board_home 

Visit the
UK MOT Testing
Industry Portal



 Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Printer Friendly
items not tested box  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 01:46 pm
   
1st Post
martins
Administrator


Joined: Sat May 27th, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 329
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
A lot of heat being generated here. While we have some differing views on how to interpret the guidance, the post has been answered.

Back To Top    

 Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 12:57 pm
   
2nd Post
Aylesbury Jock
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 10th, 2010
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 334
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
You the man mjk. You got all the answers. You know it all. I bow before your wisdom, and while you carry on and do things your way, the rest of us can be proper testers and do things properly. If washers not working, fail on washers, inform customer may be problem with wipers on retest. No vt20 issued to unroedworthy vehicle, everything relevant tested upon his return. that issue already been answered. may I suggest wake up, think, and behave. Yes I agree a special notice would have cleared matters definitively, but VOSA probably thought they were dealing with grown ups, who could act upon the information being passed to them from their instructors and VEs.

Last edited on Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 01:07 pm by Aylesbury Jock

Back To Top  

 Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 05:49 am
   
3rd Post
mjk
Trade Member
 

Joined: Wed Nov 21st, 2007
Location: Abingdon, United Kingdom
Posts: 93
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
2 situations.
1. Freezing weather. Customer comes in for test. Washers frozen so complete test on assumption washers will thaw out. Doesn't happen so abandon test.
2. Freezing weather. customer comes in for test. Washers frozen so complete test on assumption washers will thaw out. Doesn't happen so fail on washers not working and item not tested on wipers.
Give vt30 to customer who is p....d off but goes out to car and finds washers are working as they have now thawed out.
If  test abandoned, as you're busy, book him in for full retest tomorrow.. or if you failed on unable to test,  get him back into bay and carry out fast pass retest. Customer happy, you dont waste time doing a full retest and no rules broken.
The use of this function is hear say until a special notice states otherwise, or it is removed from the system.
 

Back To Top    

 Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 03:13 am
   
4th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 300
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
third facepalm jock:D i was only jokin about using it LESS OFTEN:P.just a pity this could have been cleared up ages ago via a special notice then no need to pay to have it removed..also there is no guidence in the user guide or manual hence me asking on here.. as said before i was getting conflicting information from various local VE's..we all should be singing from the same book shouldn't we???

Back To Top  

 Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 01:34 am
   
5th Post
Aylesbury Jock
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 10th, 2010
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 334
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Second facepalm of the thread. I don't know why this function is there. We all know(all of us, because if we didn't before we have been told on this thread)that it was meant for V E use. I also don't know why it wasn't restricted to the appropriate smart cards,but it won't be now cos Siemens would charge a forune to change things. I don't actually care as much as it might seem whether people use it or not, but I'm confused. I can't understand why professional people, who I would think take pride in doing their job properly, pick one item and decide not to follow it because it's inconvenient, or some because 'I don't want to.' Guys carry on. I'm done. But if you can't be bothered with that one why bother with any of the others? You obviously know more about it than the people who developed the scheme.

Back To Top    

 Posted: Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 12:30 am
   
6th Post
mjk
Trade Member
 

Joined: Wed Nov 21st, 2007
Location: Abingdon, United Kingdom
Posts: 93
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
PRS..
I can't see a reason why this function shouldn't be used - what are the negative consequenses to the effectiveness of the testing scheme. What abuse is it open to?
As for the indicator bulb, technically, yes you cant assess the colour of the light emitted from a lamp that doesn't emit light, so it would be "an item not tested" -  so by the rules test can't be completed so should be abandoned.
In the real world though, until my local VE tells me (Site assessment due!)  or its in a SN, I may still use it on the rare occasions it's appropriate.
Love from David:D

Back To Top  

 Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 11:52 pm
   
7th Post
KevG
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Aug 16th, 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1579
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So  MJK  would you abandon the test if an indicator was not working as you are unable to test its colour?

Back To Top    

 Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 11:23 pm
   
8th Post
mjk
Trade Member
 

Joined: Wed Nov 21st, 2007
Location: Abingdon, United Kingdom
Posts: 93
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Washers not working (sorry , provide insufficient liquid), Wipers can't be tested. Abandon Test?

Back To Top  

 Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 01:35 pm
   
9th Post
Aylesbury Jock
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 10th, 2010
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 334
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Very true, but beyond the point I was trying to make to castrolrob that you don't need somebody to sit you down, hold your hand and tell you specifically every point in the manual(or on the computer) individually. The information has been given, he makes a choice to ignore it, through laziness it seems. Perhaps my point was not clear, but that was my intention.

Back To Top    

 Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 04:19 am
   
10th Post
RFR
Member
 

Joined: Tue Mar 4th, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 323
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Aylesbury Jock, I must say that what you have stated is in the manual, the manual clearly states the following also:

When carrying out a partial retest the NT must examine · all the failed item(s)
· any item(s) that may have been affected by the repairs · and any testable item that had been advised on at the time of the initial test

So as emissions may be affected by the repair of the exhaust it must be retested.

rfr

Back To Top  

 Posted: Tue Mar 22nd, 2011 02:24 am
   
11th Post
Aylesbury Jock
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 10th, 2010
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 334
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
No castrolrob, you are missing the point. You have been told not to. Not in capital letters underlined in red, but you have been told. This next might seem to ramble a bit, but bear with me. When you fail an exhaust for a major leak,you have to do an emissions test for the re-test, yes? you will be told that on any refresher course etc, or by any V.E.(or guru:D). If you look for this instruction in the holy book however, it only tells you that you SHOULD do an emissions test, not that you HAVE TO. You get the similarity? Be assured though, that I'm not angry, just dissapointed. Can anybody say facepalm children? 

