[KevG]

I recently got pulled on an observed test and i am being given points for not testing wheel bolts for security. I pointed out the the DVSA rep that the bolts were 26 mm inset into an alloy wheel and were impossible to touch( I could get my fingertips on them) he insists i should have touched them all. I visually inspected them. Any thoughts? I can’t find a method of inspection in the manual. Thanks in advance. Kev.

[castrolrob]

the mans a fucking knob

[KevG]

You’ve obviously met him Rob. Mr Chan.
Anyway. Is there a method of inspection? Ive looked and I can’t find one anywhere.

[castrolrob]

sorry guy,dont know one off the top of my head for recessed wheel nuts:shock:you obviously got one of em who aint hit his targets for the month.one of the downsides of cpd etc was they lost a lotta their low hanging fruit cos everyones read up now and are going thru the motions somewhere near acceptable and as a result dvsa are desperately scraping around for any old bullshit to hit their points target,just unlucky i guess:(

[Paul S]

back in the day a VTS owner put a chair through a reception window and then had a heart attack cause some watch dog set up a motor up with no steering coupling pinch bolt, amongst other faults, & drove it in for mot illegally with a hidden camera which was subsequently aired on tv. This resulted in a SN for ‘steering coupling pinch bolts’

moral of this.. they need to do a special notice for wheel bolts/nuts :X cause there weren’t anything in the manual prior to this garage owner having a heart attack.

[KevG]

[KevG]

[KevG]

Im hoping Stealth can help ?

[Stealth]

I 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.

[DB9]

Was it not DVSA a couple of years back that changed the testing standards and said a wheel fixing missing was a Minor and not a fail, and then after feedback from professionals,obviously not DVSA staff, they changed it back to any fixing missing became a fail again.

[Paul S]

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.

17, 19, 21mm, Wheel sockets to be added to tools deemed “acceptable”.. More than one loose wtf how long is an mot supposed to take not to mention the fee.

Advisory Wheel trims present unable to access tightness of wheel bolt nut(s)

anyone else feeling a murmur

[castrolrob]

on a more serious note firstly appeal,secondly request/suggest that due to his obvious lack of knowledge/ability that he requires retraining and request confirmation of same-why should you be the only one inconvenienced?my personal suggestion would be for him to be retrained/redeployed to customs and excise,if he clearly believes his digits are strong enuff to spin wheel nuts then he might as well be somewhere that using them to probe the normal areas they investigate might be more productive:dude:

[Paul S]

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, Stealth has outlined the opinion in a nut shell

The VE DOES NOT GET retrained/redeployed to customs and excise & kev is not given points for not testing wheel bolts for security

And further.. official clarification is required to all concerned.

[Stealth]

[user=10]KevG[/user] wrote:
[quote]Im hoping Stealth can help ?[/quote]

And I’m hoping my reply should help.;)

[Paul S]

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/prf4s4f1/WHEEL-STUDS-NUTS.png[/img]
wheel studs/nuts, body mountings etc. have
specific criteria detailed in the guide.. WHERE IS THE wheel studs/nuts in the guide?

[Author]

Posts