Come august I'm going to have a window of just a few days in which to get an MOT, so it needs to pass first time. Some of you may have noticed that there are a few places that don't contain as much metal as they should,

Number 1, the back panel/boot floor, are body to chassis bolts one of those important points that mustn't have substantial corrosion within 30cm? And would this fail on sharp edges as well as structural integrity?






2 Bump stops, do they count as a suspension mounting point? And if so would these two holes count as corrosion within 30cm?




3, Spot what's wrong here, the bracket has parted company from the wing, it only wobbles a little, could it be a failure point? would anyone notice if they weren't looking for it?




4 Cracked No. plate, it doesn't effect the readability so should be alright yes?




5 And finally, having a completely different engine to the one listed on the V5, is that tested in any way?

Yes.



Down to the tester. I wouldn't have thought so.



Yes.



You should be OK, I'd think.



Should be OK



No, that's fine.

Full tester's handbook - if it ain't explicitly listed as a fail, it can't fail on it.
http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4i00000101.htm

Re the rot on the back panel. My yellow 2cv passed an mot without even having the rearmost chassis bolts in the bootfloor, and the bamboo passed it's mot with a foot long hole across the back panel. The old man, who's an mot tester said he wouldn't fail my red spesh on the hole in the back of the inner wing (within 30cm of the back of the chassis) or the rot in the rear sweeps which is within the same prescribed area. However, he said he would fail it within 30cm o the bumpstop and/or seatbelt mounting.

If it were my car, I'd simply tape it up for now with several layers of gaffer then spend my time on the other areas. I'm guessing it's 24hr weekend when you'll be over, so if you need a hand with anything let me know, I'll see what I can do.

If there's no rear seat, there's no seatbelts needed, so they cease to be seatbelt mounts...

'course, they're still within 30cm of body-chassis mounts and suspension.

But if there's no bumpstop fitted, the bumpstop ceases to be suspension... <thinks> Who do we know who don't fit bumpstops to rebuilds?

Dad has pointed out to me the phrase 'testers discretion' which is really rather important. Unless you're speaking to the actual tester who's going to do the test then I don't think anybody can give you a definitive answer. It isn't as ut and dried as some would have you think.

The bit at the back can be failed, all body to chassis securing points are testable. Note that sharp edges are also assessed from the point of a stationary vehicle having a pedestrian walk past it.

The number plate can be failed for delamination.

I take it you know you can submit for MOT up to one month early and get a 13 month MOT?

As Russell points out, I suspect it's largely going to come down to the actual tester.

I would hazard that a newly-qualified fellow working for a national servicing-centre chain (I almost said 'jobsworth', but that wouldn't actually be fair) would be tempted to fail at least two of these points - the loose front wing, and the rear rust hole (unless tapped over) - as well as possibly the bump stop. They might well go for some of the other items too...

However, an ol'-timer who can assess these areas with genuine time-served knowledge should be able to judge their true safety implications. Any such places in your 'hood, Joolz? Who tested the car last time?

I'd say you're pushing it - not a helpful comment, I'm afraid.

The only way I can think of to extend your window is to get it tested asap. Bear in mind that if it fails, it'll be illegal to use it on the road (I believe your current MOT will instantly become ineffectual too) and your insurance could be (will almost certainly be...) void if you have an accident.

Wait for Spanners to put his h'penny worth in, he's a MOT tester.

That's a great myth that is. Your current MOT certificate is valid as long as it states. If you take your car for MOT a month before the old one expires and it fails, that doesn't affect your current valid MOT. However, if your car is dangerous to drive etc etc, then the Police or VOSAs roadside Nazis have the power to then remove the car from the road under section blah de blah of the road traffic act etc etc.

As for your car Joolz, it it were me testing it and you had no back seat in it, I'd ask you to put some gaffer tape over the holes in the rear lamp panel, cut your rear bump stops off and self tap/cable tie the front wing to the car.

The wording regarding corrosion in a body mounting area is something along the lines of " insecurity of the body or its supporting members to the chassis so that it is clear that there would be a danger to other road users"

I got a mark down on my MOT training regarding body to chassis corrosion because as far as VOSA are concerned, there are sufficient body mounting points on most vehicles with chassis to allow a certain amount of flexibility. However, I doubt that would always be the case come MOT time.

Oh yeah, I'd fail the front number plate too cos I'm a bastard!!! And, it's a bit too obvious to let go.

I knew there would be a few different opinions on this, all have been considered, so thanks. The situation is that the car's in france, and is now out of mot and tax. If I knew it was an easy pass I'd book it in to a test station in dover. However the place I usually use, where the tester knows me and the car, is 300 miles from the ferry, so a little extra faff getting the car there 'sans tax'.
I reckon on a good day it could pass as it is, but several of it's faults are 50/50

1, Corrosion around rear body/chassis mounting, the testers manual says,

Reason for Rejection
3. Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which seriously affects its strength within 30cm of the body mountings.

But then it also says

Individual defects are not subject to Reason for Rejection 2 or 3 unless their cumulative effect is likely to reduce significantly the overall body security.

So does that mean that providing it's the only mounting in this condition then it shouldn't cause a fail?

The car's usually has the back seat fitted, but the two holes on the inner wing are very small, I can't find the bit in the testers manual, but doesn't it contain something along the lines of 'corrosion which seriously affects its strength'?


The No. plate is untidy and gives a bad first impression, but to quote the testers manual,

faded, dirty, delaminated, deteriorated or obscured, (for example by a towbar) so that it is likely to be misread or is not easily legible by a person standing approximately 20 metres to the front/rear of the vehicle

So I'd have thought they'd have to pass it. I will change it at some point because it looks bad, but I was considering a change of position and haven't made up my mind yet.

I know that most of it's down to the testers discretion and trying to convince anyone else won't gain me a thing. And equally, that just like the rest of us, MOT testers don't like being told how to do their job by the customers.