Use last year's photo
New MOT testing ..
- Thread starter shuel
- Start date
Use last year's photo
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,857
- Location
- Clydebank
what would be the point of that?
Because along with so called 'ghost' MOTs being a problem, so are MOTs that are just lies, albeit to a lesser extent. Once you're asking for photos of the car at the start, it's not much of an extra step to ask for evidence photos that some of the things you're passing are actually passes.
"If I give you £20, will you pass my headlights even though i've put these cheap AliExpress LED bulbs in and the beam pattern is reflecting off the moon?"
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,857
- Location
- Clydebank
yes but who is looking at the photos, and when ? MOT stations already get audited
also, now you have a photo of a suspension arm. What does this tell anyone about the structure of the suspension mount ? Should it be all cars ? Only fails ? Only passes ? A picture of a car in the garage can be ascertained by anyone with a pair of eyes, indiviudal tests with fail pass conditions not so much.....
...and we all know that MOT is only a test at the time of presentation. Nothing to stop Billy putting the LED bulbs from china back in after the mot tester is verified them. So what are you actually testing with the photos ?
Last edited:
The same person who is looking at the photos of the cars that now being added
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,857
- Location
- Clydebank
please read my edit. you havent thought it through.
Last edited:
It’d never work.
I take pic of a track rod end or trailing arm bush (etc) with excessive play, how could a picture prove it was or wasn’t a pass.
It's easier to discuss these things if you think through your posts entirely before posting them rather than going back adding stuff.
I didn't say everything, I said some things and gave a couple of random examples. If a photo wouldn't be of any use whatsoever then there's obviously no point requesting it. You also aren't necessarily using those photos to constantly check everything all the time, you spot check stuff or focus on the test centres that have raised suspicion.
Using the bulb example - if that car got pulled over later and flagged for having really dodgy headlights, claiming 'but it passed my MOT', there's a reference that could be checked to see if it really did pass. Yes you can dick about changing bulbs etc. and you'll never stamp out every dodgy or lazy test but it's all about dissuading behaviours. Changing your bulbs might be more faff than most people can be bothered with in order to use their crap LED bulbs and lazier MOT test centres might be less inclined to cast a blind eye over them if they're made to take a photo showing they're all good.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,857
- Location
- Clydebank
>if that car got pulled over later and flagged for having
> really dodgy headlights, claiming 'but it passed my MOT',
> there's a reference that could be checked to see if it really did pass.
It doesn't matter if it passed it's MOT. This is what you are missing. The problem is now, not when it was MOT anytime in the prev 12 months.
Should the cop who pulled over take a photo and then this should be compared to a photo of the MOT station taken. Why? Is it photos all the way down ? No. the MOT tester tests and judges. The Police also do the same. That's what these people are paid for.
> really dodgy headlights, claiming 'but it passed my MOT',
> there's a reference that could be checked to see if it really did pass.
It doesn't matter if it passed it's MOT. This is what you are missing. The problem is now, not when it was MOT anytime in the prev 12 months.
Should the cop who pulled over take a photo and then this should be compared to a photo of the MOT station taken. Why? Is it photos all the way down ? No. the MOT tester tests and judges. The Police also do the same. That's what these people are paid for.
Last edited:
No, for a lot of stuff it's obviously entirely pointless and wouldn't show anything of any use but some things it could provide an additional layer of difficulty in some respects for test centres that are looking to provide half arsed or fraudulent results to people who left a £20 on the drivers seat.
But if it hadn't actually been an MOT pass and the test centre is turning a blind eye to crap bulbs, then it helps flag the MOT centre as one to pay more attention to - it's about finding/dissuading the dodgy testers not the motorists.
Yes, but not enough.
If the station is in red on the RAG scale it’s once a year, if in green it’s every 3 years.
Indeed.
I MOT my own car and it has a decat fitted, so I fit the cat, pass it, then immediately refit the decat pipe.
Same with number plates, I have plenty of customers who when informed their plates will fail, just screw on the correct ones, then swap them over when it’s passed.
Great idea in theory, but the DVSA don’t have the manpower.
Last time I spoke to an inspector about fraud, he said “we know who they are, it’s just catching them”.
Depressing really, though this sort of thing could no doubt become significantly more automated if reasonable ways of evidencing things could be stored, with manual checking only required in suspicious circumstances.
Using your decat example - I reckon a lot of people (though obviously not everyone) who currently just pay their tester to ignore such things would think twice about whether it was really worth the hassle of getting it refitted and unfitted every year if the tester was having to provide an additional layer of evidence related to emissions device testing. Probably need to step up to video uploads though for that
Do you have the budget for an MOT videographer? 