Did you get a print out of the brake efficiency and balance from the MoT station?
Is the car one of those where the pads are totally invisible without taking wheel off?
When/where was the car previously serviced?
As a railway buff you should not be surprised by the friction of steel on steel - providing there are no leaves on the line :)
How many miles between MoT and evidence? could the pad have disintegrated in meantime?
Do photos show just one set or two?
At least the scoring should have warranted an advisory. Next stop DVLA unless you were friends with the garage owner.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Tue 12 Sep 17 at 18:33
|
>> How many miles between MoT and evidence? could the pad have disintegrated in meantime?
>>
I think that's his point and he provided this info already:
MOT 25/08/2017 103468 miles
12/09/2017 104487 miles
So 1,019 miles and 18 days it's gone from passing an MOT to this. Therefore the MOT did not pick up on a problem brake pad/disk.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 12 Sep 17 at 18:35
|
>> Did you get a print out of the brake efficiency and balance from the MoT
>> station?
No I did not, nor did i get a print out of the emissions or the smoke test.
|
No action. What would you complain about?
Presumably it met the efficiency requirements when tested the first time. Is the inner pad even visible in situ?
On the second, perhaps it didn't, prompting the closer investigation. The caliper is presumably the floating kind that has jammed - if it can't release properly it can wear a pad down pretty quick.
For some reason the station that tested my MX5 for 6 years, and never made an advisory comment, this year made loads - all brake pads wearing thin, discs showing rust but not considered dangerous, exhaust badly corroded, underside showing corrosion.
|
|
I see no pictures, all I get is: "Please update your account to enable 3rd party hosting".
|
All of the other pads, just, only just meet the minimum requirement. All of them were worthy of an advisory. I suspect, but haven't put a caliper gauge on them, the disks do not meet MOT spec either.
I am genuinely appalled by the standard of this MOT. The car has just been serviced by another garage with an MOT station, where I warned them about the disks and asked for them to be saved for my inspection. The guy who runs it said he would have given, at the minimum 1000 miles ago, an advisory.
The MOT was done at a garage I trust and have used for the last 7 years for mine, my mothers the sons and the wifes car. To date they have been firm but very fair, although all stuff that went through them was pre checked by me. I had misgivings when it appeared no smoke test was done, and I never saw it go onto the brake tester, tho I assumed it had been done in another bay.
Anyway, its had a service, and been passed 100% fit by another garage.
|
Photobucket has really gone down hill.
Try this
knowwun.smugmug.com/My-First-Gallery/
|
The MoT manual is here:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/611019/mot-inspection-manual-classes-3-4-5-and-7.pdf
Which sections were not properly applied?
All pads are well worn but if they are more than 1.5mm and achieve required stopping performance where's your issue - I don't think you can criticise lack of an advisory.
Having had a few dragging pads (hydropneumatic Citroens seem prone) they don't half wear quickly.
|
That's assuming they can see the pads - if they can't see it they don't start taking it to bits.
The other one in the picture looks OK.
|
>> That's assuming they can see the pads - if they can't see it they don't
>> start taking it to bits.
On a ramp, with an inspection lamp, they can be seen. They are designed to be seen at a service.
|
>> Which sections were not properly applied?
>>
>> All pads are well worn but if they are more than 1.5mm and achieve required
>> stopping performance where's your issue - I don't think you can criticise lack of an
>> advisory.
One of them 1000 miles later is 0.00mm, There is no way it was 1.5 mm then - you may think that is acceptable, I dont, not by a long way.
|
>> One of them 1000 miles later is 0.00mm, There is no way it was 1.5
>> mm then - you may think that is acceptable, I dont, not by a long
>> way.
They wear out b***** quick when they're binding (is the argument you will get).
|
>> They wear out b***** quick when they're binding (is the argument you will get).
Well they can argue that with the DVSA, I have filed a complaint.
|
>> Well they can argue that with the DVSA, I have filed a complaint.
Don't you have to file an appeal and leave the vehicle with the testing station?
The one time I had a problem, I replaced the offending bushes (50P each) myself and vowed never to darken their door again - they closed soon after.
|
>> Don't you have to file an appeal and leave the vehicle with the testing station?
Wouldn't that be when appealing an MOT fail? They passed this car and yet it had brake problems.
Just looked at the MOT results for my car yesterday. The offside tyre which was also down to around 3mm has this advisory:
"Offside Front tyre outer sidewall cut no cords visible."
So it had a problem albeit not an MOT failure. It was swapped today anyway.
Based on the approx 24k miles on the original tyres I reckon I could have got to about 28k miles before they were swapped. I won't because I'll have a new car in October.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 12 Sep 17 at 22:53
|
>> Well they can argue that with the DVSA, I have filed a complaint.
