where should I take this?

[Davey]

I would suggest telling the second place what you intend to do, so they are not surprised when/if VOSA suddenly appear on their doorstep asking about the MOT.

--=20 Davey.

[Nightjar]

I wonder which test station they will go after though - the one that found lots of points to fail on, or the one that subsequently found none? I suspect they will go for the latter, on the basis that it may have been selling false MOTs.

Colin Bignell

[Harry Bloomfield]

Ericp brought next idea :

Is the correct answer..

[NT]

Which is why I said make sure all points on the 2nd cert are correct first. Document the evidence if necessary.

NT

[Mark]

What were the alleged failures?

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. VOSA will do their OWN test as far as I can tell.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its all on line.

[NT]

Do you mean you've got clear photographic evidence of all the items picked up on, to demonstrate the truth, and put those online? Along with the necessary wording from whatever Act it is, so its beyond reasonable doubt that the car passes on all points? If you're short of that in any way, I expect the car is liable to be deemed unroadwrothy. I presume any useful form of investigation will involve your vehicle, and you need all your Is dotted and Ts crossed.

NT

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is only if you believe the first MOT station.

But VOSA will if they take this up perform a free test on it themselves.

I can easily get photo evidence of the bulbs and wipers once you clean the windscreen and the wiper blade to get rid of the oil film.

Th rest needs a ramp..but i don't need that: I have clear evidence of two WILDLY different test results. That's enough to get VOSA interested. YOU assume I am being cheeky, because you don't like me. I assume the first garage is being cheeky and the second one was honest.

[Gib Bogle]

A bit OT, but where I live there are Warrant of Fitness (our MOT) testing stations, which just test, do not repair. This seems to me to be a good way to avoid the conflict of interest situation.

[Terry Fields]

But as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, which stations are VOSA going to go after? The one that finds lots of faults, or the one that found none? Or both?

It might be clear in some people's view that the first station was in the wrong, but it's a possibility worth considering that *both* stations may have not have been entirely correct - and this is with items that can be measured, such as brakes and emissions.

When it come to items that require judgement, then either or both stations could be correct, and all that will happen as a result is a paper-based bunfight between them and VOSA.

I see no good coming out of a pursuit of what might seem on the surface to be the station in the wrong. The action could easily cause a testing station that is 'friendly' but operates within the rules to get turned over, and tighten their systems. The other station needn't tighten their rules, because they find loads of stuff anyway.

This isn't as clear cut as might appear on the surface.

Terry Fields

[NT]

You're persistently missing the point. You appear to be assuming that a) one station is wrong on all points b) the other is correct on all points c) a third inspector will be entirely reasonable, won't have an axe to grind, won't be seeking a promotion or more job security by exposing a suspected garage, and will support your pov 100%.

I dont assume any of these, I expect it is as you see it, but to assume so would be rash. If you fail to confirm beyond reasonable doubt and provide proof for all points before initiating an investigation, things are liable to go against both you and the more honest garage.

NT

[CWatters]

To back up a formal complaint you might consider paying for an engineer to survey the car. The AA used to do this sort of thing.

[Onetap]

All true; in such matters involving opinions, as against repeatable measurements, the definitive judgement is that of the VOSA's inspector. If they are to pursue it, the complaint needs to be lodged promptly to avoid claims that 'it wasn't like that when tested'.

In reality, the VOSA are like many civil servants, work-dodging bastards who collect their salary and pension regardless of their performance and are not answerable to Joe Public who pays for them. I'd anticipate that they will find some excuse to not take it any further.

It's still worth a try IMHO. If the testing station won't issue certificates for cars that should pass, you can be fairly sure that certificates are being issued for cars, owned by mates in the trade, that should not be passed.

[Weatherlawyer]

It's a pity Ruepot Murkcod went big time. This sort of thing would have been ideal Sunday reading for the prurient before he made celebrities out of thin heads.

Someone send the bastard an e-mail.

[Weatherlawyer]

You mean there is no point to VOSA?

(Just so we are all clear on the point of all this pointing.)

[Weatherlawyer]

I would have thought that was the point of the point in point of fact.

There are no end of idiots in this group. Is there a law we can pass to make identities mandatory so we can tell who is IMM from those who aren't?

[NT]

of paperwork in front of me.

HGV trucks, PSV etc are tested that way here, by government run stations. But afaik no such thing exists for cars.

NT

[Andy Burns]

There are independent 'test only' MOT stations around if you look, I think it's worthwhile using them ...

[Gazz]

Place i use to MOT the motorhome is a bus garage, they only do MOT's for the public, no repairs at all, best thing is they only charge £20 for a class 4 mot... not a one off special offer either, has been that price for the past

3 mot's i had done by them, I will definitely be taking the smart car to them when it's due it's first mot next year,