I'm back, with a MOT fail

Discussion in 'Mech Tech' started by kilmo, May 24, 2016.

  1. Hi I'm back and a little *******ed off.
    4rd time I have MOTed the bus, it has always has passed with no advisorys and it's always the same garage.
    I am aware that the bodywork on the van is showing a need for a some TLC and underneath the sills are not in the best of shape but today went to collect the bus and was passed a fail sheet and half a bin bag of rust.
    The bus hasn't moved for 6 months so I can understand the brakes failing and the gaiter is no problem. It's the amount of corrosion fails that has *******ed me off. The bus is going on a ramp at a different garage for me to see the underside tomorrow.
    According to the online not manual the corrosion fails are under the category of vehicles with separate bodies only this cat ago correct as I wouldn't say a T2 has a removable body therefore doesn't have body mounts? Am I wrong?
    • Reason(s) for failure
      Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)

      Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)

      nearside front Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)

      centre Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings nearside (6.1.B.2)

      nearside rear Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)

      offside front Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)

      centre Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings offside (6.1.B.2)

      offside rear Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)

      Body or chassis has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings all floor to sills corroded (6.1.B.2)

      offside rear Drive shaft which forms part of the suspension coupling gaiter damaged to the extent that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc (2.4.G.4e)
     
  2. Take it elsewhere, would have to see corrosion really to comment but it looks like they are finding a fail to justify their fears.:eek::mad:
    Can't fail for driveshaft on the rear, tuesday_wildchild I keep seeing this on Facebook lately for T25's. It will only fail if the driveshaft stops the wheel moving in or out such as on a Triumph Stag. Your right in regard to body mounts the likes of LandRovers and Luton/chassis cab vehicles. The term seriously effecting the strength is the key term even if it was applicable. For example if you had 10 body mounts and say two had rotted away it would still have 8 more so not really seriously affecting the strength.

    Now the normal criteria is that corrosion within 30cm of a braking, steering component, seatbelt mount or suspension mount that is bad enough to cause even a small hole is a fail. Another reason is serious corrosion likely to adversely affect the braking or steering (ie: if you were to drive the car you would be very concerned for your own safety). It may be that the tester is failing legitimately but under the wrong heading and it really is a rolling sieve :( but looks like it's a case of lack of self confidence so if in doubt fail it "cos we don't want something dangerous on the road". :surprise: It should always be if in doubt pass and advise. I'm sure the tester isn't malicious in his findings and the work probably all needs doing but The key phrase is (sorry for shouting) "MINIMUM STANDARDS TO PASS MOT" it is not a "full service" or the like and just an indication that on one said day it meets a requirement and is unlikely to kill anyone. Anyway enough of the rant for the cost of another MOT see how bad it looks underneath and find a sympathetic MOT test station. Oh and then GET THE BLOODY WELDING DONE ;)
     
    Merlin Cat and Silver like this.
  3. Not been funny, but don't look at the wording ,look at the holes....

    If you take a bus in for the mot and not look over it and repair ,you gets what you deserve ,gone are the days of clenching your buttocks and hoping for the best...;)

    The garage have done you a favour imo....:hattip:
     
  4. :TTIWWP:

    Go on, after it's been on the other ramp today stick up some pics!

    As above whilst the category for fail may be wrong, look at it objectively. What would happen if you hit something at speed - what would fall off?!
     
    EDE77 and Merlin Cat like this.
  5. Sounds to me the van has sat there quietly rotting out of sight and mind for some time.

    Its a wake up call.

    It may be useful if you could get the van on a garage hoist/lift and have a good poke around underneath in the areas of failure to confirm in your mind its rot.

    My son's T25 had a similar list of body rot fails 4 years ago and he got the MOT tester to show him where the rot was and he accepted the fails as correct.

    On your fail sheet, its not the wording that matters its the extent of the rot pointed out to you.
     
    Moons and orangefeeling like this.
  6. Ok I'm just back from the garage and having a look underneath
    Basically both sills are gone and 3/4 jacking points, they the garage have said £950 to "plate" it to me that's just a bodge.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Right time to source 2 new sills and a welder...
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
    Merlin Cat likes this.
  7. Do a proper job, no cheap bodges. Then take it back to the same tester.

