StealthI recall a certain gentleman who conducted a re-examination of a Land Rover following a complaint regards corrosion.
The vehicle in question stood in a field for some 6 – 8 weeks through winter after the VT20 was issued before being sold on & turning up in the Manchester area. An appeal was lodged at just about the three month limit – around 86 days from test from memory.
The VE chappie re-examined the Landy 103 days after test, on the roadside, outside the house of the new owner.
My client was NOT invited to be present during the VE inspection.
The VE found a small area of corrosion in one outrigger, body mounting only, behind a front wheel arch.
The VE then attempted to issue an AWL for a defect missed during test.
We appealed naturally. I couldnt possibly disclose the name of the VE in public 😯
Meanwhile Kev, back to your case…
A defence would probably go along the following line.
Aside from measured items, and those parts where the Manual clearly requires physical operation to assess relevant components, the MOT test relies on visual assessment.
The Manual lays down clear instructions in those areas where inspection procedures should be followed, for example the use of an assistant, and appropriate use of turn plates/shaker plates when assessing relevant components.
The use of tools is limited to those deemed “acceptable” and their use is clearly defined in the Manual.
Other than the above, the inspection is passive, requiring a visual inspection & assessment.
For example – undertrays, removal is not permitted. Where fitted the tester is expected to assume that any items which cannot be examined are in satisfactory condition unless there is contrary evidence.
Brake lining thickness. An accurate assessment is often not possible & might only be accurate if wheels were removed, which is not permitted. Unless the tester can be certain the lining material is worn beyond the limit, or cannot see the lining, the tester is required to make an assumption that the components are in a satisfactory condition.
Wheel trims. Again, removal of wheel trims is not permitted. The tester is required to make an assumption that all wheel fixings are present, secure, and suitable unless there is contrary evidence.
In respect of the examination of wheel nuts, there is no clear guidance in the Manual requiring a physical assessment (touching) of wheel nuts/studs. Such an assessment would be impossible where wheel trims are fitted, and equally difficult with modern wheel design, where the nuts/studs are significantly recessed.
Irrespective of the VE comments that the wheel nuts/studs should be “touched” as part of the inspection procedure, I would ask for consideration of the following points:
1. The Manual makes no specific reference to “touching” wheel nuts/studs as a means of assessing condition/security/tightness.
2. Modern wheel design & recessed nut/stud apertures would make this an impossibility unless the tester was gifted with fingers of the proportions of a pipe cleaner.
3. Aside from the above points, I would suggest that the only alternative & satisfactory means of confirming that wheel nuts/studs are tight would require use of tools, such as a wheel brace or torque wrench, which would be precluded under the current guidance laid down in the MOT Manual.
4. With regard to the VE observation that the wheel nuts/studs were not “touched” by the tester during his examination, some clarifaction might be beneficial for all testers to ensure consistency in test standards & procedures.
Is the practice advised by the VE to be taken as a recognised and recommended part of the MOT inspection, sanctioned by MOT scheme management, or a personal opinion expressed by one member of DVSA staff.
In summary, the tester conducted the assessment of the wheel fixings, a visual inspection, based on the information & guidance contained in the MOT Manual, and without evidence to the contrary, was satisfied that, at the time of inspection, the wheel nuts/studs were in a satisfactory condition.
Without further official clarification I consider that it would be both unfair and unjustified to propose any measure of formal disciplinary action in this case.