Back To Top    

 Posted: Sun Mar 20th, 2011 11:46 pm
   
12th Post
castrolrob
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Sep 10th, 2006
Location: Luton,a Minor Province Of, Bangladesh
Posts: 1377
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
you miss the point,using that function can save untold grief/hassle with joe public,as such if we are"permitted" to use it then we will do so,as i mentioned below if NOT permitted then dont use it,as far as i i can see we are allowed and as such why not?

Back To Top  

 Posted: Sun Mar 20th, 2011 01:25 am
   
13th Post
Aylesbury Jock
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 10th, 2010
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 334
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Doh!!!!!!!!!!!

Back To Top    

 Posted: Sat Mar 19th, 2011 04:58 pm
   
14th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
castrolrob wrote: didnt we do all this last year?think i mentioned guidance on refresher was along the lines of"we dont want you to use items not tested"are we allowed to use it or not yes or no?"we dont like you using it"none of the guidance/quotes below seem to build or improve on that so i will carry on using it as i have since it was installed:?:?:?


We did cover this some time ago rob - and the guidance then, as now, is not to use it, so why are you determined to continue when there are other options available ?

:?

 

Back To Top  

 Posted: Sat Mar 19th, 2011 04:06 am
   
15th Post
castrolrob
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Sep 10th, 2006
Location: Luton,a Minor Province Of, Bangladesh
Posts: 1377
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
didnt we do all this last year?think i mentioned guidance on refresher was along the lines of"we dont want you to use items not tested"are we allowed to use it or not yes or no?"we dont like you using it"none of the guidance/quotes below seem to build or improve on that so i will carry on using it as i have since it was installed:?:?:?

Back To Top    

 Posted: Sat Mar 19th, 2011 01:52 am
   
16th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
volksjim wrote: Aylesbury Jock wrote: So you have just had the gospel, and you say you believe Stealth but you still plan to use it. ???????????:shock: 
LESS often:D;)

NOT AT ALL would be better ;)

Back To Top  

 Posted: Sat Mar 19th, 2011 01:29 am
   
17th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 300
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Aylesbury Jock wrote: So you have just had the gospel, and you say you believe Stealth but you still plan to use it. ???????????:shock: 
LESS often:D;)

Back To Top    

 Posted: Fri Mar 18th, 2011 03:21 am
   
18th Post
Aylesbury Jock
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 10th, 2010
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 334
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So you have just had the gospel, and you say you believe Stealth but you still plan to use it. ???????????:shock: 

Back To Top  

 Posted: Thu Mar 17th, 2011 02:12 am
   
19th Post
volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 300
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
:D:D:Dhooray:D:D:D big thumbs up stealth:cool:

instead of paying Siemens  loads of money... issuing a special notice surely would suffice??? or is that too simple...:?

but gotta love this bit.....

The inspection manual however retains the old wording and tells the tester to fail the vehicle which is why they are using 'not tested'.
so technically i still can fail for headlamp bulb out and headlamp aim not tested instead of stopping the test .if aim is out after replacing bulb i just do a PRS

The whole issue of ‘not tested’ is subject to a review to evaluate the implications of allowing common use. In the meantime common sense should prevail and although it technically goes against the Guide we should not consider any disciplinary action against the use of ‘not tested’. 
 so what do we test out of?? the guide or the manual:?:?;) it IS a good functon as "some items "wouldn't stop us completing the rest of the test  as you can imagine as a comercial interest how many times potentially we would have to stop and restart a test and each time basicaly repairing the car as we go along whilst contacting the presenter numerous times we would make a fortune but wouldn't look good to the presenter.if i have to use the function i always advise the presenter what it entails


but i WILL use it a lot less from now on though stealth:D:D cheers!!!


 


 


 

Back To Top    

 Posted: Wed Mar 16th, 2011 10:51 pm
   
20th Post
Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
volksjim wrote: i still believe "the guru"stealth.





Blimey jim - I get called some names, but that's a new one ;)

I'm just lucky that I have a host of stuff saved on my laptop to refer to ...;)

In February 2009 VOSA issued a 'Temporary Instruction'  to enforcement staff on the subject of 'Items Not Tested'

Apologies for the font size, I've copied & pasted the text.

The gist is that VE's should be advising testers NOT to use it - but to take no action except giving advice if it IS used.

It's there as a function on the VTS device so VOSA cannot be seen to penalise a tester for using it, but the correct procedure, as stated, is to abandon or abort the test.




Reason for Rejection ‘Not Tested’


Currently, we are aware that the information available to testers regarding the use of 'not tested' is ambiguous. The ‘not tested’ option was originally designed for VOSA staff only, which is why the Guide states that once a test is registered, if it cannot be completed for one of the reasons given in Appendix 3, you should abandon or abort the test. The inspection manual however retains the old wording and tells the tester to fail the vehicle which is why they are using 'not tested'.



The whole issue of ‘not tested’ is subject to a review to evaluate the implications of allowing common use. In the meantime common sense should prevail and although it technically goes against the Guide we should not consider any disciplinary action against the use of ‘not tested’.


 

As KevG stated earlier - every time VOSA wants to change something on Comp, Siemens have to re - write the software so there's obviously a fee involved.!

;)


Back To Top  

Current time is 04:37 am Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
MOT Forum - The MOT Testing Forum for the UK MOT Testing Industry > Trade Category (MOT Trade Discussions) > MOT Discipline and Compliance - Report problems (or solutions) here | MOT Forum > items not tested box Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2011 Data 1 Systems