Biennial MOT tests

I’ve said it before on here, but the problem at main dealers is the bonus system they use.
For example, a tech will start earning bonus after completing say 8 hours of work, and after that will get £16 per every hour of work completed after that.
Whilst this was great for me working as a PDI tech/MOT tester, as I could easily get 5+ hours bonus a day, it’s not so easy for a service or diagnostic tech.
Those guys earn a higher salary, but rarely make good bonus.
The solution..
Rush through jobs or (I’ve seen it a million times) just don’t fit the awkward service items (diesel filters/plugs etc) and just lob them in the bin.
It’s very demotivating for the techs that like to do things right, but in doing so, don’t have chance of earning bonus.
What makes it worse is that all the dealers have the bonus charts up in the tea room, so everyone can see who’s earning the money.
Frustrating to see others earning £1500+ a month more than them because they’re doing the job right.
Horrid system.

Sorry just interested, is that 8 hours of book time but they get more book hours done in their 8 hour shift, or overtime?
 
Yup, 8 hours book, then £16 per book hour after.
Over time was paid at time, but the book hours counted towards the £16 per hour.
Hopefully that makes sense?

I can see why so much stuff would be skipped over then. I guess there isn't someone around to almost repeat a job to make sure it's been done properly.
 
Just when I thought a portion of the general public couldn't get more (insert your words here).
This was presented for an MOT today, and have a wild guess what it failed on..

EzymqAw.jpg

It beggars belief that some people can't even be botherd to check their tyres.
 
Only and IDIOT would drive around without an MOT!!!!






Oh, hang on
LOL been driving cars & riding motorbikes for 38 years and none of them ever had a MOT with there being no MOT available here

But that meant to be changing in 2024 or somewhere around that
Old news story here
 
So, after speaking to a DVSA inspector, it seems very likely that MOT's will be every two years for some cars.
What I could gather is that the failure rate is taken from main dealers and they're making a case that those cars do not need MOT'ing every year.
Now, I've spent most of my working life in main dealer workshops, and what happens there is that many of the cars are serviced first, then go for MOT.
If faults are found on the service that'll fail the MOT, then the customer is informed and the faults are corrected, hence the very low failure rate.
Where I work now, we always MOT the car first and then (if the repairs aren't too expensive) service it.

The whole thing is still apparently going to public consultation, so no idea what will actually happen.
My guess is that it'll be something like..
First MOT after 3 years, then every two years until the car is 7 years old, then back to every year, or something similar.

Anyhoo, that aside..
A customer brought a car in today that they'd just bought from auction and was complaining of it pulling to one side and also grinding when on right hand lock.
It had brand new pads and discs fitted and it's almost unbelievable that who fitted them didn't notice a certain problem.
I'll let you guys figure it out..

yA8PXtI.jpg
Ms45f4r.jpg
ZQInme3.jpg

Some people really shouldn't be allowed near a tool kit!

What’s the thought process on doing the MOT first? My garage did this and failed it, then did the repair under warranty as part of the service. Then passed it.
 
What’s the thought process on doing the MOT first? My garage did this and failed it, then did the repair under warranty as part of the service. Then passed it.
The average age of cars I MOT is now 12 years old, and a lot are beyond repair if they fail.
Previously working at main dealers it was 5 years old and the repair costs were minimal in relation to the worth of the car.
I now work for a friend/garage owner who puts honesty before profit, so..

He could charge say £200 to service a car, then MOT it, only for it to be an unecomical repair and the customer still pays for a service on a car thats scrap.
I'm sure he could make more £'s by servicing first, but believe it or not there's still some integrity in the car repair business.
It's why both of his garages are constantly fully booked.
 
The average age of cars I MOT is now 12 years old, and a lot are beyond repair if they fail.
Previously working at main dealers it was 5 years old and the repair costs were minimal in relation to the worth of the car.
I now work for a friend/garage owner who puts honesty before profit, so..

