Took a load of redundant belongings to a charity shop, then went to the dump, sorry - "community recycling centre" - with the rest.






Poor thing was right down on its haunches with that lot!

Any good 8 tracks in there?

Sadly not, in fact all that lot was mainly tired old books which'll never get read again and old clothes etc.

Had the Celeste in for MOT last week with no major issues apart from a couple of advisories on King pins but also one strangely on "front ride height too low" since when did low riders become an MOT regulation FFS!

It's not. There's nothing to stop a tester advising on anything they feel should be pointed out. Perhaps he suspects that the steering geometry may be adversely affected or that the suspension travel is significantly less than the manufacturer intended or that there may be some other potential hazard. He's probably not really bothered but is covering himself in case you have an accident on your way home from the mot station and the police or an insurance company suggest that the ride-height could have been a factor.
I've got absolutely nothing against lowered cars if they're done properly (and I'm not suggesting that yours isn't!) but if a car is obviously a lot lower than standard, he's probably right to mention it.

If it was a case of the MOT examiner covering their back in case the police or insurance suggest the change to the suspension played a part in a RTC, then wouldn't the best course of action in the eyes of the examiner is to fail the car?

No matter what he thinks, he is only allowed to fail it on things that are specified in the VOSA Tester's manual as "reasons for failure". "Ride height too low" is not a specified reason for failure (but there's nothing to stop him mentioning it in the form of an advisory note).

Okay.

Wonder if he'd spotted a few gouge marks on the engine's sump?

Mind you, the ones that should be picked up are those cars on which the ride height is so low that the heads of the axle bolts have been ground away...