Uncovering Unwanted History About My Pug

[zebedy101 0]

Just been browsing and found the mot history check on the vosa site and I'm now thinking F##k. Have a butchers at these results in 2008.....

 

Test class:

IV

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

 

Offside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.2)

 

Exhaust engine idle speed too high (7.3.A.1a)

 

Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content excessive (7.3.B.2a)

 

Brake pedal spongy (3.3.B.1b)

 

Offside Front Anti-roll bar linkage has excessive play in a ball joint (2.4.G.3)

 

Nearside Front inner wing Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.3)

 

Offside Inner Front Suspension arm has excessive play in a pin/bush (2.4.G.3)

 

Advisory Notice issued

 

Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2a)

 

Offside Rear wheel bearing has slight play (2.6.2)

 

Nearside Rear Trailing arm has slight play in a pin bearing (2.4.G.3)

 

Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.D.1)

 

Nearside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.D.1)

[zebedy101 0]

It certainly explains a few things like the reason it had a turbo diesel rear beam fitted and the rust killer on the arches.

[Dave 0]

And?

Its been fixed, so don't worry.

 

With cars like GTI`s, I would wager that a very, very high percentage have some kind of past issues that current owners are oblivious to - either bad maintenance, theft, crash repairs etc etc.....

[All Praise The GTI 3]

im guessing it was repaired then?

[Matt Holley 11]

Wow you can find that all out online now? could be interesting.

[welshpug 1,657]

doesnt sound bad at all to me.

 

sounds like typical inner wing/strut top/strut tower rust,

 

dodgy AFM,

 

rotten/badly fitted exhaust,

 

a worn out droplink,

 

a wishbone balljoint (with obligatory worn out tyre due to alignment innacuracies from the play)

 

and a beam (with obligatory worn out tyre due to excessive camber)

 

and old brake fluid.

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

Quite interesting, just done the same with my car before I got it (it was free as it needed work)

 

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

 

Drivers seat insecure (6.2.2)

 

Front to rear Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)

 

Parking brake lever has no reserve travel (3.1.6b)

 

Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content excessive (7.3.B.2a)

 

Exhaust emissions hydrocarbon content excessive (7.3.B.2b)

 

Front Headlamp aim too low when the centre of the headlamp is below 850mm from the ground (1.6.B2)

 

Rear Rear fog lamp not in good working order (not working) (1.1.6b)

 

Both sides front Anti-roll bar linkage has excessive play in a ball joint (2.4.G.3)

 

Offside Rear Mechanical brake component has restricted free movement (3.5.1j)

 

Steering system excessively rough (2.2.D.1e)

 

Nearside Steering rack damaged and unserviceable (2.2.C.1c)

 

Nearside Front Shock absorber has a serious fluid leak (2.7.3)

 

Advisory Notice issued

 

Engine burning oil when revving

 

 

Interesting that although I rectified the majority of things on that list (I didn't ever see that fail sheet) the steering rack I deemed to be "OK" and it went on to pass the MOT I took it for after I'd overhauled it!

[zebedy101 0]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ownin...Mot/DG_10020539

 

that's the link to the site it's very interesting really. Yeah it's all repaired now but i'm just wondering how good of a jobs been done and the engine issues are long gone thanks to the 6 engine.

[zebedy101 0]

Let's have a competition the person with the largest fail... Winner will recive a grand prize of....... Diddly squat.

[lemmingzappa 75 1 Cars]

Thanks for pointing that link out, didn't know it existed

[RHULPUG 0]

Excellent link!

 

Here's mine in 2007, passed fine after that:-

 

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

 

Front Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3) **DANGEROUS**

 

Offside Inner Rear Rear position lamp(s) not in good working order (not working) (1.1.4a)

 

Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (1.2.4a) **DANGEROUS**

 

Nearside Headlamp not working on main beam (1.2.4a) **DANGEROUS**

 

Offside Headlamp aim too high (1.6)

 

Headlamp aim not tested (1.6)

 

Offside Front to rear Brake pipe inadequately supported (3.6.B.1) **DANGEROUS**

 

Nearside Front Brake caliper(s) locking device missing (3.5.1k) **DANGEROUS**

 

Offside Front Brake caliper(s) locking device missing (3.5.1k) **DANGEROUS**

 

Nearside Inner Lower Front suspension locking device ineffective (2.5.A.4)

 

Advisory Notice issued

 

Nearside Rear Seat belt slight fluffing (5.1.B.2b)

 

Nearside Rear (outer sill) Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.2)

[Baz 421]

I lose then, the couple of mine i checked have gleaming histories it seems. The Red one only having done about 100miles since each MOT in the last 6 yrs or so recorded, and the others understandably don't get put in for MOT unless they're pre-checked first anyway!

[zebedy101 0]

You will be there all day checking yours baz.the red one sounds like it's a goodun though.