>>
Are you going to name and shame (for those of us in the same area)?
|
>> >> Well they can argue that with the DVSA, I have filed a complaint.
>> >>
>>
>> Are you going to name and shame (for those of us in the same area)?
>>
No, but Lets just say I shan't be gong to an MOT shop in Addlestone opposite Aviator Park, 200 yards away from the level crossing.
|
|
Shop4MOT is addled with stone, I hear.
|
|
Discs are nice and clean in the swept area, no significant wear ridges or unpolished bands - I wouldn't have expected an advisory on those. The three remaining pads are well above spec; suggestive of possible a stuck pad wearing out the inner pad in short order; I think I would have expected an advisory though. You could report it to VOSA, but unlikely they would do anything.
|
>>........ suggestive of possible a stuck pad wearing out the inner pad in short order.....
....though if that were the case, the odds on the kind of 'binding' that would cause that sort of wear, in that amount of mileage, showing up on a proper brake test is pretty high (though, of course, he didn't get a report........).
|
All pads clearly well worn though functioning fine at MOT.
Binding pad can wear from well worn to metal in no time.
1000 miles enough time for pad to bind and wear to metal.
Not sure complaint worthwhile ....
|
>>Not sure complaint worthwhile ....
Might increase the frequency of VOSA spot checking but probably unlikely to go anywhere.
Mate bought a car from auction (originally a trade-in to a dealer) - before buying he noted it had several faults on a failed MOT that was subsequently passed without advisories the following day (couple of ball joints, bollixed brakes, and failed on emissions iirc).
Turned out the car had the exactly the same issues it failed on when he got it (emissions problem was a failed turbo) but as it was just over 6 months since the MOT VOSA couldn't give a toss.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 12 Sep 17 at 23:14
|
>> Photobucket has really gone down hill.
No, they're just trying to fleece more money out of people as they've recently stopped 3rd party hosting.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=24490
photobucket.com/p500/
|
It's always worth reporting to VOSA. Your complaint alone won't do much, but if there's a pattern, it will be investigated.
I reported a place in Uxbridge after they failed SWMBOs car on "pads down to metal" which had only been replaced 1000 miles previously, and a load of other made up nonsense (and then had a salesman from the adjoining car lot approach her as she was leaving and offer her a deal on a new car!). A couple of weeks later there was a small piece in the local paper about their MOT license being suspended, due to "a number of complaints".
|
I don't think the point has been answered - are the pads visible without dismantling?
Did the car's braking feel OK when you were using it at the time of the MOT?
What caused you to have the brakes serviced - did they feel wrong? Did they still feel the same as at the MOT time? Did they feel to have deteriorated since the MOT?
Metal on metal usually makes a screeching rasping noise - did you hear this just before you had the brakes serviced? Did you hear it at at the MOT time?
There are several possibilities ranging from the correct situation - a tester can only judge the brake efficiency and the state of the disc that is visible. If it works, it's a pass. It is your responsibility to dismantle and inspect the brakes periodically.
to -
the tester was a complete rogue or was drunk or wanted to get off home.
But we need more facts to decide.
|
Z,
are the dates on the original post correct?
Was there really only 18 days between the tests?
If so why did you get a second test done?
Apologies if you have addressed this further, I haven't seen it if you have.
|
>> Z,
>> are the dates on the original post correct?
Yes
>> Was there really only 18 days between the tests?
Yes
>> If so why did you get a second test done?
I didnt, I had a service booked anyway, and the pads started grinding 48 hours before, so actually there was only 16 days.
>> Apologies if you have addressed this further, I haven't seen it if you have.
www.specsavers.co.uk
|
The pads are very clearly well worn so would have also been well worn 1000 miles ago at the MOT, though they were probably functioning fine and it is the function of the brakes that are tested, not the pad wear (Though if the pads are visible then a tester perhaps should put pad wear as an advisory).
As I said a above 1000 miles is enough time for a pad to start to bind and for an already well worn pad to wear down to the metal.
|
>> I don't think the point has been answered - are the pads visible without dismantling?
With the aid of a ramp and inspection lamp - Yes.
>> Did the car's braking feel OK when you were using it at the time of
>> the MOT?
Yes felt fine, braking was good, tho there was a a "thruming" noise under heavy braking from speed, not a grinding noise tho, I did assume the pads were getting thin
>> What caused you to have the brakes serviced - did they feel wrong? Did they
>> still feel the same as at the MOT time? Did they feel to have deteriorated
>> since the MOT?
I didnt get the brakes serviced, I had a general service booked for after the MOT
>> Metal on metal usually makes a screeching rasping noise - did you hear this just
>> before you had the brakes serviced? Did you hear it at at the MOT time?
