No one said about it being a safer option. It's the DVSA guidelines. If it fails it fails but if you aren't sure you must always pass and advise. Remember the MOT is minimum standard only. If the tester passes something that is "dangerous" but he informed the presenter that there was a contentious issue then he has done his job correctly. It is down to the person presenting the vehicle to read the whole document and make sure he/she understands it. What I feel is right as an MOT tester and what standards I have to test to maybe completely different.
MOT testers do a good job. On this occasion the tester has failed the van and pointed out the issues. The owner must have noticed the progressive rot and ignored it.
Its not pretty but if that's the extent of the rot it should pass someone will be along later with photos of vans with rotted out sills & floor edges which passed MOTs Personally if it was my van Id replace the 3 sill sections on both sides, probably the ends of the top hats & the jacking points & hope the floor has not rotted. Then the B post & C post bottoms, the inner arches, the battery trays, the rear corners, the rear valance, then move round to the front deformation panel & inner section and the bottoms of the A posts. Its endless once you start poking at grotty bits
Strikes me as a daft system that will fail a car on a number plate light, yet pass an old car as the tester has to default pass corrosion if they aren't 100% visually certain...
Yeap no one got killed by a number plate light. A lot of the requirements are decided by the EU and DVSA have just added a few "pointless" requirements to keep them happy. I think because of litigation cases the test has to always be that way. I can fail a vehicle because a brake pad sensor wire has exposed strands but can't check wheel nuts for tightness or fail a car because the reverse lights don't work or that they are on all the time. A nice interesting fact is less than 5% of all accidents are caused by mechanical failure so the test system appears to work. At least we have yearly testing unlike a lot of other countries
I think we all agree the van is rot and should have failed. The attention and advice should now be on what the options are. In my experience an important decision has to be made about restoring/repairing the van as unless the work is done by the owner, then paying someone to do it would be expensive and may not be affordable. At this point in time the exact extent of the rot is unknown and may be worse once cutting starts and the costs would go up. Maybe the panels are also rusted and may need attention which could mean a new paint job. That happened to my son's T25 and due to costs of welding etc. we then couldn't afford a professional paint job.
Yeah that needs some work. As others have said it's a difficult call as to whether you restore it or not. The parts alone add up to a fair amount; the chassis and underside restore on our bus that I'm still working on probably owes me £1000+. Thats all sills, all jacking points, two cross members, most of the floor supports, new floor pans.
Perhaps you would post up some pics of the van panels and engine bay to give a more overall picture of the van.
Sorry , but that needs sorting out . It`s pointless arguing the toss about where the rot is as per MOT guidelines - it`s as " rotten as a pear" and any tester worth his salt would fail the van on the quantity of metal which is obviously not there , let alone the quality of what`s left ! Mine`s far from perfect but still `useable` , i know in the not too distant future it`ll need some money thrown at it but that`s life ... A good time to buy a decent welder and do a complete overhaul would be my suggestion
I bet he'll be surprised the whole interior and floor has to come out to do the sills and that that will expose holes in the cargo floor and rear arch tubs... Not to mention the top hats and I beam floor supports and that the front of the rear arch needs cutting off to do the sills, and the sills attach or poke through the rear tubs and front bulkhead...
i suggest unless you have a big emotinal attatchment to it or you can do a lot of work yourself you seriously think about getting rid and getting a solid import instead, it will end up costing a lot of time and cash -look at the resto section, once you open it up it will be worse.
We haven't seen the rest of the van, but I bet the panels are bad and the engine knackered. Its obvious the van has not been cared for and used but laid up for long periods and quietly rotting. I assume its stood outside and the water has got in and rotted it all round. I think the owner knew it was bad and just hoped and prayed it would pass its MOT. Maybe the plan was to get rid of it. But it has failed miserably and now needs the attention and money spent on it which it hasn't had for years. My advice, get rid of it as it is.