[AndyJ 1]

As long as its all been fixed properly, I dont see the problem with cars having 'history'...My previous 205 had the whole front end destroyed by the previous owner, but it was all sorted properly and was no worse off for it. I suppose the only difference might be in a crash if any structural work is of questionable quality, but tbh you're pretty fooked anyway

[hexhamstu 9]

Posted this when it happened, but still funny.

 

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

 

Offside Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)

 

Centre Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2a)

 

Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content excessive (7.3.B.2a)

 

Nearside Rear Wheel insecure (4.2.1b)

 

Advisory Notice issued

 

Centre Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)

 

Exhaust has part of the system slightly deteriorated (7.1.1a)

 

Offside Rear Upper Shock absorber has a slightly worn rubber bush (2.7.4)

 

Nearside Front Brake disc(s) slightly worn (3.5.1h)

 

Offside Front Brake disc(s) slightly worn (3.5.1h)

 

Nearside Rear Brake disc(s) slightly worn (3.5.1h)

 

Offside Rear Brake disc(s) slightly worn (3.5.1h)

 

Offside Front on inner edge Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.D.1)

 

Nearside Front Steering rack gaiter deteriorated (2.2.D.1d)

 

Vehicle structure has slight corrosion (6.1.3)

 

Nearside Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)

 

Offside Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)

 

Gear knob damaged

 

185/55r15 tyre size

 

Front suspension components corroded

 

Rear suspension components corroded

 

 

 

If anyone can beat the length of that I will be very impressed.

Edited March 22, 2010 by hexhamstu

[Pugleyrich 37 1 Cars]

That is a handy link!

I just found that mine failed on pads a couple of years ago. Nothing major, but is nice to know when they were last replaced!

Does the history for everyone only go back to 2006, or do I assume my car was off the road for a bit prior to that?

[Henry Yorke 269 3 Cars]

Some of those comments are gobsmacking that people actually submit their car for a test, especially now you can get recharged if it leaves the garage. I always do a bulb and fluid check before sending any of mine in as a bare minimum. I also wash it as I think a shiny car will pass better!

[hexhamstu 9]

Some of those comments are gobsmacking that people actually submit their car for a test, especially now you can get recharged if it leaves the garage. I always do a bulb and fluid check before sending any of mine in as a bare minimum. I also wash it as I think a shiny car will pass better!

I submitted my car like that but I've never been charged for taking the car away and fixing it. I know they can charge, but they've never enforced it on me.

[Baz 421]

As long as its all been fixed properly, I dont see the problem with cars having 'history'...

 

Exaclty, not really a bad thing IMo depending on what it is. But if anything it gives you a little clue as to what's been done in the past, and obviously anything bad was fixed etc anyway, at least to MOT standard.

[AndyJ 1]

That is a handy link!

I just found that mine failed on pads a couple of years ago. Nothing major, but is nice to know when they were last replaced!

Does the history for everyone only go back to 2006, or do I assume my car was off the road for a bit prior to that?

 

From the site:

 

"You can only look up information online going back to 2005 when the MOT Scheme was computerised"

 

Good on them for making this info available though

[Pugleyrich 37 1 Cars]

From the site:

 

"You can only look up information online going back to 2005 when the MOT Scheme was computerised"

 

Good on them for making this info available though

 

Ah thanks. I didn't see that bit, was too eager to get to my results! Really helpful site for checking when buying a new car

[Baz 421]

Really helpful site for checking when buying a new car

 

Only a little, as siad to see what's been recently fixed, otherwise IMO it's neither here nor there tbh. The same as an MOT is not proof of roadworthiness, so by proxy i don't see how it's good for checking a car's worth.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Baz

[zebedy101 0]

I'm suprised they haven't capitalised on this and charge for looking up the history. The best use for it is checking the milage matches up to what it's supposed too.

 

I'm pleased the link has provided answers to questions for some people and a bit of entertainment. I think it's really good to know the truth about why it failed and what it failed on. When I bought my 205 the bloke said he tried for an mot but failed on emisions and the fog light not working evidently he was talking from his rear as there is no sign of said mot test... What a knobber.

[pacmannewry 0]

I'm suprised they haven't capitalised on this and charge for looking up the history. The best use for it is checking the milage matches up to what it's supposed too.

 

I'm pleased the link has provided answers to questions for some people and a bit of entertainment. I think it's really good to know the truth about why it failed and what it failed on. When I bought my 205 the bloke said he tried for an mot but failed on emisions and the fog light not working evidently he was talking from his rear as there is no sign of said mot test... What a knobber.

 

 

Hi Seb,

 

Any word on the springs mate? I tried pming you.

 

Paddy

[tagy 1]

Good find! Be useful when looking to buy a car that has an MOT, but the advisory sheet has been 'lost'

 

Will check mine out when I get home.