The grinding noise appeared on Saturday Evening, two days before the Service was due, 8 days after the MOT, so I stopped using the car, waited for the service, warned them I thought the pads might need changing and to keep the old bits incase I needed to kick butt
>> the tester was a complete rogue or was drunk or wanted to get off home.
I was immediately on guard after the MOT, it didnt go int he brake testing bay, it didnt get revved up for a smoke test, it just went up on the ramp.
I have grassed them up without a moments hesitation
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 13 Sep 17 at 18:24
|
Just back from getting a new MoT certificate :-).
It passed the Tapley meter test.
|
Is yours a AWD Zero? The MoT station I used to take the old Outlander to never put it on the rollers, they just used the Tapley.
That does of course necessitate driving it round the yard.
I didn't think they could get round the smoke and emissions tests? Doesn't the machine monitor that it's been done? (I don't know the detail or truth of that, just inferred it from other comments).
You were there, I wasn't, so I'm not going to second guess you. It will be interesting to hear if you get any feedback.
|
>> I have grassed them up without a moments hesitation
>>
Did you see my post directly before your last one Z?
|
|
So you know why you're wrong then.
|
>> So you know why you're wrong then.
I said I saw your post, now you are not going to force me to say I thought it was crap are you?
|
>>
>> Did you see my post directly before your last one Z?
>>
....was that the one that said "it is the function of the brakes that are tested, not the pad wear (Though if the pads are visible then a tester perhaps should put pad wear as an advisory).
...In fact, if the pads are are visible and/or accessible, then regardless of braking efficiency, if they are less than 1.5mm at any point, then it is a fail, not simply an advisory.....
Z seems to think they should be visible.....
|
>> Z seems to think they should be visible.....
If visible a fail or at least advisory surely.
I am surprised at the inability of Kwik Fit to spot tyre damage when they had it on their ramps to fix a rear tyre with a screw in it. Two problems, one MOT fail about a week later. Damage almost certainly there back then.
Okay MOT check more thorough but why have a check at all if they don't find problems with tyres that is there?
|
>> ...In fact, if the pads are are visible and/or accessible, then regardless of braking efficiency,
>> if they are less than 1.5mm at any point, then it is a fail, not
>> simply an advisory.....
>>
>> Z seems to think they should be visible.....
>>
That's not the point, they would/could have been over 1.5mm 1000 miles ago.
The point is that they could have been a pass 1000 miles ago and one binding and down to the metal now.
|
I think Zero knows more than you or I on this. Or do you assume he's stupid?
I think he was correct in reporting this.
Somehow you think you know more than the rest on this forum including Zero who's car it is. I'll leave it at that.
|
>> I think Zero knows more than you or I on this. Or do you assume
>> he's stupid?
>>
It's not personal rtj, it's an internet forum, I've nothing against Zero, he's not always right though, none if us are.
>> I think he was correct in reporting this.
>>
And I don't, funny that.
>> Somehow you think you know more than the rest on this forum including Zero who's
>> car it is. >>
Zero asked for opinions, I am sure he didn't expect, or want, a dozen or so of us saying "quite right Z".
>>I'll leave it at that.
>>
Perhaps that's best.
|
...au contraire; In your continuing essay to attack Z's stance, it is you that has completely missed my point.
I was (clearly) picking you up on the words I italicised in the quote of your post, which were factually incorrect.
I'll repeat the point for clarity; Contrary to your assertion, the MOT brake test consists of more than simply function, and does involve a visual inspection where this is possible (as Z confirms for his car) which would also lead to a failure (not 'perhaps an advisory') subject to the 1.5mm limit.
On the wider issue, and on the face value of Z's account, I think most sensible persons without underlying personal antipathy would come to the conclusion that he has probably been bilked at MOT time.
OTOH, since there is an (outside) possibility that such binding and wear fully commenced and took place after the MOT, he is unlikely to get a result from VOSA if he is the only complainant to date
That wouldn't stop me complaining, however, on three grounds; principle; the possibility that there had been previous complaints from others; the possibility that there will be subsequent complaints from others.
|
Is the issue of the emissions data and brake test details standard (or required) practice or just at the whim of the Test station? I have always received the printouts stapled to the 'certificate.'
|
>> I have always received the printouts stapled to the 'certificate.'
>>
Me too as again happened yesterday.
|
Entirely dissociated with the pecorino line of thought however...
You go to an MOT station..."at a garage I trust and have used for the last 7 years for mine, my mothers the sons and the wife's car. To date they have been firm but very fair"
Then watch them fail to test brakes or emissions... "it didn't go into he brake testing bay, it didn't get revved up for a smoke test, it just went up on the ramp."
