U-turn over plans for fewer MOT tests after faults missed

Published on Thursday 2 February 2012 00:56

PLANS for less frequent MOT tests have been abandoned by the UK government in favour of improved annual checks after ministers found that faults were missed in one in four cars.

The move received a widespread welcome from the motor industry and road safety groups, which had feared more deaths if initial MOTs were delayed until after four rather than three years, with subsequent checks being made every two years instead of annually.

The original plan, announced by previous transport secretary Philip Hammond, was seen as part of his attempt to end the “war on the motorist”, but it attracted little support and was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives’ coalition partners.

The Automobile Association, Britain’s biggest motoring group, applauded the decision by Justine Greening, his successor, as a “victory for common sense”.

Ms Greening said she would “shine a light” on the performance of MOT testing stations, by publishing information about whether they were complying with test standards, and step up “mystery shopper” checks. She also said a TripAdvisor-type website was being considered for drivers to give feedback on garages, like hotel and restaurant review websites.

MOT certificates would also be changed to show the last three years’ mileage information, in an attempt to crack down on “clocking” – where mileometers on second-hand cars are altered to show a lower reading.

The moves follow research by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, which found that nearly 28 per cent of vehicles tested in 2010-11 had defects which were missed or wrongly assessed. It also showed that the roadworthiness of one in eight cars had been incorrectly assessed by MOT centres.

Ms Greening said: “I want each motorist to be confident that a visit to the garage ends with their car repaired to a high standard by reputable mechanics rather than uncertainty about cost and the quality of service.

“Giving drivers the very best information about garage performance is absolutely key to achieving this goal. It means that responsible garages will be well placed to reap the commercial benefits of transparency. Garages where performance is not up to scratch will find themselves under pressure to do more for their customers.”

AA president Edmund King said: “The AA is delighted the Transport Secretary has listened to the views of AA members who support the annual frequency of the MOT test.

“We also welcome the decision to include mileage information on MOT certificates, which will help people buying used cars understand their history.”

Road safety campaigners Brake said the MOT change would have caused 250 more deaths and 2,200 more serious injuries a year.

Deputy chief executive Julie Townsend said: “The annual MOT is vital to road safety, and the government has recognised that reducing its frequency would have inevitably meant more lives needlessly lost and more terrible injuries.”

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “Drivers will be shocked at how many defects go undetected. Cars might be increasingly sophisticated, but many of the MOT checks are basic, relating to things like lights, tyres and brakes.”

Comments

There are 12 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

12

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

Friday, February 3, 2012 at 02:46 PM

It's ironic that the man in the picture is not carrying out an MoT Test isn't it?

• Report Unsuitable

11

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

Friday, February 3, 2012 at 02:45 PM

#9: ...which suggests that you don't know much about MoT testing or how it is conducted. If any garage uses MoT testing as a means of generating business, then they can have their testing licence revoked. The MoT test has to stand alone as a separate entity from any other business.

• Report Unsuitable

10

Dave scotland

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

9

Tintock Pete

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 04:26 PM

Most of us would agree that any "fast fit" MOT stations will only fail parts they stock.

• Report Unsuitable

8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM

"The original plan, announced by previous transport secretary Philip Hammond, was seen as part of his attempt to end the “war on the motorist”" ..... Do you REALLY want to know how to end the war on the motorist? I'll tell you..... ____________________________________________________ Slash fuel duty so that road fuel costs no more than 50p per litre... Scrap speed cameras.... Outlaw bus lanes that are used soley as anti-car measures (ie most of them).... Prevent councils from needlessly obstructing roads with over-sized traffic islands and kerbs.... Regulate the maximum size of CPZs and make it a lot smaller than they are now. Re-criminalise parking offences to stop councils coining it in with over-zealous enforcement. Put a cap on parking charges everywhere. Remove the speed limit from most of our motorway network.... And that's just for starters. Please stop pretending that you're on the side of the motorist with a weak gesture such as this MoT proposal---only to back straight down again when challenged.

• Report Unsuitable

7

Highland Hibby

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 11:52 AM

#6 Touch cynical, but I agree with you.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Considering that the percentage of crashes caused by mechanical failure is quite small, I fail to see how Brake can make the assertion that.... "....the MOT change would have caused 250 more deaths and 2,200 more serious injuries a year." As usual, their assumptions are based upon supposition and plucking figures out of the air as opposed to facts and logic. .............. Anyone who knows a bit about MoT inspections will be abe to tell you that it is the tester's opinion that plays a major part in the decision as to wether to pass, advise of fail. Lights, wipers, brakes, emissions etc are clearly defined and have specific parameters, however other areas are subjective. These include corrosion, ball joints, bushes, and general condition of components. In these areas, one mans pass may be another mans fail. It is rarely a case of faults being "missed". Yet again, politicians start forming opinions on things that they know nothing about and do not understand. Th MoT testers' manual lays down a specific procedure to be followed when conducting these tests and testers are assessed regularly. Contrary to what many people might think, it's not a case of the tester putting the car on a ramp and looking around it, whilst sucking his teeth, shaking his head and breathing in sharply at reular intervals. ............. Having said all that, I agree with the principle of maintaining your vehicle correctly and an annual test seems a logical way to check for faults, especially for people who know nothing about cars. For that reason alone, I support the status quo. I only wish that politicians and so-called "road-safety" charities could be honest and say the same as opposed to faoming at the mouth about people being killed.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Highland Hibby

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Moosef, true.

• Report Unsuitable

4

moosef

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 11:11 AM

No matter how good the condition of the car, 99% of the time its the numpty holding the steering wheel that causes the problems on the road

• Report Unsuitable

3

Highland Hibby

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:40 AM

That's can't afford\ don't...

• Report Unsuitable

2

Highland Hibby

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 08:39 AM

The problem with "shining a light on performance" is that people who can't afford don't want to pay for all the repairs will go to the garages that seem to be slackest with standards. I'm glad they kept it at 1 year when I look at the state of some cars and shudder at the thought of 2 years without any form of safety check.

• Report Unsuitable

1

swansojb

Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 07:49 AM

Why last 3 mileages? Its and A4 sheet with little useful information and plenty room to list all testing stations, dates and faults found, and whether passed 1st time or retested. he back of certificate is blank and could hold the history of the vehicle in one place. Its not the frequency that is a problem, it is the standard of the testing station. So motor trade is very happy that their lucrative, repeat business has been saved.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.