    Assume the rest of the under body is on its way, so after this bit of sorting out with new sills etc., you should consider scraping back and treating the rest of it or it will all rot out.

    Your images are not displaying.
     
    Merlin Cat likes this.
  8. Sills are not part of the MOT for these old vans nor are the jacking points/outriggers, just the chassis
    show us the photos, upload_2016-5-24_10-1-1.png
    upload_2016-5-24_10-1-1.png
     
  9. 'Sills are not part of the MOT', you say. That's an interesting statement.

    Those diagrams are interesting as well, where did they come from and which vehicle are they for?
     
  10. I did see this diagram in the mot manual appendix

    Ok trying photo again
    OSF jacking
    [​IMG]
    OS sill
    [​IMG]
    NS sill
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Baysearcher

    Baysearcher [secret moderator]

    I'd fail that.
    (I'm not an MOT tester though!)
     
    pkrboo, art b, Kruger and 5 others like this.
  12. matty

    matty Supporter

    My understanding is this is a very gray area as the vans fall in a gap as it has a chassis but you cannot remove the body as its all welded together so is one item
    A normal chassis car you can unbolt the body and remove it
     
    happystamps likes this.
  13. It's a monocoque, not a body on chassis, the whole body forms the structure. Sills are structural in a monocoque, plus they provide some protection in the event of a side impact.
     
    happystamps and brothernumberone like this.
  14. The sill didn't appear even 10% this bad when I dropped the van off, there the reason I was handed a bag of rust on collection
     
    gazcbm likes this.
  15. Many thanks for the photos.

    It is clear your van is very rotten and should definitely be an MOT failure. I am sure you accept that now.

    What happens now is whether you want to keep the van and restore it or sell it without an MOT.

    As I suspected and looking at your pics, the rusting is more widespread and not just the sills.

    The expert restorers on here will give their input on how costly it would be to cut out the rot and weld in new metal, but to me it looks likely to be very expensive.

    You have several other MOT fail issues which need to be sorted and paid for as well.

    I mentioned my son's T25, it failed badly with body rot 4 years ago, he decided to keep it and pay for bodywork, it was costly and its ongoing, rust keeps on going. In terms of cost, it would have been much cheaper to sell it and buy a rot free van.

    Your MOT tester is a good man and he handed you the bag of rust to show you how bad your van is.
     
  16. Zed

    Zed Gradually getting grumpier

    They are not allowed to pull it to pieces like that. You could report them, but TBH it does need fixing.
     
    mgbman and nigelcp like this.
  17. Ohhhh just seen the pictures. Picture number one may fail for 30cm for seatbelt mount and as the "crow flys" might be front beam mount. Also the rear of the sill could fail as the spring plate might fall in to 30cm. The sills themselves could be completely rotted away if don't fall in the 30cm rule but we are starting to look at structural integrity. These vans do have longitudinal chassis rails so the sills don't necessarily do much. Would I drive this and be in fear of my life (ie: would it break in two or the brakes/steering would fail) No, it probably isn't as bad as it looks. Would I fail it probably yes. Would have to look and "squeeze" but it is quite bad. I must say it looks like they have had a poke around with a screwdriver which is against good practice. It looks like you've been quite fortunate and it's slowly got to a point of crumbling. This is all based on the minimum standard criteria set out by DVSA and the Ministry of Transport and looking at photo's. If you look closely this could get much worse when you start looking for good metal to weld to.
     
  18. That rusting hasn't appeared overnight, its obviously been around for a while. I think the tester was right and did you a favour. Complain if you like, but you won't have any grounds.
     
    art b and Moons like this.
  19. And thats what you can see,!o_O, 1 Cm of rot here in germany is enough to fail. The mot here baets it with a hammer ,ithought he was mad at the bus like a ex wife the way hit was hitting it ,. and thats the way it is , its actually written more or less you must submit your vehicle for these abuses .,,,,,forced me to take the proper repairs.
    In swiss a perfectly good car not a classic over 7 years old will get a fail without them getting out of there chairs,
    Start chopping ! Sorry,,, you have a lot of work ahead.:(
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
    mgbman likes this.
  20. Moons

    Moons Supporter

    You sure that that is right? I can't think of a single incident where that's the safer option, given a failure allows proper investigation and viable fix options rather than an ignore for another year...
     
    chad and mgbman like this.

Share This Page