So... why didn't you ask them at completion of the test why it hadn't been carried out to MOT guidelines to give your trusted garage of 7yrs the chance to explain... and perhaps more important so you didn't take away a car with untested brakes.
But 1000mls later you find an issue that only *might* have existed at the time of the test and want to throw the book at them.
The two differing courses of action just don't seem logical.
|
>> The two differing courses of action just don't seem logical.
From the waiting room it has two visible bays. One has rolling brake tester, light beam setter and krypton gas analyser. The other is slightly out of line of sight has the lift and can only be seen fully when its up.
I assumed it would go into bay 1 first, like its always done. This is my first 4x4 diesel test in this garage tho, and it never went into bay 1. It went straight into bay 2. It came off 20 minutes later with a pass. Surprise consternation and fear of looking silly makes you do funny things, and I never questioned the fact that there appears to be no brake testing kit in that bay/lift, no revving noise for the diesel smoke test, I did notice a beam tester and flair of light during the test.
>>and perhaps more important so you didn't take away a car with untested brakes.
Because they worked ok on getting there and I assumed that they had inspected them. Not unreasonable to expect that they would inspect them on the lift surely
|
>>> Surprise consternation and fear of looking silly makes you do funny things
Fair enough... you should have engaged forum mode though!
|
>>
>> Then watch them fail to test brakes or emissions>>
Z does say above " and I never saw it go onto the brake tester, tho I assumed it had been done in another bay."
|
|
Just possible that they ran it up and down in there with the Tapley meter? Otherwise presumably they would have had to make a number up. The Tapley won't of course check the balance.
|
>> >> Then watch them fail to test brakes or emissions>>
>>
>> Z does say above " and I never saw it go onto the brake tester, tho I assumed it had been done in another bay."
>>
I do not have that problem with my MoT test place.
I and all customers can stand and watch the testing, just a few feet away without any glass walls.
One of the less common places for an appropriately named class three test
|
>> I was (clearly) picking you up on the words I italicised in the quote of
>> your post, which were factually incorrect.
>>
You picked up on an incidental comment when the point of my post was quite clear, the brakes could have functioned perfectly and the pads could have been over 1.5mm 1000 miles ago; and subsequently over the last 1000 miles one pad could have started binding and worn down to the metal.
Accordingly I don't think that there is any point in complaining.
>> most sensible persons without underlying personal antipathy >>
I have nothing against Z, I think he knows that. I do get a bit fed up with some of the pedantry on here tho ...
>> >> OTOH, since there is an (outside) possibility that such binding and wear fully commenced and took place after the MOT, he is unlikely to get a result from VOSA if
>> he is the only complainant to date
>>
So you kind of agree with me then ...
|
I think its unlikely that the pads a: decided to stick the day after the MOT and b wear down in the next 8 days. Other aspects of the MOT already mentioned lead me to conclude that it fell short by some margin.
SO what were my options? 1/ Ignore it, 2/confront them or 3/report them.
1 would have been easy, but does nothing for anyone, 2 would have been immensely satisfying and while pleasing me would have achieved nothing else. 3/ Is the correct, sensible and easy thing to do. It satisfies me in that I have done something, and if they have really sunk that badly I won't be the only one, so some action may be forthcoming.
|
Interesting. Years ago, a main dealer MOT'd my Accord (no advisories) and advised me of a recall on something or other. Booked in two days later and when called to say that the work was complete, they added "by the way, your rear tyres are illegal." Embarrassingly, they were.
"How odd," I replied, "you gave it an MOT 48 hours ago..."
Suffice to say I left with two tyres fitted gratis.
|
>> I think its unlikely that the pads a: decided to stick the day after the
>> MOT and b wear down in the next 8 days. >>
Was that 8 days also 1000 miles or is it a typo in the first post?
|
>> Was that 8 days also 1000 miles or is it a typo in the first
>> post?
Mot 25/08/2017, brakes grinding 9th September, replaced Tuesday 12th, assuming your scenario that they decided to seize and wear the very next day after the mot, the car was used on 8 days of those intervening 14 days for a total of 1020 miles.
At that my fetid milk product friend is my last reply to your attempt to be a CSI. I am happy I have done the right thing, and I have no further intention of trying to justify it because it is simply not required.
|
>>
>> So you kind of agree with me then ...
>>
.....on almost none of the stuff you have posted, as it happens.
I work on the basis that everyone is entitled to their own opinion (even when it is wrong), but the same entitlement doesn't apply to people having their own facts....
;-)
|
|
Don't think Z's case will stand on it's own. It might though supplement and corroborate other reports about that station and help justify further investigation.
|
Crap Mot - What does the team think? - sherlock47