He could charge say £200 to service a car, then MOT it, only for it to be an unecomical repair and the customer still pays for a service on a car thats scrap.
I'm sure he could make more £'s by servicing first, but believe it or not there's still some integrity in the car repair business.
It's why both of his garages are constantly fully booked.

Thank you for the explanation. My car was not older than 5 years but understand your thought process there now.

I suppose the other thing is should a car that’s serviced every year become unviable to be repaired after 12 years? Should the manufacturers make them to a better standard with more accessibility to parts?
 
He could charge say £200 to service a car, then MOT it, only for it to be an unecomical repair and the customer still pays for a service on a car thats scrap.
I'm sure he could make more £'s by servicing first, but believe it or not there's still some integrity in the car repair business.
It's why both of his garages are constantly fully booked.
I'd be very cheesed off as a customer if my garage decided to put my car through MOT and it failed on something easily fixable, like wipers, and blotted its MOT record. I know wipers is a bad example as I would check them anyway but I imagine many people don't. Would rather spend the £200 up front to find out if it wasn't economical to fix.
 
I'd be very cheesed off as a customer if my garage decided to put my car through MOT and it failed on something easily fixable, like wipers, and blotted its MOT record. I know wipers is a bad example as I would check them anyway but I imagine many people don't. Would rather spend the £200 up front to find out if it wasn't economical to fix.

Where I used to work they always asked if the customer wanted anything like bulbs or wipers replaced. However, the proper process while doing an MOT is called a PRS (Pass after Rectification at Station) if something has failed but you replace it while doing the MOT, but this automatically logs a failure then immediate pass in the system and prints off both the fail and pass certificates.

It's sometimes a difficult call on whether to service or MOT a car first, but the majority get an MOT first because most people would be anooyed at having a £250 bill for an MOT and service where they need to spend further money on repairs. Some people may even drop the service in favour of repairs.

I do understand wanting to keep a clean MOT history though.
 
What’s the thought process on doing the MOT first? My garage did this and failed it, then did the repair under warranty as part of the service. Then passed it.

My mate is a mechanic and I asked him why they did this. It's because
a) most people get a service and MOT together and as @andy_mk3 says, it's dead money to service it if fails catastrophically
b) the MOT may reveal something else needs fixing, so it can all be done at once which will therefore generally take less time and be cheaper for the customer

I don't think most customers care about a "perfect MOT record", so it probably doesn't upset many people.

At a certain age, most cars will fail on things like suspension/brake components that you can't really easily check at home and may not always be noticeable... especially when you consider most people don't check tyres, fluids, bulbs etc EVER... never mind just before the MOT! Most people won't notice play in suspension etc as they just don't care about how the car drives and will only seek repair if it makes a noise or something. A fail in the history isn't really unexpected on a 10 year old car... as long as the work is then carried out, it wouldn't worry most buyers come resale time and they won't even check the history if you part-ex it!
 
I was in a garage this morning and the chap who was mot’ing a polo said come here and have a look at this.

E1-D10196-DF11-4-FFD-8-A46-C05-E49-FD3-A13.jpg


One bolt missing and the other 2 were finger tight. You could pull the wheel in and out with the amount of play.
 
More utter lunacy from today..

rqNYbNJ.jpg

We offer inspections on cars that customers are considering buying, and this is one from earlier..
Both front tyres were like that, and the entire car had been poorly sprayed/repaired (there was overspray everywhere, the front wings had been off and were probably from another car etc etc and the fault codes indicated all kinds of expensive problems).
I took great pleasure informing the potential buyer (in front of the cars owner) just how much he should avoid it.
This was a 15 plate C220, so not a cheap car.

This customer had a pair of front shocks fitted recently (not by us) and it failed the MOT on..

V1cx2yl.jpg

And just for fun (If you have OCD about car cleanliness, the look away now)..

pW7xZWw.jpg

It's the only time I've had to fit a seat cover to keep myself clean and not the seats.
 
Back
Top Bottom