Taking my 4L for the Côntrole Technique this afternoon. I am hoping they are as gentle with it as they were both my AZU vans. I think they may do a pollution check on this one though

I used to take cars into MOT with known faults - simply as I knew the cost of the repair for these items and if additional items were found by the MOT inspector then I could calculate the viability to keep the jalopy
if the items got above economical repair then off the went to "Journeys End"
I Think that the weak points of the 2CV have been highlighted over the years with most going to the grave with corroded chassis
The first impression of the car when it pulls into the Test bay is a big concern - when it goes up on the ramp and the chassis is new shiny galvinised - new bolts holding components etc
If you turn up with a car with king pins gone - welding repairs needed - the guy is going to be extra vigilent - Remember you could be driving towards him in his car when he has his wife and unborn child onboard
To call someone incompetent for this approach - I think not!
To not know something of an unusual nature like the play in the suspension links - come on be real 90% of the people reading this post dont know either.
To challenge his/her decision - OK
If you hadn't challenged the decision - then I am afraid that this is "Tough Love My Friend".
My friendly MOT Man asks "come look at this" - Also 2 Times he test the handbrake on the rear wheels - Is he incompetent? - No - The Guy that does not make a mistake Know's Nothing
Getting something wrong - this is how we learn

I must admit, the MOT test gives me the screaming hebbie gebbies every year - but I guess after all these years of taking cars to them, we should all follow the usual steps before they go in of, 1) check everything! Obvious shit like lights, wipers, washers, tyre and exhaust condition, rust within areas such as seatbelt points & brake master, brake efficiency and piping and obvious wear on any major component & 2) grease everywhere possible - a sloppy king pin can be firmed up with a generous helping of grease prior to the test and knive edges would be less noticeable if stuffed with grease.
If you don't check any of these prior to the test, and don't leave it till the day you have it booked for so that you then can't rectify any of the faults before the MOT test runs out, then you run the risk of a failure - as they as "fail to prepare then prepare to fail!"

Reminds me of a car I had around 25 years ago - a triumph GT6. This had a 'fly-off' handbrake lever, which worked in the opposite way to a 'proper' one - you only had to pull up the lever for the button to pop out and release. (To apply the handbrake, you had to pull it up and press the button to lock it).

I left it for an MOT one time and headed off for a good half-hour stroll around Stornoway. When I returned, the car hadn't moved from where I'd parked it. Inside was a youngster with - literally - beads of sweat on his brow. He had both hands on the handbrake, hauling it up and pressing the button at the same time - to no avail.

I did apologise for it having such a stupid system...

Everybody who looks after their own cars should print and frame that sentence.

Unless it's a case of "Is it worth repairing, or do I throw it away?", taking something in with known or obvious-easy-check fail points is asking for trouble. Once it's failed on one thing, the tester's only going to look for more to fail it on. Anything borderline-advisory-or-fail is going to get put as a fail. The car's already failed, it makes no difference to anybody.

Ignorance is no excuse, either - the full tester's handbook, with what to check, how to check it, and what is a fail is online.

You contradict yourself there Adrian, suggesting that if a tester finds one reason for failure they'll go looking for more, if they're doing their job properly then they'll fail it on things they regard as unsafe or not up to their standard regardless of other faults , the test should be carried out objectively. I can't see any tester saying 'That side repeater doesn't work, so im failing that slightly duff kingpin'. It makes quite a difference to me whether I leave the test station needing to do a kingpin or change a bulb in comparison to coming away needing to rebuilding the poxy thing from the ground up, especially if its for no reason other than an MOT tester taking a dislike to my car because he found something wrong with it. Just doesn't ring true, you're effectively accusing every MOT tester of failing to do their jobs properly, are you not?

My cars in for test tomorrow and I haven't even bothered to check the lights. If that's all it fails on then I reckon it's done ok.

Sorry about the poor spelling and grammar, I had to shout at my Missus halfway through writing that and it distracted me.

No, but I _can_ see 'em saying "Look, it's already failed on that kingpin, so instead of just saying 'BTW, the side repeater's out - sort it', I'll add that to the fail list".

I dunno, on one occasion I did exactly what Nels says, and left it until the morning of the test to check everything over and notice that a wheel bearing was buggered. I took it along anyway and told him I'd just noticed the wheel bearing and that I was fully expecting a fail, and got a fail! He didn't fail it on anything else though, which I'm sure he could have done quite easily, if he was feeling picky.

I can see your point though, I think some testers become more lenient (rightly or wrongly) when they get the impression that a vehicle is maintained to a decent standard by a conscientious owner who knows what he/she is doing. If they get the impression that the vehicle gets an annual bout of minimal spannering based on an MOT fail sheet, then you're not as likely to get the benefit of doubt.

Thinking about your GT6, DA, when I took my first 2CV for its first MOT in my ownership, I went back to pick it up and found it sat in the middle of the yard, with the tester inside trying desperately to release the handbrake, which was in need of adjustment and had popped off the end of its ratchet. It had passed the brake test though! That tester had failed it on inoperative sidelights (he didn't understand the switch, and a missing VIN plate (it was covered up by the felt soundproofing!).

Well I got a pass with no preparation whatsoever. And my cars a right shed.