That publication can't be expected to take into account contrictionand use regulations for every country the cars sold in. Look at Germany and it's tuv, that makes the uk mot look slack!

Spanners

Currently my 2CV doesn't have bumpers front or rear but the bumper irons are fitted. One person has advised me that this would constitute an MoT failure. My interpretation of the 'Dangerous parts' part of the Construction & Use Regs - not the same as an MoT, I agree - is that these brackets are not sharp, pointed parts which could cause injury (to pedestrians), but flat projections - the rule-of-thumb 'definition' we used to use.

An example of what we used to find would be the removal of bumpers from early Minis which would leave a horizontal blade-type bracket.

Failure, pass or down to interpretation?

So it would be entirely possible to take a car to two different places and get two completely different results?

That's terrible!

Do you guys that lower your cars and alter your arms somewhat rely on MOT testers not neccesarily knowing what to look for on an A series?

Lol my grandad was MOTing an A series once and a VOSA (or whatever the predeccessor was) inspector told him off for not fIling the car as the handbreak didn't act on the rear wheels

"So it would be entirely possible to take a car to two different places and get two completely different results?"

Yes, that is certainly possible because some items which are checked, the answer is not simply black and white. For instance I've always taken my past 2CVs to a 2CV specialist garage who knows that a small amount of play was acceptable in the kingpins yet an examiner who spends all day examining modern cars would almost certainly class each one as a 'fail'. But then what is 'a small amount of play'? Is it measureable? If an examiner was to attach a dial gauge to the top of the rim and waggle the wheel back and forward, how much play would he allow? It's down to experience and interpretation.

It is down to general knowledge of king pin design. Citroen specify between 0-4 mm play between the swing arm and hub, measured with feeler gauges right under the top bush. If you have no play between the pin and the bush no grease can enter where it is really needed. The French Controle Technique ( MOT) understand this if the controller is of the older school. The younger guys simply don’t understand the king pin technology and may reject it. Best is to bring Citroëns original work manual to show the guys if the are about to reject the car.

Paul, I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about the whats, whys and wherefores of the MOT test-I simply do my job when it's on the ramp and that's that. If someone doesn't like my opinion, they can appeal, simple.

Viking, sadly in the UK, taking an original Citroen manual into an MOT station wouldn't generally make any difference because if a tester has decided to fail something, that's the final word. VOSA say, if in doubt, pass and advise otherwise FAIL IT!

OK not good for the owners, but very good for the repaires/ parts suppliers

It depends where you go Viking. I've had cars fail on things that they shouldn't have because they deem it unnaceptable, and I've had the same place miss glaring errors and pass cars that are dangerous. Similarly, I've been failed on minor things like a duff sidelight bulb in one place, whereas another test centre would replace it or pass it and advise it needs replacing.

It is all down to the testers discretion and his own interpretation of the regulations.

Sounds like it's the same in France?

I've always thought it daft that with the little things, like headlamp adjustment, it would seem sensible just to adjust them as they went along. Not fail the car then have to re test, although admittedly the 2nd test is free where I take mine (is that the same everywhere?)

I understand - but correct me if I'm wrong - that the 'reason' why even 'trivial' items such as blown bulbs, headlamp aim technically cause an MOT 'failure' - even 'though many garages will happily let you put them right afterwards with no penalty - is so that VOSA has statistics on how well cars are being maintained.

Remember there was some consideration being given recently to having the MOT test period extended to 2 years? Common sense soon prevailed, thankfully. But had the 'stats' shown that the vast majority of cars were sailing through their MOTs with no 'advisories', then fair chance it would still be mooted as a future possibility.

Thanks to the simple fact that we are lousy at maintaining our cars, the yearly MOT will remain...