003 Offside rear suspension arm corroded and seriously weakened [2.4.G.1] 004 Nearside rear (inner arch) Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded [2.4.A.3] 005 Offside rear (inner arch) Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded [2.4.A.3] Advisories 006 Offside rear (inner sill) Suspension mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive [2.4.A.3] 007 Near side rear suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened [2.4.G.1] - - - Updated - - - I've not had a second opinion. The car is back at mine so I'll be having a look when time allows. The Supra is priority today but I might get a look later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra900bhp Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 mmmm?? if it was parked in the sea for the year. I see where you are coming from that dose seem to be very rusty for just one years worth of motoring and what looks like just about 5000 miles of use I had a old Vectra for 6 years and done miles in all weathers and used and abused it (used as a van for work) and that only ever had a ball joint gaiter split or a headlight that needed adjusting EVERY year even though there the only ones who ever touched it but that was all never rusted like yours. I know there different cars but something not right there. Hope you sort things out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 So on the previous years mot there are no advisories ? then this year its nigh on scrap !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Mazda's do like to rot. Advisories aren't mandatory believe it or not, they are just the opinion of the tester and are basically used for arse covering when the tester thinks something should fail but isn't a clear fail (a tyre on 1.6mm for example...) It may well have been grotty last year, and some testers/stations don't like putting advisories on sales cars as it can affect the sale. Sh*tty for you, I know, but that unfortunately is how some people work. With regards to any kind of appeal, I believe you've got 2 weeks in order to do it and nothing must have been repaired along with a mileage limit after the test, as far as I know. I'd be interested to see pics of these failures mate. Hopefully they should have chalked the corrosion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downimpact Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 It's fairly subjective, do you trust the garage doing the new MOT? Have a look yourself. I've needed a subframe replacing before at one garage and fine at another before now. I've also bought an old bmw which clearly had a dodge MOT from the trader, so does happen but it was priced accordingly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.