to clarify regards HIDS:
after market fitted HIDS are acceptable, as long as the beam pattern is ok, colour of lights and you have fitted in a way that things are secure and not offering a danger. (so no wires or ballasts dangling next to the timing belt
)
going back to the OPs questions:
1. engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay
this is purely to cover their arses, as tehy cannot inspect fuel lines etc. although seems madness as this will be the case for 90% of vehicles.
2. turbo pipe insecuer
this could be the pipe running throug the wheel arch? (pancake pipe)
3. items removed from driver's view
was there anything at all on dash or near windscreen>? satnav would be included in this.
(although i find it amazing they suggest fitting it down by ashtrays etc so you have to look down there to see where to go..)
4. nearside front (lens marked) headlamp deteriorated but light output not reduced
I guess you could argue this is a pro-active advisory, is that they are saying its showing signs of wear but working. But again its seems a little OTT.
It will be interesting to see if more advisories are given generally. It might be a VOSA observation that there are too many failure and not enough advisories. (there should be a generally accepted approximate ratios that is expected, - particularly given some of the MOT changes in recent years which should have led to more advisories)
Something that auditors often find with companies in general, - where systems allow you to record notes or observations that are warnings not failures why is it that generally most people record failures but very few observations or warnings. When if you act on warnings there should be more warnings than failures.
I suspect that VOSA could say to a garage something like:
"so you had 1,500 items last year that failed and needed repair.. but we notice only 500 advisories. Why is this? are you unfairly failing cars? or are you not recorded advisories / doing your job properly"?
In my expereince MOT testers often tell you verbally if they see something thats not a fail rather than record them all if its not a big issue.
From a quality point of view, and in my opinion only, most MOT testers could be ripped apart.
after market fitted HIDS are acceptable, as long as the beam pattern is ok, colour of lights and you have fitted in a way that things are secure and not offering a danger. (so no wires or ballasts dangling next to the timing belt
)going back to the OPs questions:
1. engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay
this is purely to cover their arses, as tehy cannot inspect fuel lines etc. although seems madness as this will be the case for 90% of vehicles.
2. turbo pipe insecuer
this could be the pipe running throug the wheel arch? (pancake pipe)
3. items removed from driver's view
was there anything at all on dash or near windscreen>? satnav would be included in this.
(although i find it amazing they suggest fitting it down by ashtrays etc so you have to look down there to see where to go..)
4. nearside front (lens marked) headlamp deteriorated but light output not reduced
I guess you could argue this is a pro-active advisory, is that they are saying its showing signs of wear but working. But again its seems a little OTT.
It will be interesting to see if more advisories are given generally. It might be a VOSA observation that there are too many failure and not enough advisories. (there should be a generally accepted approximate ratios that is expected, - particularly given some of the MOT changes in recent years which should have led to more advisories)
Something that auditors often find with companies in general, - where systems allow you to record notes or observations that are warnings not failures why is it that generally most people record failures but very few observations or warnings. When if you act on warnings there should be more warnings than failures.
I suspect that VOSA could say to a garage something like:
"so you had 1,500 items last year that failed and needed repair.. but we notice only 500 advisories. Why is this? are you unfairly failing cars? or are you not recorded advisories / doing your job properly"?
In my expereince MOT testers often tell you verbally if they see something thats not a fail rather than record them all if its not a big issue.
From a quality point of view, and in my opinion only, most MOT testers could be ripped apart.
Last edited:
